Right to Procreate???

[ringlo (imported)]

going out and committing murder or whatever he did to get himself in prison for the rest of his days on the Earth?

As far as I'm informed Gerber got his life sentence for a third strike offense -for for making terrorist threats, using narcotics, negligently discharging a gun and illegally possessing a gun as an ex-felon. (He shot his tv set).

So you are certainly right with the assumption that this guy is dirt poor. Otherwise he wouldn't be serving a life sentence for "normal rock star behavior".

But back to the topic of this discussion: I concur with you that a prison inmate does not have the right to procreate. If having a child was so important to this guy he should have done anything to avoid prison (which he obviously didn't) not only to be able to father a child, but to support his so much wanted offspring. Not only financially.

ringlo

[Riverwind (imported)]

This guy is like 50, his wife is 47, they should have grown kids by now, I know I do and the last thing in the world I would want is to raise another kid. NO NO NO I am the happiest grandpa you can fine and love my grandkids but again would not care to raise them on a full time basis.

What in the hell is this 47 yr old woman thinking ? Having a baby at her age, is it her first? I think we need a lot more information on this case like how many kids do they already have, not necessarily with each other. How long have these love birds been married ? I have a lot of questions but still the biggest one is what gives this ass hole who is in for life the right to even think he should be able to have a kid with his wife? This does not make any sense to me at all.

[SplitDik (imported)]

A-1,

This is one of those conversations with you that I enjoy, and like the others I think we will end up agreeing to disagree ...

My problem with your stance is that it assumes that life should be fair, or that the penal system is supposed to make things fair. However, by all measures life is not fair at all. The only place where the legal system can even get close to being "fair" is when monetary compensation is awarded for monetary damages (i.e. I cause $10,000 damage to your vehicle, so I pay $10,000 back). However, then we start to give monetary awards for non-monetary damages ($1 million for pain and suffering, etc.) But anyone can see that that is very arbitrary -- how much is my leg worth, or my hearing, or my general pain?

So criminal prosecution cannot really consider compensation -- how do you give a life back? Even if you set a monetary value, most criminals could not pay it ...

So therefore we cannot assume that the criminal legal system will provide any compensation for victims.

So the question is, what is should the legal system try to accomplish? Punishment for revenge? Punishment as a deterrent? Protection of society (by locking up criminals)? Or rehabilitation (teaching criminals a better way to participate in society)?

One can argue forever about the above, and I will only give a few comments.

Punishment as a deterrent only works for rational people who have something to lose. If a person is irrational (even for a moment, such as drunk, or emotionally distraught) they don't care about future consequences and will perform criminal acts. For example, even the idea of the death penalty was not enough to deter the DC Sniper. Also, if someone's life takes a turn where they feel they've lost everything, they won't care about consequences (like going "postal" after losing one's job). Another danger with extreme sentencing is you end up with the "scapegoat" effect -- a few people end up overly-punished in an attempt to dissuade others (like jail time for marijuana possession). My conclusion is that after the point where rational people would be deterred escalating punishments will not necessarily help reduce crime.

Locking people up, to protect society, is a good solution with the exception that it is very expensive to the society. The restriction of freedom is enough of a deterrent for rational people, and is also a solution for minimizing the time dangerously irrational people are on the streets. One problem with the protection of society angle is that some crimes are one-time. A person who kills his wife may not be a general threat to society. So if you sentence people just based on their future threat to society, many crimes might go unpunished.

Rehabilitation is one of the more difficult issues to resolve. I firmly believe that people learn by making mistakes, and in the process some people will make serious mistakes. An example would be the 19 year old who goes to a bar for the first time (drinking age in BC is 19), drinks more than he can handle, gets in a fight outside the bar and ends up killing someone. Our society cannot accept intoxication as an excuse, but I personally cannot fully blame the person -- he got in over his head and ended up making a serious mistake. What is the appropriate sentence? I think such a person can be rehabilitated. He needs to be locked up (as a deterrent), but not in a way that criminalizes him for the rest of his life. On the flip side of rehabilitation, we know that irrational behaviors, patterns of violence and drug use, etc. are very, very difficult to change. How much benefit of the doubt should we give?

Okay, so how does all this relate to the sperm story? Well, I do not think that preventing him from shipping his sperm provides any value to his sentence. It is not going to affect the decision of someone who might do a crime (who's thinking about shipping sperm when you're committing armed-robbery?).

The one angle that people here seem to be making is that it is a matter of protection of society. The problem is, if we say that criminality is a genetic trait then we are dangerously close to eugenics -- we just can't go there. Plus, I think we all know people whose parents are crazy, irresponsible, etc. but who themselves are very positive members of society. I also hear the argument about their age. However, women of up to 50 are now having children -- unless we are going to disallow that across the board, we cannot stop this individual.

So I just don't see any purpose in them dissallowing this.

[SplitDik (imported)]

I'd like to recap with my suggestion for how criminal sentencing SHOULD work:

If the criminal is deemed rational, then they should be given a sentence that would be a deterrent to other rational people (i.e. 5 years for grand theft auto).

If the criminal fits a rehabilitatable profile (i.e. the guy who kills a person in a youthful, drunken brawl), then we should ensure that their time served is aimed at reintegrating them back into society.

If the criminal is irrational, or unrehabilitatable, then they should be locked up indefinitely for the purpose of keeping them off the street.

The above would all be very subjective (who's rational? who's rehabilitatable?), but I think it is a reasonable framework for sentencing and corrections.

[A-1 (imported)]

So,

If Susan Smith wants to get pregnant again then she should be impregnated, right?

What about the woman in Texas who killed all of her children by drowning them in the bathtub?

Should she be "cured" by medication and then allowed to have children?

To allow Gerber this privledge and not to allow women the same consideration is discrimination.

You are right about one thing, however. I will never agree with you and apparently the U.S. Supreme Court is on my side.

I do think that it is a "Mr. Fantastic" stretch to call what we are discussing here "Eugenics". The only person who by his actions that has forbidden Mr. Gerber to procreate is Mr. Gerber.

As far as the youngster getting drunk and killing somebody maybe, just maybe, HE should have been more responsible. Accepting the consequences for your actions is being responsible. If he had no consequences then he would be irresponsible, wouldn't he?

No, we have seen things like this before. In Steven King's "Shankshaw Redemption" the system was corrupt. I suppose tht all correctional systems are corrupt to an extent, but still, you have to do something with somebody that behaves in this manner.

Allowing Gerber to procreate despite a system that de facto forbids it is enabling him to continue to be irresponsible with the blessing of that system AND the government.

No, the court made the right decision on this one. Gerber needs to do his time for doing his crime and if that means that his wife does not get pregnant by him, then so be it.

By the way, I am glad that somebody informed me that he was not doing time for murder. Now I am no longer mad enough to nut the poor bastard.

Now, if you want to debate the "3 strikes" laws that have "mandatory minimum sentencing" then I bet that we can find a whole lot of common ground.

A-1

BTW, Mr. Fantastic, aren't you getting tired of dealing with the "Human Torch" the "Thing" and XXX (whatever that blonde wench is called) on this board....

[Riverwind (imported)]

Lets please not start a thread or decusion on the three strike rule. This has to be one of the dumbest laws ever passed and should be overturned and I think it will be in time. But who said justice was fare.