Should taxpayers pay for an inmate's sex-change surgery?

[ejs]

BOSTON (AP) -- A trial that opened more than a year ago has become bogged down in Boston federal court.

There have been hundreds of hours of testimony from witnesses, including 10 medical specialists paid tens of thousands of dollars. The judge himself even hired an expert to help him make sense of it all.

The question at the center of the case: Should a murderer serving life in prison get a sex-change operation at taxpayer expense?

The case of Michelle -- formerly Robert -- Kosilek is being closely watched across the country by advocates for other inmates who want to undergo a sex change. Transgender inmates in other states have sued prison officials, and not one has succeeded in persuading a judge to order a sex-change operation.

The Massachusetts Correction Department is vigorously fighting Kosilek's request for surgery, saying it would create a security nightmare and make Kosilek a target for sexual assault.

An Associated Press review of the case, including figures obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and interviews, found that the Correction Department and its outside health care provider have spent more than $52,000 on experts to testify about an operation that would cost about $20,000.

The duration and expense of the case have outraged some lawmakers who insist that taxpayers should not have to pay for inmates to have surgery that most private insurers reject as elective.

remainder of article is at http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/26/sex.change.inmate.ap/index.html

[sue-bert]

Seems absurd to me.

Appendectomy, heart surgery, some other life-saving procedure? Fine.

But sex-change operations, nose jobs, breast enlargements, etc? No way.

[artist]

I agree about the absurdity, but to play devil's advocate for a moment, I would not classify a sex change operation as the same a nose job or any other type of cosmetic surgery. I view it as a surgery to give an individual their correct gender. In other words, I really do believe that when a person gets a sex change, it is truly because that person really was meant to be that other gender, had the misfortune of being born with the opposite anatomy, and would like to correct that.

That being said, considering the millions of uninsured Americans (many of whom are children), I'd rather THOSE people receive the much needed medical care before a convicted murderer does. I am curious too, how many health insurance companies cover this procedure? FWIW, I think insurance companies should cover this procedure, but if many of them in fact don't, then it is a bit unfair that a prisoner would receive such a treatment completely free of cost.

ETA:
Woops, missed that detail in the OP about many private insurers.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Does Medicaid pay for sex change surgery? If yes, then yes, I think they should pay for his surgery. If no, then no.

I think the argument that the surgery costs less than the court case does is a false one, because this ultimately would not be paying for just one surgery. It would likely be many more.

[numberlady]

I agree with Artist, that it is not plastic surgery. I don't think that the taxpayers should pay for this type of surgery.

I think the states argument that it would make him/her a target for sexual assault is probably off base, because I imagine she is already a target.

[jennylou]

No, I don't think it should be paid for. If we had socialized medicine and each of us were covered by the same plan and it was a covered surgery, then by all means. But, when there are so many uninsured and underinsured Americans, nope, I can't get behind paying for inmates to have sex change operations.

[Anna Low]

I guess I have an awfully hard time understanding why this type of surgery for a convicted murderer is something that the court system would even consider. Basic and necessary medical care? Sure. But not this. Just seems that being in prison should somehow exclude you from the some of the choices that those who aren't in prison currently have.

[longislandlolita]

I personally know this judge and agree with his 2002 decision regarding non-surgical treatments. I'm not sure whether I would rule in favor of the surgery -- but from what I know, Michelle's case of GID is an extreme one and therefore her case more compelling than most.

[lml41981]

If I believe I was meant to be born a dolphin, can I kill someone in order to have the state pay for my species reassignment surgery using Michelle's former scrotum as my dorsal fin?

(two points to anyone who knows the reference...i doubt it is that obscure, though.)

No...I don't think the state should pay for this surgery.

[melmo]

If I believe I was meant to be born a dolphin, can I kill someone in order to have the state pay for my species reassignment surgery using Michelle's former scrotum as my dorsal fin?

(two points to anyone who knows the reference...i doubt it is that obscure, though.)



Maybe Mr. Garrison could pay for the surgery instead of taxpayers? :)

[QueenDillyDally]

No. That is ridiculous!

It's a pretty sad state of affairs in the first place that prisoners get better medical care than hard working taxpayers and the elderly! :mad: It makes me furious!

[Scooter]

But sex-change operations, nose jobs, breast enlargements, etc? No way.
Like there others have said, these things are not comparable. There are scientific studies that have shown the brain actually has a gender. And depending how development happens in utero and when the baby is exposed to certain hormones, the brain can physically end up a different gender than the body's sex. So when the brain is developing, the baby can get certain amounts of one set of hormones and then when the genitalia is forming, the baby can get higher amounts of another set of hormones.

Which is why sexual reassignment surgery should be covered by insurance for everyone, and why it shouldn't be seen as a "choice."

However, this woman Michelle is in prison and should have to abide by the (admittedly horrible) medical care everyone else there gets. And if she were to have the surgery, she should be moved to a women's prison--it sounds like they're going to keep her in the men's one either way? :confused:

[BethIrish]

Not just no, but HELL NO.

[QueenDillyDally]

However, this woman Michelle is in prison and should have to abide by the (admittedly horrible) medical care everyone else there gets.

Well, IMO, prisoners get much better medical care than those who work for a living and can't afford insurance at all. But I guess that is a whole other spin-off thread now isn't it? :rolleyes:

[lml41981]

However, this woman Michelle is in prison and should have to abide by the (admittedly horrible) medical care everyone else there gets. And if she were to have the surgery, she should be moved to a women's prison--it sounds like they're going to keep her in the men's one either way? :confused:

If Michelle and other prisoners wanted great health coverage, they should have considered that before they killed people or committed other prison-worthy offenses. Sorry, I have very, very little compassion for someone else's agony over his/her gender identity when that person took someone else's life. Certainly not enough compassion to be cool with paying to correct their gender.

By the way, I'm not going to say their care is great...but when they have access to free-to-them health care 24 hours a day, there's not much to complain about. Of course, I say this as the DIL of a prison nurse. If the prisoners don't want to do their outdoor duties, they feign illness so they can come take a nap in the air conditioned infirmary...and there's not a lot the nurses or doctor can do about it. Recently, it was decided that due to the extremely high incidence of prisoners milking the system to get their rotted-when-they-arrived teeth fixed, if a prisoner complains of a toothache and the dentist determines a root canal is necessary, the tooth is pulled rather than having a root canal done. Many prisoners were seriously getting fully new teeth courtesy of taxpayer-funded root canals and crowns. That is certainly not fair to the millions of American citizens who have jobs and can't afford decent dental coverage.

[Scooter]

Well, IMO, prisoners get much better medical care than those who work for a living and can't afford insurance at all. But I guess that is a whole other spin-off thread now isn't it? :rolleyes:

I don't know about that, necessarily--there are a lot of documented problems with the health care that inmates are given. In a nutshell, not up to anyone's standard of care. :eek: In some places especially, many inmates would actually prefer to risk it and not be "treated" than be treated and end up with some awful complication or infection or something. I had to visit one prison (for work! :p) and the inmates told me that sometimes they could hear people in infirmary in the another building screaming in pain all night, because they have very limited care and pain management.

[ejs]

Does anyone think that Michelle's depression will be cured if she has this surgery? She'll still be in prison for the rest of her life; I think that would depress most rational people.

[artist]

If I believe I was meant to be born a dolphin, can I kill someone in order to have the state pay for my species reassignment surgery using Michelle's former scrotum as my dorsal fin?

(two points to anyone who knows the reference...i doubt it is that obscure, though.)

No...I don't think the state should pay for this surgery.

:confused:

Huh?

[Scooter]

Does anyone think that Michelle's depression will be cured if she has this surgery? She'll still be in prison for the rest of her life; I think that would depress most rational people.

In order to have the surgery, she would have to get approval from a psychiatrist anyway. If she has depression or any other major issue, it would not be approved. Depression is known to cause changes in the way our brains think and is not the time to make major decisions. Besides that, she really needs to be happy with who she is in the first place to be healthy enough to make that change.

Of course, this would only matter to me if she weren't in prison, because I still don't think she should have it while in there.

[lml41981]

Don't worry if it is over your head, artist, because someone else already got the points. You can just read the last sentence of the post.

[Rose]

No, there are certain rights you lose when you go to jail.

[gayle]

I agree with Rose.

[whos that girl]

I could see that they get their sex-change done, then want to be transfered to a women's prison, and then go about molesting the inmates. Even though they don't have the equipment...they could still do some damage.

If they are kept at the male prison, then they would probably get assaulted.

This is just ridiculous. I'm all for human rights and living the way you want, but I'd put my foot down on this one.

[msnicolea]

I think the myth about prisoners getting better heath care than "hard working Americans" is just that--a myth. Many prison health clinics are under-staffed and unprepared to deal with serious illnesses/injuries. Communicable diseases are out of control in some facilities.

re: the topic of this thread--it's a tough one--I keep changing my mind. Sexual reassignemnt is a very serious process--one of my co-workers went through it a few years ago, and I can safely say that it saved her life (from a mental health standpoint). However, it IS an elective procedure and not life-saving in the traditional medical sense, which I think makes a difference.

Must continue to ponder.

[jennylou]

I don't know Nicole, it is free to them. They can be transferred to ERs (and I've seen them there locally, so I know it does happen). Many hard working Americans can't go to the Dr because they can't afford to go. They don't get preventitive care because it's too expensive. Then they land in the ER and really can't afford that.

I think that's a conversation for a different thread though. ;)

[msnicolea]

Oh, ITA, Jenny--prisoners do receive care that some people can't afford. No question! I was just responding to the quality of care issue!

[Anna Low]

totally off topic// msnicolea, I love your avatar. That is the most precious picture. //resume topic

[msnicolea]

Thank you so much, Anna--it's my current favorite pictire of him :-)

[Sarah]

I agree with Msnicole- I keep going back and forth, because it's complicated. I don't think the surgery is elective in the usual sense, but again, we do lose certain rights when we go to jail. Toughie.

[msnicolea]

This has been one of the harder questions posed on CC lately--usually, I can respond pretty quickly, as I clearly know where I stand--this one has been boggled ;->

[LyLMyssChaos]

I definitely do not think that taxpayers should foot the bill for this type of surgery. We have a duty to keep prisoners healthy, IMO, this does not fit that.

[ysolde]

Basically, I agree with LMC. I think. It's a tough issue.

[j*east]

I have a fair amount of sympathy for the gender identity part. I could see this person petitioning to be put into a women's prison. But I think I too would draw the line at the surgery.

[Scooter]

I could see that they get their sex-change done, then want to be transfered to a women's prison, and then go about molesting the inmates. Even though they don't have the equipment...they could still do some damage.

What? I don't understand at all. Are you saying that since she's transgendered, she will molest people??

[Asha]

if i were one of the loved ones of the person he murdered, i would in no way want this person to have the surgery. he took away someone's right to life. at that point, he lost any right for the state to pay for surgery not necessary for his pure surivival.

[tenofcups]

he took away someone's right to life. at that point, he lost any right for the state to pay for surgery not necessary for his pure surivival.

Absolutely. An operation like that is about quality of life, not simply maintaining life, and as far as I'm concerned, he gave up his right to any enhanced quality of life by his own actions.

[Sarah]

Yeah, I think the standard of care should be to keep people to some minumum standard of health- both physical and mental. I'm not sure hating the body you were born in qualifies.

[Chelsea524]

No, I don't think taxpayers should pay.

And on the subject about the heath care they recieve, I think they get better care then a lot of others. Last week we had an inmate fake an injured back and was taken to a local hospital for tests, not some crummy hosptial but one of the best in Utah. While there he escaped and killed the officer which is a whole seprate thread, but it was on the news stating at just that hospital alone they get around 800 inmates a year. Inside the prison itself might not have great care but they have access to hospitals for major things, and not just for an ER.

[JamBray]

There is no way taxpayers should pay for this surgery.

[BTB]

There is no way taxpayers should pay for this surgery.

I've got to agree with that. I think when you're in state custody you're entitled to certain humane standards of care and reasonable medical services is one of them - but this is above and beyond what's necessary to maintain an acceptable level of health and wellness IMO.

[chefker]

No, taxpayers should not have to pay for this kind of elective surgery. I know there's more to it psychologically than just breast implants, but not on my dime.

If someone wants this surgery badly enough, let them find a way to come up with the cash to do so. From what I understand, these type of operations are done in Thailand for far less $$$ than in the States.

[bluberry]

Does anyone think that Michelle's depression will be cured if she has this surgery? She'll still be in prison for the rest of her life; I think that would depress most rational people.

Good point. Cured? No. I think there will be a host of other issues to deal with such as the taunting Michelle will receive when transferred to a female prison.

[kari]

To me this person's "rights" were taken away when he/she took a life. (Granted I don't know the specifics of the crime...)

[pocket]

It seems wrong to me, but I do also think that an inmate is entitled to medical treatment, and that the justice system shouldn't be in charge of deciding what treatment an inmate receives. So the treatment should be decided by the doctor, not by me. Overall, I think that the number of patients who will want this surgery and the number whose doctors decide that they should get this surgery isn't large enough to warrant a policy change. It's more important to me for an inmate to get medical care free from anyone's opinion of the crime they committed.

[kris97]

I agree it's a tough issue, but the justice system absolutely has to be involved in inmate medical care because there are certain minimum constitutional guarantees of basic medical care (which are covered by the Eighth Amendment). I say this as someone who defends the government against lawsuits brought by inmates. The vast majority are frivolous, but you need judicial involvement for the very small percentage that have merit.

[KGif]

What? I don't understand at all. Are you saying that since she's transgendered, she will molest people??

Scooter - I think what whos that girl was suggesting is that this "Michelle" is not really trans-gender but rather just looking to have a sex change to get placement in a woman's prison at which point he could engage in "relations" with women. One hell of a price to pay to get some action, no??

Not sure if that was a joke or not. I'd assume so.

[imagirliegirl]

No, there are certain rights you lose when you go to jail.

Exactly. Especially when you murder someone. You do not get to spend taxpayer money to make yourself happier. This guys says being a woman will make him happier? What about the person he killed? What will make them happy? Oh wait, they're dead. :rolleyes:

The fact that this is even being considered is absurd.

[Sarah Smyth]

Seems absurd to me.

Appendectomy, heart surgery, some other life-saving procedure? Fine.

But sex-change operations, nose jobs, breast enlargements, etc? No way.

Life-saving procedure? What for? The man's going to die anyway. Why not let it happen naturally?

[QueenDillyDally]

Life-saving procedure? What for? The man's going to die anyway. Why not let it happen naturally?

Yup, my sentiments exactly! It bothers me that we spend millions of dollars to save their lives (i.e. bypass surgery, cardiac resuscitation, etc...) just so that they can stay on death row and continue to suck $$$ from taxpayers.

[jnettie]

Well, first of all, this person is serving a life sentence, not a death sentence.

Second, we have prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment in our Constitution, and denying medical treatment I'd venture to say would fall under that clause.

[camberne]

I don't see this as a tough issue at all. Regardless of whether or not his/her transgender issues are legitimate, this is elective surgery. There are thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of people who see themselves as another gender and do not choose to undergo surgery. To ask taxpayers to pay for such a surgery for an inmate is just plain wrong. They are certainly entitled to any psychiatric/psychological treatment that may be necessary for them to deal with their feelings; but surgery should most certainly not be an option!

[lml41981]

Well, first of all, this person is serving a life sentence, not a death sentence.

Second, we have prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment in our Constitution, and denying medical treatment I'd venture to say would fall under that clause.
Yeah, but I don't think it is cruel or unusual to deny an elective procedure. I am sure there are many inmates who would love to have LASIK, but they shouldn't be allowed to have that, either...and it is a much more legitimate surgery (IMO) than a sex-change operation.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Yeah, but I don't think it is cruel or unusual to deny an elective procedure. I am sure there are many inmates who would love to have LASIK, but they shouldn't be allowed to have that, either...and it is a much more legitimate surgery (IMO) than a sex-change operation.
I'm thinking jnettie was referring to Sarah Smyth's comment, about why bother with appendectomies, heart surgeries, etc.

[jnettie]

Yeah, but I don't think it is cruel or unusual to deny an elective procedure. I am sure there are many inmates who would love to have LASIK, but they shouldn't be allowed to have that, either...and it is a much more legitimate surgery (IMO) than a sex-change operation.

Like LFPH said, I was reacting to these posts:

Life-saving procedure? What for? The man's going to die anyway. Why not let it happen naturally?

Yup, my sentiments exactly! It bothers me that we spend millions of dollars to save their lives (i.e. bypass surgery, cardiac resuscitation, etc...) just so that they can stay on death row and continue to suck $$$ from taxpayers.

Sorry it wasn't clear, I didn't quote them before.

[Sarah Smyth]

Well, first of all, this person is serving a life sentence, not a death sentence.

Second, we have prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment in our Constitution, and denying medical treatment I'd venture to say would fall under that clause.

I guess the way I see it, if they're serving a life sentence, it's because they've done something terrible, so if they've got some kind of terminal illness or medical emergency in which they'll die, I feel that's karma come back around to kick that person in the ass for doing what' they've done.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I guess the way I see it, if they're serving a life sentence, it's because they've done something terrible, so if they've got some kind of terminal illness or medical emergency in which they'll die, I feel that's karma come back around to kick that person in the ass for doing what' they've done.
If that's the case, then logically, for people who get terminal illnesses or have medical emergencies outside of prison, karma must be kicking their asses too, so why intervene with them? They've probably done something awful that just hasn't been discovered yet.

[imagirliegirl]

I wouldn't call it Karma. But I do think that if someone on death row or with a life sentence becomes terminally ill, taxpayers should not pay to keep them alive. I'd much rather see my money go to law abiding citizens who have contributions to make to society.

I'm sure that will make some people think I'm cruel, but the minute you choose to take a life is the minute you have many rights to yours. That should also be the last minute someone even considers giving you elective surgery on someone else's dime.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I wouldn't call it Karma. But I do think that if someone on death row or with a life sentence becomes terminally ill, taxpayers should not pay to keep them alive. I'd much rather see my money go to law abiding citizens who have contributions to make to society.

I'm sure that will make some people think I'm cruel, but the minute you choose to take a life is the minute you have many rights to yours. That should also be the last minute someone even considers giving you elective surgery on someone else's dime.
Appendectomies and heart surgeries are not really surgeries for terminal illnesses though.

[imagirliegirl]

Appendectomies and heart surgeries are not really surgeries for terminal illnesses though.

Right. I'm referring to treatments for terminal illnesses. Not general maintenance.

[Scooter]

I guess the way I see it, if they're serving a life sentence, it's because they've done something terrible, so if they've got some kind of terminal illness or medical emergency in which they'll die, I feel that's karma come back around to kick that person in the ass for doing what' they've done.

It's interesting to see the apparent lack of empathy towards the inmates' humanity. Can we ignore their humanity because they ignored someone else's? What does that make us? And while I would never excuse the crime they committed, sometimes it's important to remember that the majority of inmates were victims of child abuse or molestation, were raised by drug addicts/alcoholics, or have untreated mental illnesses.

So I just wonder where the karma comes in--is the life sentance part of their karma or is their crime our society's karma for not doing more to help those children before they grow up and do this stuff? When we hear of politicians cutting "social programs" we don't automatically think of the consequences of that, but it inevitably leads to more crime. We get really angry at the criminals and build more prisons, but don't we have a responsibility as members of society, too? Just something to think about.

[j*east]

I guess the way I see it, if they're serving a life sentence, it's because they've done something terrible, so if they've got some kind of terminal illness or medical emergency in which they'll die, I feel that's karma come back around to kick that person in the ass for doing what' they've done.

Philosophically, I can understand this, but I'd hate to have a government or constitution based on karma. By that rationale, there would be no social services at all.

[Sarah Smyth]

If that's the case, then logically, for people who get terminal illnesses or have medical emergencies outside of prison, karma must be kicking their asses too, so why intervene with them? They've probably done something awful that just hasn't been discovered yet.

Why play the devil's advocate that way?

And what wrong would the world suffer if people who are sentenced to jail for life passed away from natural causes such as those aforementioned?

There's no logic in your response to mine. So don't use logic as your excuse.

[msnicolea]

I hardly think LF is using logic as an "excuse"--you're new here, but I assure you that you are picking the wrong fight with the wrong poster.

I agree with j*east--the idea of medical care only being delivered to those deemed "worthy" by some arbitrary marker is very scary. Why would the process necessarily only apply to prisoners? What's to stop the medical establishment from using all sorts of litmus tests before doing expensive procedures? Giving preferential treatment to those who score higher on some sort of character test? Or who go to the "right" church?

You don't cease being a person simply because you are in prison--and don't get me started on wrongful convictions or the OJ Simpsons of the world--I'll save that for another post.

[Sarah Smyth]

Philosophically, I can understand this, but I'd hate to have a government or constitution based on karma. By that rationale, there would be no social services at all.

I agree with what you say, however, I don't see the need for us to pay to save someone's life if that someone's killed or assisted in killing or has helped contribute to mailciousness on a grand scale in any way.

[Sarah Smyth]

It's interesting to see the apparent lack of empathy towards the inmates' humanity. Can we ignore their humanity because they ignored someone else's? What does that make us? And while I would never excuse the crime they committed, sometimes it's important to remember that the majority of inmates were victims of child abuse or molestation, were raised by drug addicts/alcoholics, or have untreated mental illnesses.

So I just wonder where the karma comes in--is the life sentance part of their karma or is their crime our society's karma for not doing more to help those children before they grow up and do this stuff? When we hear of politicians cutting "social programs" we don't automatically think of the consequences of that, but it inevitably leads to more crime. We get really angry at the criminals and build more prisons, but don't we have a responsibility as members of society, too? Just something to think about.

Okay, okay, you're starting to hone in on the psycho-social aspect of all of this.

Granted, they may have been victims of abuse and molestation, but at some point, people must either overcome that or they will be consumed by it. My question for you is, when are people supposed to be held accountable for their actions, and when can they plead 'insanity' or 'victim'?

The people who are running this country are put there by us, whether we want to take responsibility for it or not. If we truly want to revolutionize our social work and the help that it provides, we need to actually take things into our hands, find people that we trust instead of electing all of these manipulative power-mongering morons into office, and get the people we trust in there instead.

Humanity is a precious thing, yes, but not when they can't even act human.

[chefker]

Well, people do get wrongly convicted. It just happened here in Connecticut. James Tillman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Calvin_Tillman)served 18 years of a prison sentence - for a crime he did not commit - and was finally exonerated by DNA evidence. If he had any terminal illness, by the same logic voiced in some posts here, he should have been denied medical care.

I don't think denying medical care to inmates - whether they're guilty or not - is the right answer. If we do so, then we as a society are guilty of perpetrating inhumanity against our fellow man. Why should we lower ourselves to that level? I'd like to think humankind is better than that.

[claire]

my 2 cents - if he wants to pay for the sex-change surgery, then let him do it. I have a friend who recently had this surgery and she had to re-mortgage her house to pay for it. Her insurance won't even pay for her prescription of estrogen which is medically necessary after the surgery.

I don't want to get involved in a philosophical debate on the human rights of prisoners, but come on, does anyone think they should be treated better than law-abiding citizens?

[chefker]

I don't want to get involved in a philosophical debate on the human rights of prisoners, but come on, does anyone think they should be treated better than law-abiding citizens?

Not better - but maybe the same. If the goal is to reform prisoners into productive, law abiding citizens, what good does it do to treat them like shit?

[msnicolea]

Not better--but in terms of necessary and/or lifesaving medical care, than yes, equal.

[char473]

My bleeding heart stops here. Basic medical care, including life saving measures? yes, I think those in prison should have access to that. Elective procedures? No way. At some point you have to draw a line. Those in prison are there for a reason. Most of them are deserve to be there, and yes some are unfortunately wrongfully convicted, but to allow an elective procedure to someone convicted of MURDER is beyond me. I don't even see how this is even given a 2nd thought. He is convicted of taking a life. What is next, allowing a pediphile to adopt a child, because he has a right as a human to be happy? I know the situations are not identical, but to me they are both absurd. If he is that gender confused, then let him get counseling to deal with it.

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

Why play the devil's advocate that way?

And what wrong would the world suffer if people who are sentenced to jail for life passed away from natural causes such as those aforementioned?

There's no logic in your response to mine. So don't use logic as your excuse.
Devil's advocate? Please. You're the one suggesting we return to the Dark Ages.

Now, which aforementioned natural causes are you talking about? Because I don't think I've seen any terminal illnesses mentioned. An appendicitis is not a terminal illnesses. A heart attack is not a terminal illness.

As far as there not being any logic in my response- just because you refuse to see it, doesn't mean it's not there.

[jnettie]

ITA with Scooter and chefker!

Sarah Smyth, I hear what you're saying about elections. I agree. But I've found it's very difficult to speak to your common American about compassion toward others, especially in the face of horror. Your first post is evidence of this - your anger toward the murderer overrides any compassion you might have had toward him, even in a hypothetical situation. When up against that, there's no way to elect officials that will bring about the kind of change you suggest.

Our culture says: "Why should we care about the murderer? He did xyz and deserves to die/suffer/rot in jail."

It's not simply elections but a total shift in our attitudes toward criminals and the penal system. It seems to me that there is no punishment that is good enough. Even after a criminal has served his or her time, we wish to punish them further. And, with hardly any programs out there to actually help them, recidivism is very high. Yet, there are a select few programs out there that prove that the right kind of help can keep people from returning to a life of crime.

There is just something so ugly about wishing for someone to suffer. I can understand the sentiment, especially from a relative of the victim, but somehow wanting another human to suffer, even if they had similar disregard for the life of another person, makes us no better than that murderer.

ETA...This is in regards to life saving and necessary medical treatment. I agree with others on the sex change - that should be funded by the inmate that desires that surgery.

[thelittlebabu]

I agree with others on the sex change - that should be funded by the inmate that desires that surgery.
I also agree that it should be funded by the inmate, but where does the inmate go after the surgery? Obviously he can't go back into the general population of an all-male prison. So by having the surgery he's also writing himself a ticket to either solitary confinement or a trip to an all-women's prison. Should inmates be given the power to dictate these kinds of terms of their sentences?

[wendalah]

On the note of denying emergency medical care to those in prison: Why not just tie them up and shoot them point-blank? It's more humane than letting them die in agony of a heart attack or ruptured appendix.

I am no bleeding heart, believe me, but I do believe we have to keep some modicum of organization/decency in the prison system. I mean, if we are going to let them die in agony from a treatable condition, why feed them or allow them sanitary conditions? Why not just throw them in a dirty hole and let them die without food or water?

[Asha]

I am no bleeding heart, believe me, but I do believe we have to keep some modicum of organization/decency in the prison system. I mean, if we are going to let them die in agony from a treatable condition, why feed them or allow them sanitary conditions? Why not just throw them in a dirty hole and let them die without food or water?
not to mention i think it would make prisons even more violent than they already are if some standard of humane treatment wasn't kept up. someone who was about to die and in a lot of pain probably wouldn't have any qualms about trying to kill a prison guard or fellow inmate given they were going to die of their illness anyways.

i could be wrong but don't prisoners who have their own money have to contribute to the cost of their stay in prison. not that this probably matters as i am sure the vast majority of prisoners are poor.

[wendalah]

And, if you're not going to allow basic medical care...why the heck are we allowing teachers to come in and educate prisoners? Why are we allowing priests and other chaplains to come in and minister spiritually to them? Why provide anything that might help them out?

[villanelle75]

I find it interesting that when some people speak about karma, it is with a tone of delicious revenge. I believe in karma, or a karma like "force", but mostly when I think about it, it makes me sad, not rewarded. I'm not saying I am above ever having felt a twinge of delight when someone who brought a lot of suffering then saw suffering himself, but those aren't the moments I am proud of or the person I strive to be. The notion that someone has created suffering for others and that karma means that suffering will come back to them is, for me, a cause for sorrow, not glee. It may be justice, but it's sad justice when someone suffers because of the suffering they put out into the world. Really, is more suffering in the world a thing to celebrate, no matter who it is doing the suffering? It's really odd to me that that is something people delight in.

I believe this person shouldn't get the surgery on the tax payers' dollar. As someone else said, this is a quality of life issue and I think there are better uses for tax money that a prisoner's quality of life related elective surgeries. But assuming this person really does have legitimate gender confusion, I can only assume that those issues, as well as poor treatment he/she likely received as a result of an effeminate manner or of acting on those feelings, probably led to his/her marginalization and ultimately, to the life that culminated in murder. And that's really sad. I'm not saying this person wasn't responsible for her own actions just because of the condition and the ways she was treated by others as a result of her condition. But it's a factor, the same way that being molested is a factor in many criminals' choices. And as such, I think it is is really sad where they ended up and how they ended up. So to delight in refusing them this procedure seems cruel and in very poor taste, to say the least. And to delight than anyone's life comes down to passing time behind bars until death, no matter what they did, seems that way as well. If the man who assaulted me was convicted, during the moments I was thinking clearly and being ruled by my better angles, I wouldn't feel joy or happiness or even gratefulness, as best I can imagine. I might feel vindicated that my story was accepted as truth, and I might feel relief that a chapter was closed, but I hope that any spite or joy I felt was very short-lived.

[kris97]

I'm about as supportive of victims' rights as they come, and am kind of perplexed at the suggestion that inmates should receive no medical care. In addition to everything that's been posted, the vast majority of inmates are in for relatively short sentences, so lack of medical care would have devastating effects on not only their health but public health when they are released (not to mention Medicaid and the emergency medical system would incur vastly higher health costs if preventative care wasn't given).

As for elective procedures, they are different, but I disagree that they should be available if the inmates pay for them, given the security problems that would present. How far do we take that? Do we allow wealthy white collar inmates to have cosmetic surgery so prison becomes a slightly less chichi rehabilitation stay? No.

But, on the other side of things, I am uncomfortable with the condemnation of punishment for punishment's sake that I sometimes see people on the left espouse. There are some truly terrible, terrible things that people do to each other, and even if the perpetrators are abused or neglected, even if their incarceration will not deter them from committing future crimes, incarceration serves an incredibly important purpose -both in terms of keeping the public safe but also in expressing our outrage and condemnation of the crimes that took place. The mother of one of my very close friends was recently mugged and assaulted, which landed her in the hospital with stitches, a concussion, and subdural bleeding. The person who did this to her - who likely, we will never be able to identify - may have grown up impoverished, he may have been abused, he may have had a terrible childhood. And perhaps, even if we did find out who he was and were able to convict him (a much longer shot than most people believe), maybe prison would not prevent him from doing this again. But you know what? He still deserves to go to prison (not a prison where he is denied medical care, but still a prison), and my desire- as well as those of her family - is not base or inhuman.

In our discussion of minimal prison standards, I did want to put this out there.

[lml41981]

I'll admit that I don't like to hear of folks suffering, but I'd damn sure rather hear of a violent criminal suffering than living a blessed life.

Of course, part of this comes from the fact that the best friend of my SIL was murdered and her murderer is still walking around living, breathing, making money, having friends, enjoying good food, etc...all things that Jennifer can no longer do by no fault of her own.

It makes me more sick to think of a murderer facing no (wordly) consequences for his actions than it does when I think of a murderer suffering behind bars.

[wendalah]

:confused: So...just because some murderers happen to walk free, you'd rather have all criminals behind bars be denied basic care?

[msnicolea]

I agree with you kris97. Sometimes people do very, very bad things and need to be held accountable. I am as left as they come, but even I understand that there have to be consequences for actions, regardless of the circumstances. I guess I just think that if there is something that can happen to that person while he is serving time that will lead him to live a more responsible, "good" life, then I am all for providing it--education,. job training, healthcare, etc. . . Otherwise, the cycle will never end.

[kris97]

Thanks msnicolea. I'm sorry if the frustration comes off as sanctimony- I've just had some very frustrating conversations with far left people about how they don't "believe in prison"- not don't believe in prison for drug crimes ( which I mostly disagree w but can understand) but believe in prison for ANY crime. To which I say: if believing in prison as a vital part of any society makes me barbaric then so be it, but I would not ever want to be part of a society where someone who robbed an elderly women or assaulted a child or killed a cop was allowed to continue with his life unabated out of an idea that incarceration was inhumane.

On another note I will share that many prison administrators - not exactly inmate loving group- support the kinds of programs you mention, bc they make inmates much easier to deal with.

[villanelle75]

I'm about as supportive of victims' rights as they come, and am kind of perplexed at the suggestion that inmates should receive no medical care. In addition to everything that's been posted, the vast majority of inmates are in for relatively short sentences, so lack of medical care would have devastating effects on not only their health but public health when they are released (not to mention Medicaid and the emergency medical system would incur vastly higher health costs if preventative care wasn't given).

As for elective procedures, they are different, but I disagree that they should be available if the inmates pay for them, given the security problems that would present. How far do we take that? Do we allow wealthy white collar inmates to have cosmetic surgery so prison becomes a slightly less chichi rehabilitation stay? No.

But, on the other side of things, I am uncomfortable with the condemnation of punishment for punishment's sake that I sometimes see people on the left espouse. There are some truly terrible, terrible things that people do to each other, and even if the perpetrators are abused or neglected, even if their incarceration will not deter them from committing future crimes, incarceration serves an incredibly important purpose -both in terms of keeping the public safe but also in expressing our outrage and condemnation of the crimes that took place. The mother of one of my very close friends was recently mugged and assaulted, which landed her in the hospital with stitches, a concussion, and subdural bleeding. The person who did this to her - who likely, we will never be able to identify - may have grown up impoverished, he may have been abused, he may have had a terrible childhood. And perhaps, even if we did find out who he was and were able to convict him (a much longer shot than most people believe), maybe prison would not prevent him from doing this again. But you know what? He still deserves to go to prison (not a prison where he is denied medical care, but still a prison), and my desire- as well as those of her family - is not base or inhuman.

In our discussion of minimal prison standards, I did want to put this out there.

I don't know if this was in response to my post or not. To clarify, I'm not against punishment, even when it serves no obvious purpose other than punishment, but it's just seems an odd thing to be happy about. I look at it more as a sad reality, maybe even a sad necessity, rather than a fist-pumping, celebratory, "we got the bastard", which is the sentiment I got from some of the posts here. I think it's sad when someone suffers, even when its someone "bad" who is suffering. That doesn't mean I am against putting someone in prison, but it's not something I can bring myself to feel joyful over, or vindicated about, or anything like that, even if it is Charles Manson or Goerring (notice how I avoid Goodwin's Law!) or whomever. Should a murderer go to prison? Yes? But to think someone should go to prison is different, to me at least, from feeling elated when they do.

So I'm not against prison or punishment, but I don't get giddy when I think about even the worst offenders going to jail. I'm not arguing about whether or not people should go to prison or whether that's a reasonable system, but it sits very oddly with me that people feel happy about that.

[wendalah]

BTW--on Kris's note, I also believe that people should be punished for their actions, and I don't believe prison should be *pleasant*. I just think, though, that if we are going to lock people up with no basic care--we might as well just either kill them flat-out, or not bother with any basic necessities. If the majority of the population really wants to see criminals suffer without chance of rehabilitation, then why waste money feeding them, keeping jails clean, etc.

[pocket]

I don't really think it would be appropriate to integrate a concept of karma into the prison system. First of all that's a religious concept that has no real place in the American system. Also, hasn't the prisoner already been judged and given a sentence for their crime?

[kris97]

No, villanelle - we cross posted. But I do understand the happiness when there is a conviction of a criminal - not in terms of, oh yeah, you get to go to prison! But as in, thankfulness that justice is served, that the perpetrator will not be able to commit any more crimes like this for x years. I find it much more disheartening when people get away with terrible crimes - like so many rapes, assaults, or murders go unsolved, or the prosecution isn't able to get witnesses to come forward for fear of retribution, etc.

[msnicolea]

ITA with Pocket.

[lml41981]

:confused: So...just because some murderers happen to walk free, you'd rather have all criminals behind bars be denied basic care?

I dunno if this is in response to me...but if so, I don't see where I've advocated denial of basic care. Denial of comprehensive, elective care...sure.

[wendalah]

Your comment was made in the midst of discussing the "don't let them have emergency medical care" sentiment recently, so I assumed you were saying you were OK with watching them suffer as a result of denying basic care. Sorry.

[lml41981]

Your comment was made in the midst of discussing the "don't let them have emergency medical care" sentiment recently, so I assumed you were saying you were OK with watching them suffer as a result of denying basic care. Sorry.
Nah...I was responding to the implication made by someone else that folks ought to be ashamed of themselves for being happy that a violent criminal suffers. I don't delight in the suffering of another, but I'm not going to lose any sleep if a violent criminal suffers a little. I think they should have just enough medical care to prevent them from suffering in pain, but not so much that they are made comfortable. I was just saying that in the experience I mentioned, the murderer of a family friend is out living a free life...and that bothers me much worse than it bothers me to hear of a murderer being denied any medical care (though it does bother me a bit to hear of a murderer being denied non-elective medical care).

So...what do folks think of the compassionate release thing? You know, where Inmate is diagnosed with, say, colon cancer and the state releases them from prison rather than having to foot the bill for treatment (while knowing there's no way in heck the inmate can get insurance coverage now that he has a pre-existing condition and that he has no money to pay for treatment)...

[Medako]

There's not a situation in the world where I think that the taxpayers should pay for this type of surgery.

Now, I assume that this he/she has felt like a woman long before his/her prison days. If this surgery were so important, then why not have it done already? Insuance didn't cover it? Didn't have the financial means? Well, that's too bad...consider it the same situation, only instead of living life on the outside, there are walls of containment.

[jnettie]

We're getting way OT, but here's my 2 cents on American prisons.

I've known 2 people that have spent time in jail for real serious crimes. My uncle was in jail on and off over the years for drug dealing, then finally for armed robbery. Now, I don't like the man, and I don't associate with him anymore, but there ain't squat that jail did to reform him. He's always, eventually, ended up back in jail. It certainly wasn't a deterrent.

I know someone else, not so well, who was in jail for murder. This kid was messed up. He certainly deserved punishment. But, once again, I think jail was actually a failure for him. He needed serious mental help, but instead he spent 15 years in jail. Now he's out. I don't have any contact with him anymore, but I know his stepmother well and she's afraid to be anywhere near him.

I guess, I just don't understand the point of jail. It really doesn't stop anyone from doing crime, IMO. It hardly ever reforms people. And even after someone serves their time, we as a society continue to punish them, causing them to go back to crime...it just seems like a never ending cycle.

As for the OP and the question about my statement...I don't know the particulars. If someone gets a sex change, I guess they then should go to the prison for the gender they became. The more I think about it, the more I think that this person shouldn't get her sex change surgery.

[jnettie]

Now, I assume that this he/she has felt like a woman long before his/her prison days. If this surgery were so important, then why not have it done already? Insuance didn't cover it? Didn't have the financial means? Well, that's too bad...consider it the same situation, only instead of living life on the outside, there are walls of containment.

It's actually a very long process to change genders. There's psycological evaluations. Then the person has to live x amount of years as the other gender - so if you're a man, you have to dress and live as a woman. Then, you start hormonal therapy. And I think you have to have whatever cosmetic surgery done (like breast implants) but I'm not certain about that. Finally, you can get the surgery. But it's expensive, so not everyone can get it done.

All in all, it's a long process.

[kris97]

We're getting way OT, but here's my 2 cents on American prisons.

I've known 2 people that have spent time in jail for real serious crimes. My uncle was in jail on and off over the years for drug dealing, then finally for armed robbery. Now, I don't like the man, and I don't associate with him anymore, but there ain't squat that jail did to reform him. He's always, eventually, ended up back in jail. It certainly wasn't a deterrent.

I know someone else, not so well, who was in jail for murder. This kid was messed up. He certainly deserved punishment. But, once again, I think jail was actually a failure for him. He needed serious mental help, but instead he spent 15 years in jail. Now he's out. I don't have any contact with him anymore, but I know his stepmother well and she's afraid to be anywhere near him.

I guess, I just don't understand the point of jail. It really doesn't stop anyone from doing crime, IMO. It hardly ever reforms people. And even after someone serves their time, we as a society continue to punish them, causing them to go back to crime...it just seems like a never ending cycle.

As for the OP and the question about my statement...I don't know the particulars. If someone gets a sex change, I guess they then should go to the prison for the gender they became. The more I think about it, the more I think that this person shouldn't get her sex change surgery.

What purpose does prison serve? Even if it doesn't succeed at specific deterrence or rehabilitation (a proposition that is debatable) it serves a critical function in terms of punishment and public safety.
Prison absolutely prevents crime- a deft in prison isn't going to be able to commit rape, murder, or armed robbery, certainly not at the level as he could outside.
But just as important, I'd argue, is that it serves as society's expression of outrage for the crimes. That's an awkward way to put it, but think about it this way: what kind of society responds to a rape or a mugging or a violent assault with a verbal warning or 100 hours of community service? Why have criminal laws at all if the consequences for breaking them are so benign compared to the violence the perpetrator has wrought? What does it say to the family of that cop shot this week in Brooklyn, now on life support, if the people who did this were given some punishment short of prison? His life, cut down at 23, is worth so little? I would not want to be a part of any place that treated violent or other serious crimes so lightly.