California female inmates sterilized illegally

a reply to: Lipton

lol not necessarily the rest of their lives though because child support (except in the case of college students) typically ends at 18 and if there is still collection, it's simply on past unpaid amounts remaining. So no, it's not lifelong. When it comes to children, I'd say that if one doesn't want to risk having a kid then maybe they should keep their pants on. I tell my kids that all the time. When you have sex, you really are making a choice of potentially having a child because accidents DO happen.

I'm not an elitist. They spent a whole lot of time in the late 19th and early 20th centuries trying to prove that certain lineages of people produced more talented and gifted individuals. The interesting thing about many of those early studies was they discovered that it wasn't necessarily true and that talent lines actually declined. A superior father or mother didn't necessarily equate to a superior child. Back then, what was being suggested in the end was genetic diversity as being the driver for genius. In fact, suggestions of breeding immigrants into "talent clans" was the most ideal as if smart people were a breed of dog.

If we started sterilizing those that we deem "undesirable" then we are essentially limiting the available genetic diversity that may actually bring progress to humanity. That's not a good thing and economic status actually doesn't influence innate intelligence. It just affects whether they can go to college. I know plenty of very smart people who came from parents that were impoverished drug addicts that you'd see as needing to be sterilized. Sometimes adversity can bring out the best in humankind.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Aazadan

I provided one link in this thread. It IS the wiki for 3 strike laws. It SPECIFICALLY STATES that this law is in effect for SERIOUS and FELONY crimes. Don't weasel out of this one. You're either ignorant, or a liar.

Three strikes laws don't care about the severity of the third strike. Stealing a bicycle is equal to child molestation. They both put people away as a felon. Again from the links you quoted.

however, notably among jurisdictions where misdemeanor offenses can qualify for application of the three-strikes law is California

California three strikes law, I think we all know about that one already.

Most states require one or more of the three felony convictions to be for violent crimes in order for the mandatory sentence to be pronounced.

Most states, meaning there's states where that isn't the case.

In addition, the list of crimes that count as serious or violent in the state of California is much longer than that of other states, and consists of many lesser offenses that include: firearm violations, burglary, simple robbery, arson, and providing hard drugs to a minor, and drug possession.

Lesser offenses... guess what homelessness or other things that go along with being poor are?

Besides all of that, the stated purpose of prison is rehabilitation. How does physically mutilating someone aid in rehabilitation? That's a purely punitive action. It's like cutting the nose off a coke addict so they stop using the drug. Then again we would never do that, the stereotypical banker coke addict has money and representation in the system.

This whole thing is an elaborate way for the state to say poor people have no right to children.

a reply to: Aazadan

You're completely out of your mind, focusing on extremes within one state and applying it to the whole situation in general. It's the ramblings of a psychotic mind, and I refuse to participate any further. Please seek help.

originally posted by: pl3bscheese
a reply to: Aazadan

You're completely out of your mind, focusing on extremes within one state and applying it to the whole situation in general. It's the ramblings of a psychotic mind, and I refuse to participate any further. Please seek help.

Where did I apply it to every situation? I said some and a few, not all. Then I said that it's still wrong even when it is only so called serious and violent felons. If you believe they can be reformed which is the point of prison then adding on another lifetime punishment is draconian and wrong. If they can't be reformed they have life in prison and it doesn't matter.

These things are often justified as only applying to the most extreme, then they apply to everyone. In a few cases they already do.

But I guess when being an apologist for indefensible prison practices it's easier to just call the people who disagree crazy.