Judge orders California to pay for inmate's sex change

Even if I could sympathize with his/her plight, why is it the taxpayers' responsibility to pay for it?

If it was a matter of health I could see it, as the state is responsible for them, but to me they're not responsible for surgery to make inmates "feel better" about themselves. What's next? Nose jobs and tummy tucks for prisoners who feel unattractive?

 

Why do you care about my definition? Shouldn't you be more interested in the judge's definition?

 

You bring up an important question about what is the role of prisons. Should it be to punish someone, or rehabilitate someone? The argument I'm making is for rehabilitation. Even though this person might not get out of jail, it shows that the state has an interest in helping her life out. She might die in jail, but at least the state tried to show her the error of her ways. It's symbolic of what the state should be doing for prisoners.

 

LOL! Bingo! This is the lib mentality and I swear it's getting worse. This bastard murdered someone, goes to prison for life and wants to live in prison as a woman and this lib judge thinks he should also....

No damn common sense, no concern about the expense dumped on the taypayers who'd be paying for it and the cost of the surgery would be astronomical..... $ that should be spent on the needy and many other better uses that would help decent people.....and what good would it do Harry to become Harriet in prison anyway? The guy is 51 lived as a guy all these yrs, so might as well finish out the rest of his miserable life as a guy....

Wake up, Krane!

 

You obviously side with the judge so I am wondering how this medical procedure is absolutely indispensable, medically speaking, in your mind.

 

I don't have to know, I just have to know that the judge is a reliable person and his opinion should be trusted.

 

And I'm sure you believe the killer needs a vagina so he can be happy during his lifelong stay behind bars......

If the state has that kind of $ to throw away, then give it to families w/kids who need a helping hand! There's many out there ... or didn't you know that?

 

BULL(*)(*)(*)(*).......you like the judge and trust him b/c he's a liberal......

Not all judges are 'reliable and trustworthy'......

 

She? There is no "she" in this story. And this is not a medical necessity, this is elective cosmetic surgery. Should a flat chested woman in prison be given implants to build her self esteem? How about a bald guy getting hair implants?

 

Really? Considering his decision I don't think his opinion should be trusted at all and you can't provide any insight at all as to why removing this criminal's penis is a "necessity". You only believe that it is. Thanks for displaying the sort of deep critical thinking skills leftists are famous for.

 

And this person is not going anywhere in life other than a wood box provided for by the prison. So again, what is the point of making this MURDERER feel better?

- - - Updated - - -

Dont give them any ideas man.

 

How do you know he's a liberal? Because he believe one argument?

- - - Updated - - -

Because other people will see this and wonder whether or not they'll be treated the same way. Then tell them that as criminals they'll stay that way. What gets done because of it?

 

aww puddin, another MURDERER might be scared he wont get a vagina if he wants one.

What gets done here other than $100k in tax dollars being wasted when it could have been put to real use? The poor people you champion need something to eat, yet you want to take care of a MURDERERS need of having a vagina.

Just goes to show that the poor are only a priority when you liberals need them to be. Maybe instances like this need to be used to show the true side of liberal dingbats.

 

Are you telling me that you conduct all your own research? You go to every single place in the world in order to see what's happening? Or do you rely on someone else to tell you what's happening in the world? Now then, you don't have to like what the truth is, but if this is the truth, suck it up. The judge agreed that since this is the prescribed treatment for dealing with dsyphoria, then this is how it should be done.

- - - Updated - - -

Does it interfer with their lives to the point where it's considered the only thing that can be done?

 

Sorry, my bad.

 

Yes, among other things like being appointed by King Barry Obama. Keep going. You're doing great!

 

Ideally I agree with you. Punishment won't undo the deed that sent them to prison in the first place; however, many people who are incarcerated are beyond redemption in my mind, so rehabilitation wouldn't work on them. Punishment is pretty much a way for the state to protect others from them. And you also hope it serves as a deterrent to criminal behavior, although I have my doubts about that. Many ex-inmates I've known only think in the present and don't think about future consequences, so I don't believe that to be the case. Well when it comes down to the difference between coming down hard on punishment and just a medium amount.

Without any punishment at all people wouldn't be afraid of going to prison and would likely engage in criminal activity.

To me punishment can be a form of rehabilitation if it's done with that in mind. If someone goes to prison (especially a violent offender), I would hope the prisons would work on rehabilitating them to adjust for life outside. That would be better for society as a whole. Like I said earlier, punishment won't undo the deed that put them in prison in the first place, so proper rehabilitation would be better for society as a whole. Rehabilitating them such as helping them figure out the root cause for whatever got them incarcerated.

Like I said earlier though, some are not capable of being rehabilitated. As an extreme example, you could work with a Jeffrey Dahmer all you can, but it wouldn't make a difference. Some people just have a natural inclination to commit crime and no matter how much you try to help them it does matter.

I do disagree to an extent with your statement about the state being responsible for helping out their lives and showing them the error of their ways. I agree with that in that if they can do that through helping them be passionate about something in a fulfilling way such as learning,religion, or in a way that benefits society as a whole that can only be a positive. I disagree though about spending money for non-health related reasons other than basic things such as food,clean sheets, or even recreational activities to an extent. I would rather spend that money on things that benefit those not locked.

To me a government's job is to do what's best for society as a whole. Prisoners don't benefit society. When they get out they may, and it would certainly be ideal, but while incarcerated they're actually a burden to society due to having to pay for their accommodations such food, shelter, clothing, guards, maintenance, and even the prison building. So especially if they're never going to get out and provide some benefit, then I would prefer not to waste that money on them.

Maybe I'm too cold in my thinking. Who knows?

 

what i want to know does he or she or whatever it is will it go to a womens prison to serve the rest of its sentence?

 

Only if she's hot

 

I'm not surprised it has come to this.

 

There's only one question: Are they going to demand to put him in a woman's prison, to "respect his rights" and not discriminate?

 

If you want to make that argument, then ask you this. What's your motivation to actually change when you go to prison? The system says you were wrong in your actions and you have been punished for it. If they treat you horribly, like you're always going to be a criminal, why would you change? That's your role in society, and you can't advance out of it because they need you there. Instead of becoming a productive member of society, you weaken it by creating distrust, thus increasing risk of doing business, making business harder to do and making everyone poorer.

Putting that person in prison costs money. Even going with skimpy meals and rotting beds costs more then nothing at all if he existed outside of prison. I'm taking a good guess here but you've complained about taxes before haven't you? So tell me, if we could change the mindset of prisoners to realize they're capable of redemption, wouldn't they go out and make things and lower the costs of prisons, thus saving people money?

 

When someone tells me this prisoner's surgery is a "medical necessity" I expect him to have some sort of rationale to back it up.
Your whole rationale is, "Well, that's what the judge says and his opinion should be trusted." So your "research" consists in having blind, childlike faith in someone you don't know and probably never heard of before.

Impressive.

The real truth is there is nothing medically necessary about removing this man's penis at all. I'm sure this
man would like to have his penis removed, but the California penal system is not a Make A Wish charity for sexually confused criminals. Now you've been schooled.

 

To the ex-cons, I ask you this; why are they so concerned with today and not tomorrow? You're right, there are some people who won't be play by the rules, no matter how many times the state has tried. But isn't it better to give them that second chance for them to ruin then not to give it to them at all? I'm taking a good guess here but those ex-cons probably don't have good paying jobs. They can't make ends means lawfully. Thus the real problem wouldn't be punishment so much in prison, but outside of prison. They're still being punished for their crimes when they have finished paying it.

Sure, I can agree with that.

I agree. If we look at it as the whether or not the same person comes out of prison as they went in, we could argue that that person was "killed". Not in a literal sense, but the fact that they're a different person and the old person is dead. That can be a punishment in of itself. But it's still rehabilitation. It's the idea that we can improve someone and make them see why what they did was morally wrong is the ultimate message that is being sent across.

Like I said earlier too, wouldn't it still be better to give that person the chance in the first place? If they abuse it, then we can say that the chance was given, and they lost the right to be redeemed. It's a much better argument then just denying them that chance in the first place. It means that they aren't capable of being redeemed at all, and it would have to apply to other prisoners as well, including those that would redeem themselves.

Could we then agree to the idea that it's the responsibilty of of the person doing the punishing to rehabilitate/punish them? I used the state because that's how it's done for the most part around the world, but even in the U.S. it's not just the state in charge of punishing but private corporations as well.

Sure. It costs money to provide food, even if it's next to nothing. But it's not necessarily a waste of money, it's more of a market failure. When not everyone is paying their fair share of what's due, there has to be a reason behind it. Think kids and school. They don't enter the work force because we want them to become educated so later on they can contribute even more to the workforce. Weirdly enough there was actually a store I watched awhile ago about introducing college level courses to prisons. It ended up helping to reduce the number of prisoners who went back, and with a college degree they can claim to know more about the world and maybe get better jobs because of it.

I don't think so much cold but pointing out flaws in my argument. That's a perfectly acceptable thing to do and still be positive.

 

It's not impressive, it's dealing with the facts at hand. A judge is considered a respectable figure and nothing has been introduced to suggest that he had a bias in this case for one side or the other. This means that he was able to make an impartial opinion. So I'll rely on it. I don't need to know the details behind something in order to know that it can be considered a respectable opinion.

Second reason I can form my opinion is because the people opposing it make statements such as " removing this man's penis." It shows that you have no understanding of the process behind it, and no real background knowledge in it at all. Another way of putting it is like this; you have the option to trust only person out of two. One person graduated top of his class, has done considerable work in his field worthy of a Nobel Prize and the other person makes mistakes about the basics of the field, let alone his speciality. You're going to trust the former.

- - - Updated - - -

I forget the exact position but he actually appointed one of my former representatives (A republican, and a conservative) to the federal bureaucracy. Care to try again?