White County - racists. LOL!
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/20/getting-a-vasectomy-could-shave-time-off-a-prison-sentence/
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/20/getting-a-vasectomy-could-shave-time-off-a-prison-sentence/
White County is 1.6% black, so obviously this policy is oriented towards that 1.6%, not the 96.6% white population.White County - racists. LOL!
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/20/getting-a-vasectomy-could-shave-time-off-a-prison-sentence/
Probably a lot of cousin lovin' going on in White County.White County is 1.6% black, so obviously this policy is oriented towards that 1.6%, not the 96.6% white population.
I'm not sure how a voluntary program is unconstitutional.
Um this stuff has been tried for the last 100 years.A judge uses forward thinking
Depends on the definition of "voluntary". Does someone with a gun to their head act voluntarily when told to do something?White County is 1.6% black, so obviously this policy is oriented towards that 1.6%, not the 96.6% white population.
I'm not sure how a voluntary program is unconstitutional.
Fair enough, but at the case in hand, if the county offers me a 30-day reduction of sentence in exchange for getting a free vasectomy, or, if I really value my "reproductive autonomy," I can decline the reduced sentence and maintain my reproductive autonomy. The vasectomy/Norplant is an offer, not an order.Depends on the definition of "voluntary". Does someone with a gun to their head act voluntarily when told to do something?
In this case, the parallel of the example you gave would be capital punishment or 30 years if you get a vasectomy. If the judge is offering a 30 day reduction like TW mentioned, I believe that does not constitute forced compliance.Depends on the definition of "voluntary". Does someone with a gun to their head act voluntarily when told to do something?
Fair enough, but at the case in hand, if the county offers me a 30-day reduction of sentence in exchange for getting a free vasectomy, or, if I really value my "reproductive autonomy," I can decline the reduced sentence and maintain my reproductive autonomy. The vasectomy/Norplant is an offer, not an order.
You both have good points, but there is no doubt that coercion is taking place. There is little reasonable doubt that a vasectomy would have no bearing on recidivism or any other relevant factor and is probably intended as a "cruel and unusual" punishment (or at least constitutes one).In this case, the parallel of the example you gave would be capital punishment or 30 years if you get a vasectomy. If the judge is offering a 30 day reduction like TW mentioned, I believe that does not constitute forced compliance.
Free economic exchange implies some degree of equal bargaining power. We all realize there are many "voluntary" relationship that remain off limits due to other, prior inequalities. Teachers should not enter into sexual relations with their students, not only because it's unfair to the other students, but because the inequality of power leads to abuse even when unintended. No doubt there are many cases in which the student is a willing participant and no quid pro quo is stipulated, but that doesn't make it a good practice. The inequality in power between the state and the convict is far greater than that between a professor and student. This could never pass the tainted consent test, which means it is not an issue that resolves based on being "voluntary".Fair enough, but at the case in hand, if the county offers me a 30-day reduction of sentence in exchange for getting a free vasectomy, or, if I really value my "reproductive autonomy," I can decline the reduced sentence and maintain my reproductive autonomy. The vasectomy/Norplant is an offer, not an order.
Fine. Opt out of the vasectomy/Norplant. I really don't see the problem.Free economic exchange implies some degree of equal bargaining power. We all realize there are many "voluntary" relationship that remain off limits due to other, prior inequalities. Teachers should not enter into sexual relations with their students, not only because it's unfair to the other students, but because the inequality of power leads to abuse even when unintended. No doubt there are many cases in which the student is a willing participant and no quid pro quo is stipulated, but that doesn't make it a good practice. The inequality in power between the state and the convict is far greater than that between a professor and student. This could never pass the tainted consent test, which means it is not an issue that resolves based on being "voluntary".
you said taintFree economic exchange implies some degree of equal bargaining power. We all realize there are many "voluntary" relationship that remain off limits due to other, prior inequalities. Teachers should not enter into sexual relations with their students, not only because it's unfair to the other students, but because the inequality of power leads to abuse even when unintended. No doubt there are many cases in which the student is a willing participant and no quid pro quo is stipulated, but that doesn't make it a good practice. The inequality in power between the state and the convict is far greater than that between a professor and student. This could never pass the tainted consent test, which means it is not an issue that resolves based on being "voluntary".
Tainted consent is what you give before receiving a vasectomy.you said taint
For limited times and/or purposes? Probably not. Vasectomies are considered permanent as there is no guarantee that a reversal will be successful IF it could be tried.Fine. Opt out of the vasectomy/Norplant. I really don't see the problem.
If a KKK guy who lynched an African-American was paroled early on condition of not attending any more KKK rallies, would that violate his freedom of assembly?
i just had to shave my own junkTainted consent is what you give before receiving a vasectomy.
Because Seebell wouldn't shave your junk for you?i just had to shave my own junk