SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The ACLU of Tennessee has criticized a judge's sentence reduction deal for inmates. Judge Sam Benningfield signed an order permitting a 30-day sentence reduction for male inmates who agree to have vasectomy and female inmates who agree to get the birth control implant Nexplanon, which prevents pregnancy for four years.
The program is voluntary. However, the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee has condemned the program, calling it "unconstitutional." [...] But Benningfield, who declined to speak to NBC News, told News Channel 5 that he is trying to encourage "personal responsibility" among inmates, who will not "be burdened with children" when they are released. "This gives them a chance to get on their feet and make something of themselves," Benningfield told the station.
Since the program began, 32 women have received the birth control implant and 38 men have agreed to have a vasectomy, News Channel 5 reported. It was not immediately clear how many men have undergone the surgery.
Inmates can get two days knocked off their sentences for attending a course about the risks of babies born addicted to opioids:
America's opioid crisis is expanding to a new class of victims—unborn children. Infants are being born with symptoms of withdrawal, also known as Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome, or NAS. In the last decade, states like Tennessee have seen a ten-fold rise in the number of babies born with NAS.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 22 2017, @09:35PM (7 children)
That's not true. Vasectomies cannot always be reversed in a very significant percentage of cases. Thus, this Judge is committing genocide and deserves to be executed.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday July 22 2017, @09:49PM (3 children)
The legal definition of genocide [preventgenocide.org]
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [preventgenocide.org]
The action doesn't show intent to destroy a particular group listed under the definition. The order applied to all inmates, not black inmates, for example.
It doesn't satisfy II(d) because the measure is voluntary, not imposed. If the inmates eschew the offer of a 30 day reduction of a lawfully imposed sentence (inb4 govt is a violently imposed monopoly), they do not face any consequences and continue to be fed 3 square meals a day.
So it isn't genocide. That's important because watering down the definition of genocide is not a good idea.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by http on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:42AM (1 child)
A prisoner facing sentencing is not in a position to negotiate as an equal. Calling it "voluntary" is quite the novel corruption.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @11:07AM
Good point.
Of course, that goes for any and all actions by prisoners that will take off time of their sentence, including "time off for good behaviour".
Basically, you get that later reward if you show you can fit in worth an authoritarian structure and know your place at the bottom of it.
So: is any sentence reduction wrong? If not, what distinguishes this one from others?
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Sunday July 23 2017, @08:36AM
Except it does.
And making blackness part of it will be problematic because everyone knows blackness is a problem but we just shouldn't make it a criteria. Right? Right?? Just being sarcastic.
Without going into the fact that black people are more likely to be incarcerated or that they actually represent a large percentage of the convicts, let us ask this question:
"If one of those convictions gets overturned in upper court, will the judge go through vasectomy?"
I am very well aware that for all the lofty ideals of society that jail is just a correctional facility, in reality the raison d'être for jail is to keep the male population that doesn't agree with the system, out of it. Letting them not breed is just another step towards it. So in part I agree that this is not genocide per say. But do we have any checks and balances to see if this judge is actually NOT punishing a group of people based on some criteria that might make this whole ordeal qualify as a genocide? The sad answer is a resounding no. As a judge he is in a particularly powerful position with almost no oversight and impunity whatsoever to do whatever he or she pleases. Unless there is a law that specifically asks for such punishment, judiciary really really must restrain itself from passing ridiculous orders.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday July 22 2017, @11:21PM (2 children)
Oh come on -- the world has no need for more humans. At some point, we are going to have to get ahead of exponential population growth. It would be nice if we did that before every square meter wasn't covered with people stacked 10 high.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 23 2017, @01:43AM (1 child)
And that's not going to happen. This judge is in the US, the US has a population that would be falling if not for the waves of immigrants that continue to come here. We're in no risk of running out of either space or other resources.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday July 23 2017, @03:17PM
While entire house is one fire: Oh look, that spot under the sink isn't burning yet!