Elective medical procedures in exchange for reduced sentencing

Denbrought

The Last Dancelord
#1
Posted on Facebook, thought it might make a good thread here.

CBS News: Oklahoma woman receives reduced sentence after getting sterilized
excerpt said:
U.S. District Judge Stephen Friot showed leniency to 34-year-old Summer Thyme Creel during her sentencing Thursday because she had surgery to prevent pregnancies.

Friot had suggested the medical procedure in a June order, noting that Creel had relinquished her parental rights to six of her seven children.

Friot defended his suggestion Thursday, The Oklahoman reports, saying the U.S. Supreme Court "has yet to recognize a constitutional right to bring crack- or methamphetamine-addicted babies into this world."

(..) Creel pleaded guilty last year to using a counterfeit check at a Walmart in Moore in 2014. She faced a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.
I wonder what other examples of elective medical procedures in exchange for reduced sentencing there are, other than the below. I guess there's the chemical castration of sex offenders, though that's often mandatory. Looks like there's also been attempts to exchange organ donations for parole.

The ethics of this topic are fascinating. Can you meaningfully consent to a violation of your body when being threatened with caging? It's like taking the concept of plea deals (and things like CI agreements) to an extreme.
 

stienman

GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
#3
I'd be very wary about codifying things like this into law. Giving judges a little wriggle room in sentencing is probably the best way to implement stuff like this - if at all - similar to the way they reduce sentences if people go through a rehab program, agree to ankle monitoring and home arrest vs prison, or attend a youth camp for juvenile offenders rather than juvenile prison.

The bigger concern with this is that the procedure is irreversible. While you can't get time served back if it turns out you were wrongly tried, medical procedures such as this are irreversible, and like the death penalty must be very, very carefully applied.

That said, it seems hard to make a case that sterilization should result in a reduced sentence for passing a bad check. No doubt she's had a lot of time before judges, and he's likely taking a "holistic" approach to criminal justice, but in this specific case (and absent information the judge has that isn't being released) it should worry us.
 
#5
That being said, I certainly think the societal benefits that would result from government paid, voluntary sterilization procedures would be quite good. I just wouldn't want there to be any incentives tied to it to unfairly coerce people into doing it.
 
#6
I don't understand how a bad check would lead a judge to ask for such a drastic procedure. However, I used to work in Moore Okla, and I wouldn't mind them putting sterilization solution in the drinking water.
 

PatrThom

Genuinely Curious
#8
As the (step)brother of someone who was victimized by a woman whose M.O. with several men was to have a baby, give it to the father to raise, then reassert maternal rights once the kid becomes a teen (i.e., "after the hard part"), I would like to at least see the option of forced sterilization left open to judges, because there legitimately are times when the real issue is "This person needs to stop having kids."
I am not kidding about this. She filed for custody practically the exact day my (step?)nephew turned 11 (I think?), with my stepbrother's address misspelled so they wouldn't be able to contact him and would therefore get a default judgement. The only reason we found out she had filed was because she'd done this with enough other guys (yes, even the fake address) that my stepmother (who worked for the state at the time) was preemptively contacting the courts every month just waiting for her to try this. And then yes, when she got a conviction later (for possession of crack cocaine, I think it was), one of the conditions was that her sentence would be reduced if she subjected to some sort of nonreversible sterilization procedure. My stepmother even picked her up (45mi away) and drove her to the hospital. She says it was to be nice, but I'm pretty sure it was to make sure she did NOT miss that appointment.

--Patrick
 
#11
As the (step)brother of someone who was victimized by a woman whose M.O. with several men was to have a baby, give it to the father to raise, then reassert maternal rights once the kid becomes a teen (i.e., "after the hard part"), I would like to at least see the option of forced sterilization left open to judges, because there legitimately are times when the real issue is "This person needs to stop having kids."
I am not kidding about this. She filed for custody practically the exact day my (step?)nephew turned 11 (I think?), with my stepbrother's address misspelled so they wouldn't be able to contact him and would therefore get a default judgement. The only reason we found out she had filed was because she'd done this with enough other guys (yes, even the fake address) that my stepmother (who worked for the state at the time) was preemptively contacting the courts every month just waiting for her to try this. And then yes, when she got a conviction later (for possession of crack cocaine, I think it was), one of the conditions was that her sentence would be reduced if she subjected to some sort of nonreversible sterilization procedure. My stepmother even picked her up (45mi away) and drove her to the hospital. She says it was to be nice, but I'm pretty sure it was to make sure she did NOT miss that appointment.

--Patrick
I don't know if this is a reason to allow forced sterilization so much as it is a need to reform child custody law
 

Bubble181

The odd one out
#12
I can certainly see why (chemical) sterilisation might have a place in a judge's arsenal. Pedophiles, rapists, what-have-you.
I can sort of see the reasoning here - she was counterfeiting to get drugs money, and her (drug) children were (an important part of) the victims. Stopping her from having more children that need to be taken away, probably have fetal drug issues, and so on, seems like a good idea. Still, "get sterilized and we'll lower your sentence" is...well, it's one of those things where a little slippery slope can go a long way. I can't say I'm really in favor of it unless it's for specific sex- or child-related crimes.
 

stienman

GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY
#13
The thing is, we've already accepted it as part of our society. It doesn't get much press, but given @PatrThom's story it's obviously something Judges implement in certain cases.

Will we continue to use it only in extraordinary cases, or will it be expanded over time is the real question. Unfortunately we don't really even have a good grasp on how much its used and for what types of cases.
 

Bubble181

The odd one out
#14
Right. Imagine a world where certain subgroups of the population are/feel unjustly targeted by police and courts, and where judges would give people of those subgroups comparatively harsher sentences. Can you imagine one group being sterilized more often than others?

Or, to be a bit more on the nose - will we soon get "Black Babies Matter"?
 

PatrThom

Genuinely Curious
#15
I don't know if this is a reason to allow forced sterilization so much as it is a need to reform child custody law
Reformation would certainly remove the incentive to take advantage of the system, but when someone racks up repeated DUIs, we don't reform drunk driving laws, we take away their ability to drive. I don't for one moment believe she was sterilized because she was repeatedly filing for child custody, I believe she was involuntarily sterilized because, irrespective of custody law, she demonstrated that she was unfit to be a mother.

--Patrick
 

@Li3n

Upper Crust
#16
As the (step)brother of someone who was victimized by a woman whose M.O. with several men was to have a baby, give it to the father to raise, then reassert maternal rights once the kid becomes a teen (i.e., "after the hard part"), I would like to at least see the option of forced sterilization left open to judges, because there legitimately are times when the real issue is "This person needs to stop having kids."
I am not kidding about this. She filed for custody practically the exact day my (step?)nephew turned 11 (I think?), with my stepbrother's address misspelled so they wouldn't be able to contact him and would therefore get a default judgement. The only reason we found out she had filed was because she'd done this with enough other guys (yes, even the fake address) that my stepmother (who worked for the state at the time) was preemptively contacting the courts every month just waiting for her to try this. And then yes, when she got a conviction later (for possession of crack cocaine, I think it was), one of the conditions was that her sentence would be reduced if she subjected to some sort of nonreversible sterilization procedure. My stepmother even picked her up (45mi away) and drove her to the hospital. She says it was to be nice, but I'm pretty sure it was to make sure she did NOT miss that appointment.

--Patrick
And, lets be real, what's the alternative? Teach your step brother to use a condom? That's ridiculous.

Not allow default judgements for claiming custody after over a decade? Actually check addresses they send legal stuff to?

For fucks sakes US, that's some shit i'd expect from a war torn african country...[DOUBLEPOST=1518544849,1518544801][/DOUBLEPOST]
Right. Imagine a world where certain subgroups of the population are/feel unjustly targeted by police and courts, and where judges would give people of those subgroups comparatively harsher sentences. Can you imagine one group being sterilized more often than others?
You mean get back to that world we;ve only left behind a few decades ago.
 

PatrThom

Genuinely Curious
#18
My step-brother is actually of above-average intelligence, but he rolled exceedingly poorly in WIS, and this has been his downfall many times over in life. I’ve spoken to it before, but can’t go looking for examples right now.

I mean, if he was the sort who looked like he’d use a condom, do you think he would have been selected by this woman? Or do you think it would’ve only gone just the one night and been broken off immediately after she discovered he was the careful type?

—Patrick
 

@Li3n

Upper Crust
#19
Victim-blaming is a shitty move. Doubly so when the post made no mention of this being an unwanted pregnancy.
Have you read his post? A planned pregnancy would reflect even worse on his step brother.

But i wasn't actually going after his step brother, see below.


My step-brother is actually of above-average intelligence, but he rolled exceedingly poorly in WIS, and this has been his downfall many times over in life. I’ve spoken to it before, but can’t go looking for examples right now.
I was actually commenting on the state of sexual education in the US... i mean, putting on a condom ain't rocket surgery.
 

PatrThom

Genuinely Curious
#20
I was actually commenting on the state of sexual education in the US... i mean, putting on a condom ain't rocket surgery.
That would’ve required planning ahead.
I’ll give him that, though. Spending ~20 years in prison has caused him to view life differently.

—Patrick
 

AshburnerX

Resident Boo Radley
#22
6 to 1, this would be just another tool in the arsenal of politicans looking to reshape the racial and political demographic of America, sort of like how the War on Drugs is now.
 

PatrThom

Genuinely Curious
#23
It already de facto is. However the fact that it’s not more widely used speaks to how loath they are to wield it, because the first one to try it will be Mengeled right out of office, no matter how "good" his intentions.

—Patrick
 
Last edited: