Quote:Judge Gives Inmates Reduced Sentences If They Sterilize Themselves
The idea that a certain class is inevitably criminal and should be shorn of the potential to repopulate itself is toxic. Yet it persists.
Kyle Sammin
For a belief system supposedly banished to the distant past, the theory of eugenics is strangely persistent. Recently it reared its head in Tennessee as a local judge launched a new policy granting male prisoners time off their sentences if they agreed to be sterilized. Female prisoners were offered the same deal if they agreed to have birth control devices implanted. Although couched in the language of personal responsibility, the program represents a state government dipping its toe back into the pool of eugenics and becoming involved once more in a hateful theory from a dark period in our history.
Judge Sam Benningfield was elected in a nonpartisan election to the General Sessions Court in White County, Tennessee, and probably did not run as a progressive. White County is hardly a hotbed of twenty-first-century progressivism—Democratic presidential candidates have not carried the county since 2000, and President Trump got 78 percent of the vote there last year.
But as it did a century ago, the ideas of the eugenics branch of progressivism can prove seductive even to those who would otherwise call themselves conservative. No matter their political stripe, once in office many politicians are tempted to use the power of government to do good, as they define it, even they should know from history that no good can come of restricting people’s rights to have children. It is a policy that is anti-human and against the spirit of America.
Everything Old Is New Again
I wrote back in April about the history of eugenics as a part of the progressive movement, and how twenty-first-century leftists routinely ignore that history. Eugenics was a widespread movement that was part of a growing political and scientific consensus in the early twentieth century. Progressives, who wanted the government run by experts according to “scientific” principles, saw this as the natural culmination of their pursuit of a more perfect human species.
Even high school textbooks of the day taught eugenics as uncontroversial science. Consider these lines from “A Civic Biology,” a 1914 biology textbook, written by George William Hunter and issued by the nation’s largest book publisher:
Hundreds of families … exist to-day, spreading disease, immorality, and crime to all parts of this country. The cost to society of such families is very severe. Just as certain animals or plants become parasitic on other plants or animals, these families have become parasitic on society. They not only do harm to others by corrupting, stealing, or spreading disease, but they are actually protected and cared for by the state out of public money…. They take from society, but they give nothing in return. They are true parasites.
If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe, and are now meeting with success in this country.
When You Have Only a Hammer, Everything Is A Nail
It is the stuff of fascism, and progressives eventually disavowed eugenics, at least publicly, when they saw its results in Nazi Germany and elsewhere. Yet there are some, mostly on the Left but sometimes on the Right, who still believe that the solution to humanity’s ills is fewer humans.
We saw this recently in Damian Carrington’s article in The Guardian entitled “Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children.” The old justifications are tweaked in accordance with newer leftist goals and customs—the health of the planet has replaced the health of the species—but the prescription is ever the same: culling the herd. Carrington could have been writing a century ago as he interviews Kimberly Nicholas, one of the researchers involved in the study he cites:
We recognise these are deeply personal choices. But we can’t ignore the climate effect our lifestyle actually has,’ said Nicholas. ‘It is our job as scientists to honestly report the data. Like a doctor who sees the patient is in poor health and might not like the message ‘smoking is bad for you’, we are forced to confront the fact that current emission levels are really bad for the planet and human society.’
Progressives say “current emission levels are really bad for the planet” just as they might have said “current reproduction levels are really bad for the species” back in 1914. Wrong as they were back then, one must at least credit them for wanting to help humanity; their modern successors seemingly do not even care about that. Advancing humanity takes a back seat to advancing the planet.
They never manage to answer the question: if decreasing the human population is necessary to save the planet, for whom exactly is the planet meant to be saved?
‘Three Generations Is Enough’
Judge Benningfield’s idea harkens back to the older, human-centered progressivism, but it is still a vision of humanity at odds with the dignity of every individual. That is the nature of progressivism, after all. It is a philosophy steeped in the ichor of utilitarianism, the theory that society should pursue policies that achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Like a lot of terrible ideas, that sounds great at first. But it inevitably conflicts with individual rights, and under progressivism those rights must be subordinated to the welfare of the community, as defined by the state. Utilitarianism always ends in the gulag. A local news story on the judge’s pronouncement laid out his reasoning:
Judge Benningfield told NewsChannel 5 that he was trying to break a vicious cycle of repeat offenders who constantly come into his courtroom on drug related charges, subsequently can’t afford child support and have trouble finding jobs.
‘I hope to encourage them to take personal responsibility and give them a chance, when they do get out, to not to be burdened with children. This gives them a chance to get on their feet and make something of themselves.’
That idea of “trying to break a vicious cycle of repeat offenders” is, nearly word-for-word, an echo of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Buck v. Bell, the 1927 case that upheld Virginia’s policy of sterilizing state asylum inmates without their consent. The decision by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes laid out a similar desire to break a cycle of reproduction by people the judge viewed as unworthy of life: “It is better…if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind….Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Benningfield’s policy is less coercive than the one in Buck v. Bell, but it is still grotesque. His goal and the goal Holmes explained are the same. Unlike the old Virginia law, the judge would allow prisoners to choose their reproductive potential. For women, the process is easily reversible and even for men the surgery can typically be undone. But the idea that a certain class is inevitably criminal and should be shorn of the potential to repopulate itself is toxic.
People Are Not a Disease, No Matter Their Parentage
As Glenn Stanton wrote here last week, the problem is too few people, not too many. Each human being has the potential to create, to explore, to build, and to contribute to society. Most of us will pass through this life without leaving behind much that future generations will care about. The exception to this is our children. In them, and in their children, and their children, we all contribute to sustaining our species and our cultures. Encouraging people to forgo that process condemns them to oblivion and tells them that they are not worthy to be a part of that continuum.
Some people may choose to sterilize themselves, but it is not a decision the government should encourage. To do so inevitably forces the state to choose which people are better than others and which have no chance of adding anything to the nation, even through their offspring.
America is in love with rags-to-riches stories. We are all enamored of tales where people rise up from humble beginnings against all odds to achieve great things for themselves and their communities. Eugenics, even at this minor and voluntary level, belies that image. It tells us that, in the government’s view, some people are so debased that neither they nor their descendants will ever rise above their lowly station, that they will never contribute anything to their communities but crime and poverty. It is a deeply pessimistic view of humanity, and one at odds with the true spirit of America.
Kyle Sammin is a lawyer and writer from Pennsylvania. Read some of his other writing at kylesammin.com, or follow him on Twitter @KyleSammin.
This is not eugenics solely based on the fact that it is 100% voluntary. If it was mandatory you'd have a huge point and people should scream bloody murder over it. We have a gallows humor joke about when one of the people we deal with tells us they, or the girlfriend, is pregnant; job security.
My favorite part is where he starts off with this:
Quote:Judge Sam Benningfield was elected in a nonpartisan election to the General Sessions Court in White County, Tennessee, and probably did not run as a progressive
but then goes on to pin the prevalence of eugenics in the early 20th century on some progressive agenda, rather than the fact that eugenics was a prevailing perspective across many cultures and social groupings at the time. This was a time where things such as child labor, lobotomies, and incarceration of women into asylums for hysteria were still very much a reality.
Let's just play his game and blame the crucifixion of Jesus on conservatism, since they were just trying to preserve their society's values at the time.
(07-24-2017, 05:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is not eugenics solely based on the fact that it is 100% voluntary. If it was mandatory you'd have a huge point and people should scream bloody murder over it. We have a gallows humor joke about when one of the people we deal with tells us they, or the girlfriend, is pregnant; job security.
I would agree with you if they didn't hold over them jail time. They still have leverage and using it to encourage sterilization is eugenics. Would these people sterilize without the early release?
(07-24-2017, 06:11 PM)treee Wrote: My favorite part is where he starts off with this:
but then goes on to pin the prevalence of eugenics in the early 20th century on some progressive agenda, rather than the fact that eugenics was a prevailing perspective across many cultures and social groupings at the time. This was a time where things such as child labor, lobotomies, and incarceration of women into asylums for hysteria were still very much a reality.
Let's just play his game and blame the crucifixion of Jesus on conservatism, since they were just trying to preserve their society's values at the time.
Actually we would blame big government on the crucifixtion.
(07-24-2017, 08:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I would agree with you if they didn't hold over them jail time. They still have leverage and using it to encourage sterilization is eugenics. Would these people sterilize without the early release?
vol·un·tar·y
ˈvälənˌterē/ adjective
1.
done, given, or acting of one's own free will. "we are funded by voluntary contributions" synonyms: optional, discretionary, elective, noncompulsory, volitional; permissive
"attendance is voluntary"
No matter what the incentive it remains voluntary, thus, not eugenics.
1.
done, given, or acting of one's own free will. "we are funded by voluntary contributions" synonyms: optional, discretionary, elective, noncompulsory, volitional; permissive
"attendance is voluntary"
No matter what the incentive it remains voluntary, thus, not eugenics.
Yes. But giving out sentence relief to a prisoner is pretty big. I imagine most would do almost anything to get out of prison.
(07-24-2017, 11:45 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Yes. But giving out sentence relief to a prisoner is pretty big. I imagine most would do almost anything to get out of prison.
Yes, and getting offered a 20k signing bonus to re-up and go back overseas is pretty big to a 22-year-old soldier, but it didn't make the choice less voluntary.
If he was entrapping people or framing people for crimes and THEN sentencing them to jail and offering it so they could get out, THEN you could get back to us on how it's not *really* voluntary.
(07-24-2017, 11:46 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, and getting offered a 20k signing bonus to re-up and go back overseas is pretty big to a 22-year-old soldier, but it didn't make the choice less voluntary.
If he was entrapping people or framing people for crimes and THEN sentencing them to jail and offering it so they could get out, THEN you could get back to us on how it's not *really* voluntary.
1.
done, given, or acting of one's own free will. "we are funded by voluntary contributions" synonyms: optional, discretionary, elective, noncompulsory, volitional; permissive
"attendance is voluntary"
No matter what the incentive it remains voluntary, thus, not eugenics.
It's still eugenics. Eugenics is not defined by whether it is voluntary or involuntary.
EUGENICS
noun, ( used with a singular verb)
1.
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)
(07-25-2017, 12:23 AM)Vlad Wrote:
It's still eugenics. Eugenics is not defined by whether it is voluntary or involuntary.
EUGENICS
noun, ( used with a singular verb)
1.
the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)
By this logic encouraging condom use could be considered eugenics, or any form of birth control. After all, Catholics won't use them, so encouraging their use ensures fewer non-Catholics reproduce.
(07-25-2017, 12:24 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: In other (fake) news, people do work in exchange for money.
Slavery is alive and well
I can't like this post enough.
(07-25-2017, 12:27 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Lol, the worst part of that joke is that you can just go back and find that thread where XXLT tried to convince people that the NFL was slavery.
I legit like xxlt, but he's become a bit unhinged of late. I will say, one year I was watching the NFL combine at my parent's house (visiting) and they were weighing and measuring the dudes (same year Calvin Johnson was entering the draft btw) and my mom commented that it looked like a slave auction. It's worth noting that my mother was ultra feminist and racially progressive.
(07-25-2017, 12:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I legit like xxlt, but he's become a bit unhinged of late. I will say, one year I was watching the NFL combine at my parent's house (visiting) and they were weighing and measuring the dudes (same year Calvin Johnson was entering the draft btw) and my mom commented that it looked like a slave auction. It's worth noting that my mother was ultra feminist and racially progressive.
?
- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
Oh man, 2007 draft.. aka, the year the Raiders chose Jamarcus Russell over Calvin Johnson.
Lol... Jamarcus Russell got a 6yr/$61m deal for being picked 1st overall that year. Calvin Johnson had to "settle" for 6yr/$55.5m as the #2 pick.
2007 Drafted QBs:
1st, Jamarcus Russell
22nd, Brady Quinn
36th, Kevin Kolb
40th, John Beck
43rd, Drew Stanton
92nd, Trent Edwards
151st, Jeff Rowe
205th, Jordan Palmer
217th, Tyler Thigpen
(07-24-2017, 11:46 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yes, and getting offered a 20k signing bonus to re-up and go back overseas is pretty big to a 22-year-old soldier, but it didn't make the choice less voluntary.
If he was entrapping people or framing people for crimes and THEN sentencing them to jail and offering it so they could get out, THEN you could get back to us on how it's not *really* voluntary.
The 20 year old soldier isn't living life restricted to a cell if he doesn't re-up. He gets to go home and still come and go as he pleases.
Prisoner gets a choice of a prison cell and no freedom or sterilization so he can come and go as he pleases. Your example of a soldier doesn't fit because there is no restriction on the soldiers life as it is for the prisoner.
(07-25-2017, 01:15 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The 20 year old soldier isn't living life restricted to a cell if he doesn't re-up. He gets to go home and still come and go as he pleases.
Prisoner gets a choice of a prison cell and no freedom or sterilization so he can come and go as he pleases. Your example of a soldier doesn't fit because there is no restriction on the soldiers life as it is for the prisoner.
The criminal had their choice before they committed their crime. Life is about choices, choose wisely. Soldiers have huge restrictions on their life choices, it's not a commitment you can walk away from. You also grossly oversimplify, (shocking) as the sterilization isn't "come (pun?) and go as you please" it's reduced sentence. Please stay consistent within your own argument, it'll be less confusing for all of us.
(07-25-2017, 01:19 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The criminal had their choice before they committed their crime. Life is about choices, choose wisely. Soldiers have huge restrictions on their life choices, it's not a commitment you can walk away from. You also grossly oversimplify, (shocking) as the sterilization isn't "come (pun?) and go as you please" it's reduced sentence. Please stay consistent within your own argument, it'll be less confusing for all of us.
Soldier's life is no way as restrictive as a prisoner. however the prisoner got there is irrelevant. Getting out early from a captive situation is quite different than taking a paying job.
People in captivity often resort to desperate measures to get out of their situation or make it less terrible. Dangling that carrot with sterilization is not right. It's sinister.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416686247_404249095282684_8421704982366424390_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=p8hMrwwk1IoAX8mnFLJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBXs4gKHr4knFejO874dfV3zzLd_bq4GiUqHxGWFlwbug&oe=659A7198)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
![[Image: hurt-today-696x488.jpg]](https://ageofshitlords.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/hurt-today-696x488.jpg)
?
