Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > Philosophy and Thought > Eugenics and Sterilization

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

Eugenics and Sterilization

wolvesandwildernessThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. posted this thread...
Mar. 27 at 9:13 pm

So something that isn't widely known is the influence of the American eugenics movement on the Nazi philosophies regarding pure race and how to prevent what would be considered defects. Part of what was considered in that time period for America (late 1800s, early 1900s) was sterilizing the poor, the criminals, and the mentally handicapped, because they are (in some way) not fit to be a productive member of society or produce productive members of society.
 
So what if you had, say, a serial ra.pist? Would it be okay to permanently sterilize them? Would it be okay to put them on a medication that suppresses their desire to ra.pe someone? Would it be okay to do this to a mentally handicapped person, a habitual drunk, or any person that is not in full control of themself?
 
Let me know what you think.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Ray--yoThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 31 at 6:32 am

These aren't heritable traits we're talking about here, so getting criminals sterilised won't end crime forever- thus, no point in that.
You raise an interesting point regarding mentally handicapped people, though. Would it be wrong to say all criminals, in a way, are mentally ill? Should all criminals be treated instead of penalised?
I'm interested to hear what everyone has to say on this.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Mar. 31 at 3:22 pm

There is heritability of aggression, impulsivity, and antisocialness; the first two have a strong proven correlation with criminal behavior. So if you're impulsive or aggressive, it doesn't mean that you're a born criminal (environment matters, as does neurological development), but it does raise the likelihood of criminal/antisocial behavior.
 
A lot of criminals do have psychological problems- ASPD and CD are pretty common, and a lot of convicted criminals are or have been dependent on drugs at some point. So I suppose that some sort of mental... issue, for lack of a better word, is part of it. 
 
As for treating criminals instead of punishing them, that's a debate going on right now. It's currently concerned with drug addiction, and the two models are called the Medical Model (addiction is a disease and should be treated, not punished) and the Criminal Model (addicts endanger society and their crimes should be punished like any other criminal's). So it depends on what ideology you lean toward. Either way would be costly.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Mr.packerbear12This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Apr. 4 at 8:13 pm

I believe that if a criminal commits a se.x.u.a.l crime then they should be sterilized. A lot of people who go to jail or prison for those crimes, when they get out, they do it again. Having that as punishment could really help keep people from committing such crimes. Although I believe there has to be 100% evidence that person did the crime though. Don't want someone that was wrongly convicted to have to be sterile.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Apr. 4 at 9:29 pm

That creates the arguments of ethics, though. Is it morally better to sterilize a convicted se.x offender, or is it better to let them free, knowing they can commit the crime again? If you choose the former, then where does it stop? Can you sterilize someone for child por.nography, pros.titution, or moles.tation, or only in cases of ra.pe? What happens if people decide to go further until any se.x crime warrants sterilization? What about if it's forced pros.titution? It could be a slippery slope. But if you choose the latter and you let them go, you have to live with the fact that they could do it again and it would be on your head.
 
There is also this: if you sterilize someone, you don't prevent them from ra.ping anyone (only repro.duction), and you don't prevent them from any of the other crimes I listed above. 
 
It would be quite the deterrent, though.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Mr.packerbear12This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Apr. 6 at 3:36 pm

I believe that any, any, se.xual crime..child por.nography..and everything else you mentioned, that that person should be sterilizied. If it is proven to be forced pros.titution then no they shouldn't be sterilized..but if it isn't forced they should be.
 
When someone is sterilized they most likely won't repeat a se.x.ual crime because you lose that drive when you become sterile..now someone may do it out of aggravation but it would cut down on the amount of people that repeat the crime, I believe. That is why king's had eunuchs to protect the queen, because they didn't have a drive to harm the queen se.xually.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Apr. 6 at 5:23 pm

1. Any se.x crime? Did you know that if you send an explicit picture of yourself to a girlfriend or boyfriend (or anyone) and you're under 18, you are distributing child por.nography- or if they receive it and keep it, that they are in possession of child por.nography? You'd have to sterilize a lot of teenagers. And anyone hit by a statutory r.ape charge despite it being consensual s.ex would also face sterilization.
As for voluntary pros.titution, I really don't understand the hang-up on that one. People sell goods and services of pretty much anything; why s.ex makes people so squeamish is beyond me. As long as it's voluntary for the pros.titute, it should be fine.
 
Sterilization doesn't stop the urge for s.ex. As for eunuchs, the reason they couldn't harm the queen se.xually is because they were castra.ted- their genita.lia were permanently removed. They physically could not.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
half.noteThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 15 at 12:31 pm

I'm kinda late to the party, but this is a really interesting thread. Personally, I believe that forced sterilization under any circumstances is wrong. My province (Alberta, Canada) performed forced sterilization during the eugenics movement in the early 20th century. Many people with mental disabilities were sterilized. We watched a video in class of their testimonies and it was pretty horrible. I don't think any human should have the right to make reproductive decisions for another human, even if they are a criminal. It's one thing to lock away a person for a while, but it's an entirely different thing to make permanent choices about their body. As well, I am someone who believes more in rehabilitation than punishment. Prisons should focus on giving prisoners the skills and resources to go back out in the world and contribute to society. This will greatly reduce the chance that they will re-offend and just end up back in prison. I don't think the threat of sterilization will stop anyone from committing crimes anymore than the threat of prison time will. So yeah, I don't think sterilization and eugenics are okay.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
half.noteThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Nov. 15 at 12:36 pm

Sorry for the big block of text, btw. My paragraph spaces aren't showing up. :/

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Nov. 17 at 6:57 pm

Wow, I didn't know Canada had the movement to that extent. To be honest, I felt almost a little betrayed when I found out the U.S. had it at all-- it's not something they teach here, so it took me some years of just bouncing around on Wikipedia's history pages to find it.
 
I think it's so horrible that people were willing to do it, though, especially since it wasn't entirely directed at criminals (pretty much anyone who was poor or the 'wrong' race), and I think it's terrible that I hear people agreeing with the principle given how utterly dangerous a concept it is.
 
Yeah, I'd like to rehabilitate rather than punish-- it's America; our prisons are full, full, full. However, I do realize that not everyone can be rehabilitated because not everyone is willing to give it a chance.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback