Steralisation for cash

Last night I caught half off InsideOut, a TV show on the BBC (I think) that was discussing whether drug addicts should be offered cash in return for agreeing to be sterilised and thus never having children.  Also, on the show was one of Margaret Thatcher's former advisers who said that he advised Maggie to bring in a system of compulsory sterilisation that would form a sentence of the courts.

I'm talking purely now about the offer to pay rather then the forced sterilisation, which the Daily Mail would have a fit over if it was happening in any Arab country.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this suggestion.  On the one hand, I find the idea of twisting the arms of the desperate and often mentally incapable (due to their drug use) quite unpalatable. 

On the other had, I've had dealings with drug dependant mothers and fathers whose children live the most miserable lives that the authorities seem unable to improve.  One girl I came across is regularly in court for one thing or another.  I was informed by the Youth Offending Team that they are certain that this 13-year-old child is being prostituted by her mother on a regular basis to adult men so that mum can buy drugs.
Many of the clients I deal with come from homes where one or other parent is a drug addict and it isn't difficult to see how they end up in the care and court systems.

I wonder what other people's views on this subject are?

If you didn't catch the programme, the charity behind the idea is Project Prevention - I'm sure they have a web presence you can google if you're interested... I'm not sure I want to put up a link here.

Comments

  1. Jim Brown19 October 2010 at 16:41

    It gives me a very uneasy feeling about historical parallels and where this avenue might lead.

    ReplyDelete
  2. RogerBW19 October 2010 at 17:28

    I would like to see a reversible sterilisation process - something like Norplant or its successors, though you'd want a version with fewer side-effects - for everybody. Simply end unwanted pregnancy.

    For a permanent version: from a legal point of view is it not the case the the people to whom it's being offered to are considered to be responsible adults? In which case we should surely have nothing to say as to such contracts as they choose to enter into with other responsible adults.

    ReplyDelete
  3. jerym19 October 2010 at 17:47

    Any long term solution will inevitably mean short term casualties but this also makes me feel very uneasy.
    De-criminalising drugs,controlling the sale through legitimate outlets to get rid of the pushers and the `forbidden fruit`factor is the only way this tragic situation will be improved.
    Prohibition does not work

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous19 October 2010 at 18:48

    jerym is right -- if we had a sensible drugs policy in the first place, this sort of measure wouldn't need to be contemplated. In the meantime, any attempt to tinker seems likely to do at least as much harm as good.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Conor20 October 2010 at 10:07

    I can't see many addicts being interested. Apart possibly as an opportunity to by £200 worth of drugs. In this event, would it be an informed decision?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obi Wan20 October 2010 at 21:08

    I agree with Roger BW. A 'reversible' sterilisation would be an excellent idea. Like Mr Brown (and yourself), I see people who have great difficulties addresing their own issues, without adding the complication of children. These children, if not subject to significant intervention by Social Services, are fostered/adopted. All the while, this has both a massive financial cost to the taxpayer and a likely emotional cost to the parents and child.

    Support it; the alternative, is I fear, too high a cost.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are items referred to in s.9’s as exhibits bound to be served?

  Background - CPS served a witness statement on me that exhibited two BWV clips that are potentially relevant to the Crown’s case and may have some relevance to the defence case insofar as they are likely to show the lighting and weather at the time events happened. Somebody has listed the clips as unused material rather than putting them in the exhibits folder that accompanies the served evidence. This raised an interesting (to me anyway) question about whether a party who exhibits an item in a statement is bound to serve it on their opponent. At court the judge took the view that the Crown were at liberty to classify items exhibited in s9s as unused material if they chose not to rely upon them in evidence. I took the view that if they are exhibited then they must be served along with the witness statement that exhibits the item and that the solution to a situation where the Crown say they are now unused is to edit the witness statement to remove the reference, by agreement with ...
More gibberish >>

Is there twice as much violent crime in the UK versus the USA?

Image
The tweet from Charlie Kirk I came across a screenshot of a Twitter post while on Facebook this morning. The original post now has 11,000 retweets and 23,000 likes on Twitter. As you can see from the picture somebody called Charlie Kirk, who is a right-wing American commentator, claims that there are 933 violent crimes in the UK per 100,000 people. This is more than double the rate he claims for the USA where he says there are only 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The UK doesn’t feel that violent to me, so is it true? We’re all gonna die According to the FBI, in 2016 there were 1,248,185 violent crimes committed across the whole of the USA. That is an increase of 4.1% on the 2015 figure but still represented only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people . So, Mr Kirk appears to be slightly overestimating the violent crime in the USA. I should say that I am using the 2016 figures as those are the latest available on the FBI website, so maybe he has slightly differe...
More gibberish >>

Driving without insurance

Image
Insurance is a contract that remains in force until it expires or is cancelled As you may, or may not, know I specialise in motoring law and most of my work involves defending people accused of drink driving . With the drink driving often come other road traffic offences such as driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. It’s driving without insurance I want to talk about today because I think far too many police officers, solicitors, barristers and judges miss a key legal point when looking at these cases. I’ve received prosecution papers today for somebody accused of driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. The no insurance element is claim that the suspect did not tell the insurer about the disqualification. In his statement, the police officers says, “ [I] contacted [the insurer] who called me back informing me they would not consider the insurance policy valid as there were no convictions disclosed.” Looks like an open an...
More gibberish >>