NationStates Jolt Archive

A South Carolina city councilman recently suggested that parents who don’t properly care for their children should be sterilized to help reduce crime, saying:

"We pick up stray animals and spay them. These mothers need to be spayed if they can’t take care of theirs. Once they have a child and it’s running the street, to let them continue to have children is totally unacceptable."

(Link to story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15116997/)

I should note that he has since apologized and backed down from these remarks, but I thought it would make for an interesting poll around here.

Thoughts?

What if a bad parent is very intelligent and beautiful and healthy and all those other good natural selection traits?

What if a bad parent is very intelligent and beautiful and healthy and all those other good natural selection traits?

From responsibility to eugenics in one post flat. Wow.

A South Carolina city councilman recently suggested that parents who don’t properly care for their children should be sterilized to help reduce crime, saying:

"We pick up stray animals and spay them. These mothers need to be spayed if they can’t take care of theirs. Once they have a child and it’s running the street, to let them continue to have children is totally unacceptable."

(Link to story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15116997/)

I should note that he has since apologized and backed down from these remarks, but I thought it would make for an interesting poll around here.

Thoughts?


I notice he didn't sugest neutering the fathers . . .

It was one of those "I'm sorry you're such a pussy that you can't handle my truth" kinds of apologies. Fuck that guy.

The problem with any of these kinds of programs is that, in the extremes, we take the very real chance of breeding out necessary survival traits.

Only in cases of parent-child incest.

There's a really good bit in 'Freakanomics' about this. Stephen D Levitt reckons that the Roe vs Wade decision resulted in the 90's decline of crime, primarily because most criminals are poor and the poor tend to choose abortions for fear that their child would have a miserable life (please excuse the gross over-simplification). Hence, when the nineties came around, all those women who'd had abortions back in the day had no sons to cause crimes.

Bizarro QED.

What if a bad parent is very intelligent and beautiful and healthy and all those other good natural selection traits?
Well, that could become an interesting nature/nurture sub-debate.

Would you prefer to have a society full of physically attractive and intelligent people who have been reared by horrible parents? Would it be worth it to have more criminals, provided that the criminals were hot and smart?

Is preserving "good natural selection traits" more valuable than preserving social order? Are genetically inherited traits always more important to humanity than "socially" inherited traits?

Of course, this all jumps past my original question, which is: do we want to be in the business of enforcing such standards through mandatory sterilizations? Regardless of your answers to any of the above, do you feel comfortable with the notion of forcing unwilling citizens to undergo sterilization in order to impose your beliefs?

A South Carolina city councilman recently suggested that parents who don’t properly care for their children should be sterilized to help reduce crime, saying:

"We pick up stray animals and spay them. These mothers need to be spayed if they can’t take care of theirs. Once they have a child and it’s running the street, to let them continue to have children is totally unacceptable."

(Link to story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15116997/)

I should note that he has since apologized and backed down from these remarks, but I thought it would make for an interesting poll around here.

Thoughts?
It's a good idea. If the children's problem is genetic, well, those genes won't spread as well. If the childrn's problems are learned from their lously parents, the parent's won't be able to screw up any other kids. Unfortunately it's probably not constitutional somehow.

A South Carolina city councilman recently suggested that parents who don’t properly care for their children should be sterilized to help reduce crime, saying:

"We pick up stray animals and spay them. These mothers need to be spayed if they can’t take care of theirs. Once they have a child and it’s running the street, to let them continue to have children is totally unacceptable."

(Link to story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15116997/)

I should note that he has since apologized and backed down from these remarks, but I thought it would make for an interesting poll around here.

Thoughts?

Interesting that you've said 'bad parents', but the councilman said 'bad mothers'... :)

Our society doesn't encourage adults (including parents) to take control of children's behaviour at the moment. Taking away individuals' civil liberties wouldn't help directly, would it?

If you want better behaved children/adolescents, allow adults to chastise naughty children; ironically, depriving children of civil liberties might help...

It was one of those "I'm sorry you're such a pussy that you can't handle my truth" kinds of apologies. Fuck that guy.

The problem with any of these kinds of programs is that, in the extremes, we take the very real chance of breeding out necessary survival traits.

I seriously doubt that any 1 couple would have that level of a mutation. I also doubt that they could make enough babies to make a difference anyways

I voted "never" because the decision-making aspect is too open to abuse. Who decides? I think the child welfare laws ought to be changed so that the children can be gotten out of bad situations and the Bad Parents can never get them back. And it gets into the question of why are the Bad Parents that way? Are they just stupid and selfish? Uneducated, they'd be better if they knew better? Could we reduce the problem with better social services funded by conservatives' tax money? I just don't know, but state-sanctioned force sterilization? I think not.

There's a really good bit in 'Freakanomics' about this. Stephen D Levitt reckons that the Roe vs Wade decision resulted in the 90's decline of crime, primarily because most criminals are poor and the poor tend to choose abortions for fear that their child would have a miserable life (please excuse the gross over-simplification). Hence, when the nineties came around, all those women who'd had abortions back in the day had no sons to cause crimes.

Bizarro QED.

But in that case, we're talking about people who decided to opt out of the reproductive cycle voluntarily--a position I heartily commend, by the way. What this jagoff was talking about is involuntarily sterilizing members of the community--women, as someone above noted, instead of the men.

Regardless of your answers to any of the above, do you feel comfortable with the notion of forcing unwilling citizens to undergo sterilization in order to impose your beliefs?

As long as I'm in power and immune, hells yeah.

I notice he didn't sugest neutering the fathers . . .
Well of course not. We cannot monkey around with The Sacred Seed. And, as we all know, the existence of criminal youth is due entirely to the failures of the mothers. ;)

But yeah, I noticed that as well.

But in that case, we're talking about people who decided to opt out of the reproductive cycle voluntarily--a position I heartily commend, by the way. What this jagoff was talking about is involuntarily sterilizing members of the community--women, as someone above noted, instead of the men.

It's often easier to determine a child's mother then father.

Interesting that you've said 'bad parents', but the councilman said 'bad mothers'... :)

Yeah, I decided to make it a bit less inherently sexist. :D

I voted "never" because the decision-making aspect is too open to abuse. Who decides? I think the child welfare laws ought to be changed so that the children can be gotten out of bad situations and the Bad Parents can never get them back. And it gets into the question of why are the Bad Parents that way? Are they just stupid and selfish? Uneducated, they'd be better if they knew better? Could we reduce the problem with better social services funded by conservatives' tax money? I just don't know, but state-sanctioned force sterilization? I think not.

What if the problem is genetic? What if sociopathic parents give birth to sociopathic kids? Taking the kids away won't help in that case. The defective parents can have more defective kids and the defective kids will grow up to produce more defective humans.

It's often easier to determine a child's mother then father.

Well then, if it's criminal behavior we want to stop, why not automatically give vasectomies to men with criminal records. Make it a part of incarceration--go to jail, get snipped. Even for juvy offenses. Think that'll fly?

I pick choice E: "I like muffins." ^_^

But really, but the time we realize that someone is a bad parent, the damage will have already been done...

I've noticed that a number of people have chosen to select the "Only in extreme cases" option. I'm curious to know more about the cases where people feel sterilization would be appropriate. (Honest curiosity, I'm not just saying this to set you up and then spring on you or anything. For once. :))

Well then, if it's criminal behavior we want to stop, why not automatically give vasectomies to men with criminal records. Make it a part of incarceration--go to jail, get snipped. Even for juvy offenses. Think that'll fly?

No more then snipping women for going to jail. If they havn't been shown to frak kids up, then why waste that state's cash?

I voted "never" because the decision-making aspect is too open to abuse. Who decides? I think the child welfare laws ought to be changed so that the children can be gotten out of bad situations and the Bad Parents can never get them back. And it gets into the question of why are the Bad Parents that way? Are they just stupid and selfish? Uneducated, they'd be better if they knew better? Could we reduce the problem with better social services funded by conservatives' tax money? I just don't know, but state-sanctioned force sterilization? I think not.

well, that about sums up what I was going to say.

This reminds me of an episode about this on that show what if? Apparently children of criminals are more likely to commit crime (it never said how much which is quite worrying) and so the government of the future sets up special schools (prison/mental institution really) that feed kids cocktails of drugs and such can’t remember why it would ultimately fail though….(any who cracking show that for some reason isn’t on anymore)

Back to the topic I think no the last thing the western world can afford to do is start cutting off the most reproductive members of society and that crime relies far too much on chance than anything else (or not getting caught which makes the master criminal gene spread more)

The defective parents can have more defective kids and the defective kids will grow up to produce more defective humans.

like people with hereditary medical illnesses!

the Bad Parents can never get them back.

that’s a little harsh what happens if they sort themselves out? hell I know enough people to know that works out better than spending the rest of your childhood in some foster home

I notice he didn't sugest neutering the fathers . . .

that’s because we still need at least 1 fertile man on the planet :p

Well, that could become an interesting nature/nurture sub-debate.

Would you prefer to have a society full of physically attractive and intelligent people who have been reared by horrible parents? Would it be worth it to have more criminals, provided that the criminals were hot and smart?

Is preserving "good natural selection traits" more valuable than preserving social order? Are genetically inherited traits always more important to humanity than "socially" inherited traits?

Of course, this all jumps past my original question, which is: do we want to be in the business of enforcing such standards through mandatory sterilizations? Regardless of your answers to any of the above, do you feel comfortable with the notion of forcing unwilling citizens to undergo sterilization in order to impose your beliefs?

I do believe that "good natural selection traits" are more valuable than preserving social order. However there is no such choice between hot criminals and ugly good citizens. People with bad natural selection traits could be bad parents as well.
So instead of sterilizing bad parents, more aid should be given to them, like maybe mandatory counselling. I dont think there are any bad parenting genes so it should be because of the social conditions that they are bad so there is no point at sterilizing them.
Mandatory sterilizations sounds cruel and someone with bad natural selection traits OR a bad parent could be very useful in future so who knows what you are missing by sterilizing them? But I may support deportation...

Sterilization for legal purposes never seemed to be a good idea to me in most cases, simply because of the potential for abuse in service of eugenics.

That being said, I do know a few guys that could use enforced birth control. They each have more than three children by different mothers, none of whom they've married. A court usually ends up forcing them to pay child support, because these guys are such deadbeats they only care about paying for themselves and their current girlfriends. Then they end up in front of the circuit judge arguing they shouldn't be paying child support for one child because they can barely afford to pay for their other children. For guys like this, I'd favor some sort of enforced birth control because they seem incapable of wrapping it themselves and lack the personal responsibility to avoid getting another girl pregnant or raising the kids they already have.

A South Carolina city councilman recently suggested that parents who don’t properly care for their children should be sterilized to help reduce crime, saying:

"We pick up stray animals and spay them. These mothers need to be spayed if they can’t take care of theirs. Once they have a child and it’s running the street, to let them continue to have children is totally unacceptable."

(Link to story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15116997/)

I should note that he has since apologized and backed down from these remarks, but I thought it would make for an interesting poll around here.

Thoughts?
That would be hilarious in its illogic, if he hadn't targetted mothers in particular.

But in that case, we're talking about people who decided to opt out of the reproductive cycle voluntarily--a position I heartily commend, by the way. What this jagoff was talking about is involuntarily sterilizing members of the community--women, as someone above noted, instead of the men.

Groovy. Maybe what I meant to say was that the world is overpopulated, and it's a concern. A concern that's compounded by the inability to take it to logical conclusions without coming off like a Nazi.

In fact, I'm feeling like a Nazi now. Eep.

In extreme cases it could be justified. Such as when the parent(s) is incapable of caring for the child/children or what is described in Sane Outcasts post. If such a system were to be adopted, it would have to be very tightly controled and the situations in which it were enforced be clearly defined to avoid abuse.

What if the problem is genetic? What if sociopathic parents give birth to sociopathic kids? Taking the kids away won't help in that case. The defective parents can have more defective kids and the defective kids will grow up to produce more defective humans.
Do you want Mark Foley deciding who's a sociopath? Do you want Fred Phelps deciding? Would they want you deciding? No, sterilization is too permanent a solution. Besides, I think it was tried in some European country back in the 30's and 40's and that didn't actually work out real well, did it?

... that’s a little harsh what happens if they sort themselves out? hell I know enough people to know that works out better than spending the rest of your childhood in some foster home ...
We haven't really defined what a Bad Parent is, have we? Yes, I think it's harsh but not harsher than spaying and neutering them (that is what we're talking about, after all). I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert on this question, by any means. I do think that there are some cases of horrific parental abuse that should get your kids taken away, forever. The trouble is, in the really bad cases, the kids are probably dead by the time social services gets a call.

The only people tha should be sterilized are peoplke on the right. If we sterilize those damn facists we won't have to put up with fuutre generations of anyi-progerssives slowing down the our porgress.

The only people tha should be sterilized are peoplke on the right. If we sterilize those damn facists we won't have to put up with fuutre generations of anyi-progerssives slowing down the our porgress.

But if we sterilize all the people on the right, then in a generation's time there will only be people on the wrong.

I should definitely clarify that.

This guy is coming from the extreme angle of a plausible problem. He really thinks that; a)that's the solution, and b) he's doing the right thing by it.

I don't condone compulsory state-performed operations, but I do condone decent education programs to thin the idiot's numbers out.

But if we sterilize all the people on the right, then in a generation's time there will only be people on the wrong.

And is that my right or your right? :p

The only people tha should be sterilized are peoplke on the right. If we sterilize those damn facists we won't have to put up with fuutre generations of anyi-progerssives slowing down the our porgress.

You obviouslyneed grammar-nazis to help with that atrocious post.

You obviouslyneed grammar-nazis to help with that atrocious post.

Umm let me look at that sentance real hard.

youobviouslyneedtohitthespacekeyeveryonceinawhile!:p

I mentioned this subject to a coworker of mine, and he had an additional comment I thought was interesting:

In many places, individuals who are convicted of molesting children will be prohibited from having contact with kids in the future (after they are released from prison). However, most places do NOT have laws that prohibit these molesters from producing their own biological children.

Would this, perhaps, be a case where sterilization would be appropriate? Add in the fact that sex offenders have some of the highest rates of recidivism (re-offending), and you might have a good case for preventing these individuals from producing kids that they could then victimize.

Umm let me look at that sentance real hard.

youobviouslyneedtohitthespacekeyeveryonceinawhile!:p


He only missed it once. 1/9 ain't bad.

And you spelled 'sentence' wrong.

Would this, perhaps, be a case where sterilization would be appropriate? Add in the fact that sex offenders have some of the highest rates of recidivism (re-offending), and you might have a good case for preventing these individuals from producing kids that they could then victimize.

No, that's a case for life in prison. That slashes the recidivism rate to nil, and doesn't violate the Eighth Amendment.

I can certainly understand the sentiment being expressed, but no, I don't think mandatory sterilization is the answer. People certainly shouldn't have children that they cannot or will not take care of, but I don't think it is the government's place to force medical procedures on its citizens (although the Supreme Court has ruled that forced sterilizations are Consititutional in mental institutions).

The answer is to have a better system for removing children from homes with neglectful or abusive parents......permanently. I'm generally a proponent of second chances, but not when it comes to screwing up your children. If a parent is neglectful or abusive, there should be no second chance for that parent. There should be no chance that the child will have to go back to that parent - period. This would allow for finding the child a permanent home, rather than putting them in foster home after foster home after foster home until the biological parent finally wises up.

As for child molestors - if the law says that a child molester cannot have contact with children, their own children should be included in the prohibition. A child molester who has children should be required to pay child support, but should not be allowed to have any unsupervised contact with the children. If the other parent allows such contact, and the children are hurt, the other parent should be prosecuted just as harshly as the molestor.

In many places, individuals who are convicted of molesting children will be prohibited from having contact with kids in the future (after they are released from prison). However, most places do NOT have laws that prohibit these molesters from producing their own biological children.

Would this, perhaps, be a case where sterilization would be appropriate?
Why? It's not going to change what's really wrong (i.e. his being a molester).

Somehow, it just doesn't seem to address the issue.

Why? It's not going to change what's really wrong (i.e. his being a molester).

Somehow, it just doesn't seem to address the issue.
I think the problem is that we restrict these individuals' right to access other people's children, but we don't restrict their ability to access biological children that they help make.

Why pick and choose? Sterilize everybody! :D

Do you want Mark Foley deciding who's a sociopath? Do you want Fred Phelps deciding? Would they want you deciding? No, sterilization is too permanent a solution. Besides, I think it was tried in some European country back in the 30's and 40's and that didn't actually work out real well, did it?

I agree with you, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate just a little longer on this one.

We haven't really defined what a Bad Parent is, have we? Yes, I think it's harsh but not harsher than spaying and neutering them (that is what we're talking about, after all). I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert on this question, by any means. I do think that there are some cases of horrific parental abuse that should get your kids taken away, forever. The trouble is, in the really bad cases, the kids are probably dead by the time social services gets a call.
My mother is a clinical psychologist who is currently having to testify in a court case where a man raped his two daughters (and several of their friends) for many years. The girls are now 7 and 9 years old. He has already been barred from seeing these two girls, and his ex-wife (the girls' mom) has had restraining orders against him for quite some time.

He remarried this year, and his new wife is pregnant.

Stuff like this makes me consider sterilization. Is this an emotional response? Hell yes. Is it problematic and potentially a contradiction to some of my most dearly-held values? You bet. But if we're comfortable taking away a person's freedom and sticking them in jail for the rest of their lives, I start to wonder why we balk at saying, "You, sir, clearly cannot be trusted with your own genitals. You are hereby denied the right to make future victims for yourself."

Why pick and choose? Sterilize everybody! :D
Hey, I've long been in favor of putting birth control in the drinking water, such that people would have to go get an antidote if they want to make a baby.

No application process or anything, just add that little tiny inconvenience of having to go down to the store or the county office and pick up a little pill. For conception to occur, both the man and the woman would have to take the antidote, so they'd both have to be trying to make a baby.

It wouldn't solve all the world's problems, but at least it would eliminate "oops" babies.

Hey, I've long been in favor of putting birth control in the drinking water, such that people would have to go get an antidote if they want to make a baby.

No application process or anything, just add that little tiny inconvenience of having to go down to the store or the county office and pick up a little pill. For conception to occur, both the man and the woman would have to take the antidote, so they'd both have to be trying to make a baby.

It wouldn't solve all the world's problems, but at least it would eliminate "oops" babies.

Maybe through the use of nanotechnology, we can actually cybernetically install an internal control that allows people to switch their fertility on and off. So if a couple has a kid, there's no doubt that it's all their fault. :)

And of course, we can externally disable their switches if they are dumbasss. :p

Maybe through the use of nanotechnology, we can actually cybernetically install an internal control that allows people to switch their fertility on and off. So if a couple has a kid, there's no doubt that it's all their fault. :)

A long time ago I read a sci-fi short story about how humans of the future run into a major snag with reproduction, because it suddenly becomes impossible for a woman to get pregnant unless she's had an orgasm.

Can you imagine the population decline?!

A long time ago I read a sci-fi short story about how humans of the future run into a major snag with reproduction, because it suddenly becomes impossible for a woman to get pregnant unless she's had an orgasm.

Can you imagine the population decline?!

Egad! Can you imagine the poor men who could pull that off?!? They'd be kept in a state of exhaustion!

...

...um...

Does she have to orgasm during the actual intercourse? You know, like simultaneous orgasms or close to it, or can you...um... lick her problem first before solving yours?

Because if not, I'm fucked. :(

I agree with you, but I'm going to play Devil's Advocate just a little longer on this one.

My mother is a clinical psychologist who is currently having to testify in a court case where a man raped his two daughters (and several of their friends) for many years. The girls are now 7 and 9 years old. He has already been barred from seeing these two girls, and his ex-wife (the girls' mom) has had restraining orders against him for quite some time.

He remarried this year, and his new wife is pregnant.

Stuff like this makes me consider sterilization. Is this an emotional response? Hell yes. Is it problematic and potentially a contradiction to some of my most dearly-held values? You bet. But if we're comfortable taking away a person's freedom and sticking them in jail for the rest of their lives, I start to wonder why we balk at saying, "You, sir, clearly cannot be trusted with your own genitals. You are hereby denied the right to make future victims for yourself."

And I agree with you, there are some individuals who cannot be trusted with their own genitals (nicely put, by the way) and who should be denied the right to create future playthings for themselves. Personally, I think life without parole is a suitable punishment. Given the reception sex offenders, especially child molesters, receive in prison, overcrowding shouldn't be much of an issue.

I have trouble with the (to me) inconsistent way sex offenders are handled in this country. They are vilified, imprisoned, possibly treated as part of their sentences, released and then punished again, continuously by being made to register wherever they live. Now, please don't get me wrong, I think they should be punished, child molestation is a horrible crime. If we're going to punish these people, however, we need to be consistent and honest about it. If there is nowhere they can live after being released from prison, then why release them? Should the sentences not be mandatory life without the chance of parole? If they really are incurable, should we not simply lock them up and throw away the key? But if some are curable, why make their punishment go on and on and on, which is what the whole registration thing is, punishment after having served the legally mandated sentence.

Getting back to the sterilization issue, here's my problem with it. If we extend the principle that "child molesters should be sterilized" to a universally applicable law, and we define a child molester as someone genetically predisposed to desiring sex with children, can that law not be further extended to include others with different genetic defects? Once you begin, where do you stop?

And I agree with you, there are some individuals who cannot be trusted with their own genitals (nicely put, by the way) and who should be denied the right to create future playthings for themselves. Personally, I think life without parole is a suitable punishment. Given the reception sex offenders, especially child molesters, receive in prison, overcrowding shouldn't be much of an issue.

I'd certainly be content with life-without-parole as a punishment for sex offenders, provided that "life" actually meant LIFE, as opposed to a 25 year sentence that ends up being 10 years with good behavior.


I have trouble with the (to me) inconsistent way sex offenders are handled in this country. They are vilified, imprisoned, possibly treated as part of their sentences, released and then punished again, continuously by being made to register wherever they live. Now, please don't get me wrong, I think they should be punished, child molestation is a horrible crime. If we're going to punish these people, however, we need to be consistent and honest about it. If there is nowhere they can live after being released from prison, then why release them? Should the sentences not be mandatory life without the chance of parole? If they really are incurable, should we not simply lock them up and throw away the key? But if some are curable, why make their punishment go on and on and on, which is what the whole registration thing is, punishment after having served the legally mandated sentence.

I agree. Personally, I think that rape (whether committed against a child or an adult) should be a crime that automatically carries a mandatory minimum life sentence. The rates of recidivism are just too damn high.


Getting back to the sterilization issue, here's my problem with it. If we extend the principle that "child molesters should be sterilized" to a universally applicable law, and we define a child molester as someone genetically predisposed to desiring sex with children, can that law not be further extended to include others with different genetic defects? Once you begin, where do you stop?
I don't buy into the slippery slope arguments. This kind of argument is like saying, "If we say "child molesters should be imprisoned," what's to stop us from imprisoning other groups based on sexual behavior? What's to stop us from imprisoning gays? Where does it end?"

We can, and do, draw the line. We enforce particular punishments for particular acts, and not for others. We currently put people in prison for molesting children, but not for having a genetic predisposition for molesting children. Why should sterilization be any different (in theory)?

Hey, I've long been in favor of putting birth control in the drinking water, such that people would have to go get an antidote if they want to make a baby.

No application process or anything, just add that little tiny inconvenience of having to go down to the store or the county office and pick up a little pill. For conception to occur, both the man and the woman would have to take the antidote, so they'd both have to be trying to make a baby.

It wouldn't solve all the world's problems, but at least it would eliminate "oops" babies.

Maybe through the use of nanotechnology, we can actually cybernetically install an internal control that allows people to switch their fertility on and off. So if a couple has a kid, there's no doubt that it's all their fault. :)

And of course, we can externally disable their switches if they are dumbasss. :p

When either of you run for election, you've got my vote.

I'd certainly be content with life-without-parole as a punishment for sex offenders, provided that "life" actually meant LIFE, as opposed to a 25 year sentence that ends up being 10 years with good behavior.

I agree, if you change "sex offenders" to "rapists". I actually know a man who is listed as a "sex offender" for selling a comic book that was not lewd to a person who was not a minor. He even has to go around his neighboorhood any time he moves and announce himself to his neighboors as a "sex offender".
Depending on how the current court case works out, he might be labeled as one yet again because he gave a comic book that displayed some nudity in a non-sexual manner to a child.

We can, and do, draw the line. We enforce particular punishments for particular acts, and not for others. We currently put people in prison for molesting children, but not for having a genetic predisposition for molesting children. Why should sterilization be any different (in theory)?

I think it's probably the level of punishment that ends up being a problem. I don't disagree with the death penalty (for instance) per se, but I do realize that sometimes, people are wrongly convicted, and I think that even one execution of an innocent person is too much. As such, I do not support the death penalty.

This would be very much the same. If a person actually does molest a child, I think sterilization would be a good idea. I even think we would have the authority to do it - to protect other children from a predator. However, sterilization is (in most cases) permanent. If we later find that the person was not guilty of the crime, what do we do? Do we just say, "Sorry that we forced you to undergo a medical procedure against your will and that you can never have children. Have a good life"?

Maybe we should just profile potential bad parents and sterilize them too... woo hoo... snip snip the lot of em!

I'm not sure about sterilising parents. But parents should definetly be required to have a license for their kids,you have to have one for your TV and for your dogs, yet not for your kids? Thats not right.

I agree, if you change "sex offenders" to "rapists". I actually know a man who is listed as a "sex offender" for selling a comic book that was not lewd to a person who was not a minor. He even has to go around his neighboorhood any time he moves and announce himself to his neighboors as a "sex offender".
Depending on how the current court case works out, he might be labeled as one yet again because he gave a comic book that displayed some nudity in a non-sexual manner to a child.

I guess I would have to also specify my standards for "sex offender." I don't consider gay people to be "sex offenders," even though there are laws that technically render them as such. I don't consider it a "sex offense" to sell pornography or masturbatory aids, even though there are laws that criminalize such activities in certain places.

At any rate, you're right; I need to be more precise with my terms, particularly if I'm talking about locking people up for life. :P


I think it's probably the level of punishment that ends up being a problem. I don't disagree with the death penalty (for instance) per se, but I do realize that sometimes, people are wrongly convicted, and I think that even one execution of an innocent person is too much. As such, I do not support the death penalty.

This would be very much the same. If a person actually does molest a child, I think sterilization would be a good idea. I even think we would have the authority to do it - to protect other children from a predator. However, sterilization is (in most cases) permanent. If we later find that the person was not guilty of the crime, what do we do? Do we just say, "Sorry that we forced you to undergo a medical procedure against your will and that you can never have children. Have a good life"?
Depending on how the individual is rendered sterile, it could be reversable.

But, anyhow, that argument seems very subjective to me. If we wrongfully convict somebody and keep them in prison for 25 years, we can't give them back those 25 years if we finally figure out they're innocent. "Sorry that we locked you up for so many years, and that you never got to get married or have kids or finish college or have a career or see England. Have a good life."

Most people appear to be comfortable with the possibility of this happening, or at least they are as comfortable as it takes for them to go along with our current system. Personally, I don't see how losing 25 years of one's life would be less severe than losing the ability to biologically reproduce.

A South Carolina city councilman recently suggested that parents who don’t properly care for their children should be sterilized to help reduce crime, saying:

"We pick up stray animals and spay them. These mothers need to be spayed if they can’t take care of theirs. Once they have a child and it’s running the street, to let them continue to have children is totally unacceptable."

(Link to story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15116997/)

I should note that he has since apologized and backed down from these remarks, but I thought it would make for an interesting poll around here.

Thoughts?

Damn him. Idiot.

Sorry about that but that's how I feel. That is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. It's all bullshit.

People do have rights. It's not the government's job to go around mutilating citizens.

Depending on how the individual is rendered sterile, it could be reversable.

Could be. But then there would be very little to stop that person from getting a black-market reversal, or going to another country and having it done, or any other such thing.

But, anyhow, that argument seems very subjective to me. If we wrongfully convict somebody and keep them in prison for 25 years, we can't give them back those 25 years if we finally figure out they're innocent. "Sorry that we locked you up for so many years, and that you never got to get married or have kids or finish college or have a career or see England. Have a good life."

Most people appear to be comfortable with the possibility of this happening, or at least they are as comfortable as it takes for them to go along with our current system. Personally, I don't see how losing 25 years of one's life would be less severe than losing the ability to biologically reproduce.

I think it's the issue of permanence. We can't give someone 25 years of their life back, but their life isn't *over*. We didn't end their life, and they still have time. Even during that 25 years, they can interact with family and friends, etc. I don't think it is acceptable for someone to spend 25 years in prison for a crime they didn't commit, but I see no way around it. If we could create a more fool-proof legal system, I'd be all for it.

As for whether or nt that would be worse than losing the ability to reproduce, that would depend on the person. If you found out that you were, in fact, sterile, it might have little effect on you (so long as there were no other health issues). I, on the other hand, would probably grieve almost as if I had actually lost a child.