Grossmont College Castration Is Ineffective Discussion and Responses

Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?

Get your assignment on Grossmont College Castration Is Ineffective Discussion and Responses  completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW

Do My Paper

PROMPT

Step 1: Post your response to the following:

• Be sure to view The Eugenics Crusade (Links to an external site.) and read Latinos and the Consequences of Eugenics (Links to an external site.).
• BUCK V. BELL, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)

In 1924, Virginia adopted a statute authorizing the compulsory sterilization (i.e., a procedure that renders persons unable to have children) of persons with intellectual disabilities for the purpose of eugenics. Carrie Buck, an 18-year-old, was described by the superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded as “feebleminded” (an archaic term used to label individuals who had intellectual disabilities or who had certain cognitive impairments) and a genetic threat to society. Carrie was housed at the same institution as her mother, who was also labeled as feebleminded. In addition, Carrie was the mother of a child born outside of marriage who was classified as feebleminded. 

The superintendent requested that Carrie be sexually sterilized so she would be unable to have additional children, arguing that it was for the betterment of society. The Supreme Court agreed. In an 8 to 1 decision, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated:

It is better for all the world, 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. (274 U.S. 200, P. 208). 

1. Eugenics sterilization programs were eventually abolished. In fact, in 2002, Virginia Governor Mark Warner formally apologized for Virginia’s sterilization program (Virginia governor apologizes, 2002). In 2015, the Virginia General Assembly approved payments of up to $25,000 to persons sterilized under Virginia’s eugenics program (Virginia to compensate, 2015). Is this sufficient recourse for Virginia’s prior practice of sterilization? Why or why not? Explain. 

Choose one of the following:

1. Today, debate continues about castration (usually through the administration of drugs) of sex offenders. Arguments for the practice suggests it reduces recidivism and increases the safety of citizens (e.g., namely children). Arguments against the practice highlight moral and medical concerns about implementing compulsory sterilization, and indicate possible due process and and cruel and unusual punishment issues (Runckel, 1997). In light of what you’ve learned, which side of the argument do you find more persuasive? Why or why not? Explain. *Note–California was the first U.S. state to specify the use of chemical castration for repeat child molesters as a condition of their parole. 
2. There was no sound scientific basis for eugenics, and yet categories such as “feebleminded” were created for classifying individuals. Eugenicists also believed that qualities such as poverty, criminality, and good or bad work ethic were passed down through genes. The majority of people targeted for sterilization were deemed of inferior intelligence, particularly poor people and eventually people of color (Black, 2003). Why do you think these ideas took hold? What do you think was appealing to some people (e.g., scientists, politicians, social reformers, etc.)  about these ideas? Explain. 
3. Responses
4. In my opinion, the Governor apologizing and the Virginia General Assembly giving $25,000 to the people that were sterilized does not amount to what they went through under the Virginia Eugenics Program. Those people who got sterilized in the program will never be able to have children of their own because of a program that no longer exists. Conception Ruiz, a teenage Mexican American was part of the Virginia Eugenics Program. She was summarily forced to undergo an irreversible surgery without the benefit of due process. Her life would be forever changed, and for that she demanded $150,000 in damages (Lira, 2018). I think that all people who suffered in the Virginia Eugenics Program should follow in Ruiz’s footsteps and go to court for their rights that they did not know they had. It would not bring back the ability to reproduce, but it will give them a chance to maybe get more than $25,000. Also, nobody knows whether their children would have been born with cognitive impairments or intellectual disabilities because what if they inherited the genes of the other parent that was not considered feebleminded. The Latinos and the Consequences of Eugenics stated that The Measurement of Intelligence, by Lewis Terman declared that intelligence was not only hereditary but directly correlated to morality, crime, and poverty (Lira, 2018). Terman too wrote and popularized one of the most widely used intelligence tests to tell if a person was stable enough to be fit for society (Lira, 2018). Not being intelligent and committing crime are two very distinct things. They could correlate with each other, but someone who is not intelligent does not always mean they will add harm to the society. I think instead of sending a non-intelligent person to a home to be sterilized, they should at least get a chance to have a life in society without being judged by how they were born or what genes they inherited. To me, it is not fair that because someone seems to be unfit for the society, they are not able to have a chance in the society nor do they get to have children at any time in their life. Now that the program is abolished, those people cannot have back what got taken away so the apology and the $25,000 was not sufficient recourse for what the victims of the Virginia Eugenics Program had to overcome.2) The argument that I find more persuasive is the castration of sex offenders that suggests that it reduces recidivism and increases the safety of citizens. I find this more persuasive because if the sex offenders keep repeating the same crime, they deserve to be punished in some way. This argument is better for the safety of the society which most people want. Keeping societies safe and with as little crime as possible can help many lives. The other argument says that castration indicates cruel and unusual punishment, but at the same time the sex offenders are performing cruel and unusual actions towards citizens, especially towards children. I do not feel bad about castration of sex offenders because the crimes they do are very disturbing and unforgiving. Eugenics was originally conceived as a concept of social responsibility to improve the lives of everyone in society and in this case, castration could improve the lives and safety of citizens by decreasing the sex offending crime (Valenzuela, 2013, p. 47). From what I have learned, eugenics is about improving the society and making it better for the people living in it by getting rid of unfit people. In this situation, the unfit people are the sex offenders that repeatedly commit the crime without being taught a lesson. If castration can help stop sex offenders from committing crime repeatedly, why not implement it for the better of the society. Castration and sterilization are cruel things to do to people, but I do not think it is when the criminals are doing the cruel acts to children and even adults. If anything, I think that castration could potentially teach sex offenders to stop what they do and could show others that castration will be the punishment if you commit the crime. In all, it could stop current sex offenders and even future sex offenders, making many societies a safer place for citizens. On the other hand, I do not agree with sterilization or castration for people that are seen as unfit or feebleminded if they did not commit a crime because they do not deserve it. I think they should at least be taught how to be like others, not just thrown to be separated from the rest. I think the debate about castration should not be a hard one to consider regarding that these criminals are a harm to societies and to the victims within the societies.  The overall question I had about the readings is in Cesare Lombroso’s The Born Criminal. How can one’s physical appearances and anomalies show that one is a born criminal? Sure, criminals can have some things in common, but not down to facial characteristics because everyone is different. Lombroso does have many researches that can help his theory but how can he really prove his theory? I do not think there is a way to prove Lombroso’s theory because I do not believe that crime is hereditary.
5.   I believe the process of castration seems to be the right step in order to reduce the offenses that sex offenders go through. Although, it is also clear to see that it can be against one’s morals, they may think it is unnecessary to do, and unfair to them. However, it is also and much more cruel to the victims who had to go through this situation that those sex offenders put them through. In order to prevent sex offenders to repeatedly commit the same crimes once being set free from prison, the best option as seen is to use a chemical castration to reduce one’s testosterone levels. Many other states have decided to undergo with this procedure, this was because there was a high percentage of sex offenders and those states strongly believed it would reduce less offenses. Since many sex offenders also declined the operation and not having a strong view on it,“surgical castration has been proven to reduce the sex drives of many offenders, according to several studies. A German study showed a recidivism rate of 3 percent for castrated offenders, compared to 46 percent for non-castrated offenders.” (Sealey 2006). Therefore, this procedure is a good way to keep the public in a safety environment within their communities and neighborhoods. With such little rates of crime occurring, it is keeping future lives from picking the wrong path and committing serious crimes. If a sex offender were to want to help themselves out rather than to continue coming in and out of prison, they should go with the procedure. While this procedure has not been fully looked at from all states, it is an important step to go further with to reduce recidivism. The importance of eugenics in this situation is to reduce recidivism from sex offenders, the goal is to improve the negatives and change for the better within society. I believe the criminal justice system has a lot of changes to be made, therefore, eugenics is aiming for a better future to those who are committing ongoing crimes. While many believe that there are other ways to punish these sex offenders, such as the capital punishment, it is not much of a strong step to go about. Overall, there should be fairness to the victim and one’s crime should be looked at carefully to determine and equal what punishment they should receive, nothing less or more depending on their crime. Part 2: Many of these Eugenicists believed that those who were immigrants were not smart and had some sort of disability. While they wanted to develop a better society and population, in order to do so they would have to tell these people to focus on good aspects of eugenics. It is clear to see through statistics that many people who grow up in low income communities with high crime rates, lack of resources and programs were more likely to turn towards the negatives. Someone who grows up within a family who are offenders, once there is violence it is generally passed on. This can either be because of the environment they are surrounded in on a daily basis or if it’s passed on genetically. Since there was inequality between helping those who were healthy and not helping those who weren’t such as those who had a mental illness, many of those went through sterilization. The reason for this being done was because many believed that if one were to have a bad illness, they wouldn’t want it to be passed on to their child. When it comes to politicians, there were a lot of strong views that poverty would lower down and change. The majority of people targeted for sterilization were deemed of inferior intelligence, particularly poor people and eventually people of color because those who were colored were most likely seen to be criminals. “Under the state’s law, passed in 1909, individuals committed to any of the 11 state institutions for the “insane” or “feeble-minded” could be sterilized at the discretion of institutional authorities. While the law did not require consent, institutional authorities often sought signatures from parents or guardians but never from patients.” (Lira 2018). Many of whom went under sterilization, weren’t allowed to have a say, this is where the problem had escalated by getting a signature from someone else who was not undergoing this procedure. Lastly, regarding the article about Latinos and The Consequences of Eugenics, I also agree that someone who is not intelligent does not always mean that they will commit a harsh crime. Though, someone may not be aware of what they are doing because they aren’t as smart as someone who is for example, I also believe that they should receive the help they need but out in the world rather than being stabilized in an institution with no freedom. It shows to be that there is no fairness or chance for someone to prove themselves. After the readings, an overall question I would have is why did one have to agree to sterilization or else they would lose help from programs?