PDA

View Full Version : Compulsory Sterilization


banyon
03-02-2008, 12:07 AM
I'm curious on a topic, although it is likely a divisive one.

Ever since Skinner v. Oklahoma(1942), the practice of forcing prisoners to be sterlized against their will has been declared unconstitutional (Note: This is one of the first "right to privacy cases" way before Roe)

An excerpt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_v._Oklahoma):

Under Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act of 1935, the state could sentence compulsory sterilization as part of their judgment against individuals who had been convicted three or more times of crimes "amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude." The defendant, Jack T. Skinner, had been convicted once for chicken-stealing and twice for armed robbery.

Justice William O. Douglas concluded that:

Oklahoma makes no attempt to say that he who commits larceny by trespass or trick or fraud has biologically inheritable traits which he who commits embezzlement lacks. We have not the slightest basis for inferring that that line has any significance in eugenics, nor that the inheritability of criminal traits follows the neat legal distinctions which the law has marked between those two offenses. In terms of fines and imprisonment, the crimes of larceny and embezzlement rate the same under the Oklahoma code. Only when it comes to sterilization are the pains and penalties of the law different. The equal protection clause would indeed be a formula of empty words if such conspicuously artificial lines could be drawn.
Furthermore, because of the social and biological implications of reproduction, and the irreversibility of sterilization operations, Justice Douglas also stressed that compulsory sterilization laws in general should be held to strict scrutiny:

The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty. We mention these matters not to reexamine the scope of the police power of the States. We advert to them merely in emphasis of our view that strict scrutiny of the classification which a State makes in a sterilization law is essential, lest unwittingly, or otherwise, invidious discriminations are made against groups or types of individuals in violation of the constitutional guaranty of just and equal laws.


I don't think there would be many who think that case should be overturned. But what I'm wondering is for cases involving the parents of kids who are made wards of the state because of their parental inadequacy and have had their parental rights terminated.

These people, typically because of their haphazard, usually drug-riddled lives don't have much discipline and their kids predictably wind up becomingmany of the petty criminals/gang members, etc. And because of the parent's lack of control, they usually have some more kids even after the termination.

If someone has had their parental rights terminated but wants to keep popping out more kids, should the State be able to address that through compulsory sterilization?

I'm probably a firm no on this, but what I was wondering was what about people who strongly advocate the death penalty? I think the finality aspect and the possible miscarriage (no pun intended) of justice are the reasons I am against it, but presumably, death penalty advocates wouldn't have such qualms.

banyon
03-02-2008, 12:19 AM
Also If you are for even going so far as reversing Skinner, I guess speak up.

All the "strict constructionists" would, I presume if they are consistent.

Mr. Laz
03-02-2008, 12:54 AM
nope ... don't think so.


i think i could go for some mandatory birth control though. They have these implants that supply birth control for several years.

wazu
03-02-2008, 01:06 AM
I am in favor of sterlization. They should use a chopping block, and it should be televised.

Mr. Laz
03-02-2008, 01:18 AM
I am in favor of sterlization. They should use a chopping block, and it should be televised.
and what crimes would warrant sterilization?

and what burden of proof would be required?

and if later it turns out to be a legal mistake is someone gonna sew it back on?

what about women?

banyon
03-02-2008, 10:07 AM
and what crimes would warrant sterilization?

and what burden of proof would be required?

and if later it turns out to be a legal mistake is someone gonna sew it back on?

what about women?

To be clear, I'm not asking about sterilizing felons, but people who have had their parental rights terminated once or twice. I agre with Skinner.

But I would like to hear from these folks who are pro death penalty and anti-sterilization for their reasoning. It's not that there can't be good reasons to hold both positions, I just couldn't think of them at the time.

wazu
03-02-2008, 10:20 AM
and what crimes would warrant sterilization?

and what burden of proof would be required?

and if later it turns out to be a legal mistake is someone gonna sew it back on?

what about women?

Answers below in Blue

and what crimes would warrant sterilization?

All of them.

and what burden of proof would be required?

None.

and if later it turns out to be a legal mistake is someone gonna sew it back on?

Sure, sounds fair.

what about women?

Yes.

banyon
03-02-2008, 10:30 AM
All crimes?

Now I know you're just funnin' us.

BigMeatballDave
03-02-2008, 12:32 PM
I think child molesters should have everything removed. They can piss through a plastic tube.

Hydrae
03-02-2008, 02:36 PM
As a parent who has had their rights to their first born terminated this whole idea is appalling (leave my junk alone!). I have since fathered 2 children with my second wife and, if I may say so myself, have raised 3 pretty good kids (one is my step-daughter). My son from my first marriage is an adult now but I have not seen him since he was 6 years old.

I am not going to take the time to go into the details of my situation but I will say that this situation is like so many, there is no one answer. Those who lose their rights due to them abusing the children should not have more children, pretty simple. But there are a lot of ways to lose custody of your child and they should not all result in sterilization.

Iowanian
03-02-2008, 03:34 PM
I think any man who has children with 3 women or more, should be on auto-clip schedule

I think any woman who has a non-medically necessary abortion should be sterilized.

I think any woman who tests positive for drugs during pregancy or delivers an addicted child should be sterilized.

I think any woman who has children with more than 2 fathers, should also.


I'm on the fence about people on welfare who have more than 3-4 kids they can't afford.'


Child abusers? Use a rusty hatchet.

BigMeatballDave
03-02-2008, 04:44 PM
I think any woman who has children with more than 2 fathers, should also.

I must disagree with this. Otherwise, I would not have my son. She had a tubal shortly after. This was her 3rd child.

Hydrae
03-02-2008, 04:55 PM
I think any man who has children with 3 women or more, should be on auto-clip schedule

I think any woman who has a non-medically necessary abortion should be sterilized.

I think any woman who tests positive for drugs during pregancy or delivers an addicted child should be sterilized.

I think any woman who has children with more than 2 fathers, should also.


I'm on the fence about people on welfare who have more than 3-4 kids they can't afford.'


Child abusers? Use a rusty hatchet.

I want to know why the guys can have kids with 3 women before sterilization but women can only have kids with 2 men. :shrug:

BigMeatballDave
03-02-2008, 05:06 PM
I want to know why the guys can have kids with 3 women before sterilization but women can only have kids with 2 men. :shrug:Yeah, I don't get it either.

wazu
03-02-2008, 05:13 PM
I want to know why the guys can have kids with 3 women before sterilization but women can only have kids with 2 men. :shrug:

Actually, he is consistent here, just confusing on the wording. Both penalties apply to anybody, man or woman, who has 3. With women it says more than 2, and with men it says 3 or more, which means both rules take effect after number 3 is born. This also means BigChiefDave gets to keep his son. (But no more, cause now she would be sterilized.)

BigMeatballDave
03-02-2008, 05:15 PM
So, should Andrea Yates be sterilized? This question is for the Anti Death Penalty, Anti Sterilization group.

BigMeatballDave
03-02-2008, 05:17 PM
Actually, he is consistent here, just confusing on the wording. Both penalties apply to anybody, man or woman, who has 3. With women it says more than 2, and with men it says 3 or more, which means both rules take effect after number 3 is born. This also means BigChiefDave gets to keep his son. (But no more, cause now she would be sterilized.)I see. I didn't read it correctly. I can only afford one.

el borracho
03-02-2008, 05:51 PM
The following offenders should be sterilized:

Long-term welfare mommies (can't afford the ones you have?- don't have any more!)
Deadbeat dads (can't afford the ones you have?- don't have any more!)
Child abusers (including people who abuse drugs during pregnancy)
Child molesters

banyon
03-02-2008, 06:27 PM
So, should Andrea Yates be sterilized? This question is for the Anti Death Penalty, Anti Sterilization group.

No. If she had been convicted though, her life imprisonment would've deterred additional offspring sufficiently IMO.

Iowanian
03-02-2008, 08:13 PM
I want to know why the guys can have kids with 3 women before sterilization but women can only have kids with 2 men. :shrug:

The wording is confusing I see.

More than 2 for women and 3 from a man have the same intention.

My kingdom allows for a deceased husband-wife or 1 divorce with additional procreation.

The intention is the same. 2 separate DNA Contributors maximum.

banyon
03-02-2008, 08:25 PM
As a parent who has had their rights to their first born terminated this whole idea is appalling (leave my junk alone!). I have since fathered 2 children with my second wife and, if I may say so myself, have raised 3 pretty good kids (one is my step-daughter). My son from my first marriage is an adult now but I have not seen him since he was 6 years old.

I am not going to take the time to go into the details of my situation but I will say that this situation is like so many, there is no one answer. Those who lose their rights due to them abusing the children should not have more children, pretty simple. But there are a lot of ways to lose custody of your child and they should not all result in sterilization.


Wow, Hydrae, that's pretty brave to admit here like this. Again, I am against the policy, but I'd bet you're in a small minority of parents who went through that and were later able to get themselves together like that.

I guess if I were pro-death penalty and I can live with the small number of people who are innocent getting executed, I could probably live with a minority of parents who have proven to a court (maybe twice) that they are unfit from parenting again.

mikey23545
03-02-2008, 09:29 PM
Early and often on both counts.