jimboston wrote: PLAYER57832 wrote:
Medical care for prisoners is something we need to consider as a society overall. There are plenty of questions brought up by this ruling. How much care, exactly do we owe convicted criminals... and should there be one standard for, say, thieves, and another for murderers and child rapists? I would say "yes", but that is just my opinion... (and for all that has been presented to date on this, it might well be the judge's opinion as well)
Yes... we must provide medical care for prisoners. That's "the law"... though I won't calim to know (nor care about) the details... my understanding is that it's all based on the idea that punishment should not be "cruel or inhumaine".
I DON'T think there should be different standards of care based on the crime.
I do think we could dicuss the responsibility of gov't as it pertains to "what" care is require... which would include the types of proceedures and also the proceedures as it relates to age / length of imprisonment.
Now wait a second. First you say you don't want differing treatment... then you go on to say we should discuss it??
My position is that we should discuss it, and can make distinctions based on evidence (effectiveness of treatment, availability of care, consequences of no treatment, etc. )
jimboston wrote:I don't think we should people people with "Life" sentences, who also happen to be 80 years of age on machines to keep them alive. I don't think "not" keeping someone alive (like that) is the same as saying we are "not being humaine". I could even make the arguement that putting somoene on a machine to keep them alive is inhumaine. This however is a different subject.
Those are medical questions, and for the community at large not just prisoners. But yes, a different topic.
jimboston wrote:The "requirement" for the sex-change proceedure does not in my mind... or in the minds of most right-thinking people... reach a level in which said proceedure should be required and paid for by the taxes. I don't see how the law could be expanded to inclue this "proceedure" and I think it's a prime example of a judge pushing the boundaries of what the gov't is required to provide.
That is a medical question, not a legal one. That is my point. Whether you agree or I do is irrelevant. MY disagreement is over the doctor's pronouncement that this meets the standards of requirement for prisoner care, not the judge listening to the physicians. In fact, his argument states that... this is deemed medically required, so it must be approved.
Again, the problem is not with the judge, it is with the rules and perhaps the medical establishment.
jimboston wrote:I don't think the gov't needs to provide a lot of the things is does regularly provide for convicted criminals. That said... I understand the prison system often takes a cost/benefit analysis approach to providing certain amenities. They have come to the conclusion that some things aren't required, but that it ultimately costs less to provide recreation activities, cable TV, and air conditioning.... only because it keeps prisoners quiet and helps control the population. The sex-change operation does not hae these benefits either.
I agree on all of that. However,I still say calling the judge an activist judge is not just wrong, but the idea that those kinds of labels are appropriate is wrong. The fights should be with the legislator, not judges. Judges are to be judged on adherance to the law that is established... and that means prior rulings, not just how you or I see the law. In this case, it was already decided that this person had a problem warrenting hormone treatment, etc. Saying the operation should be covered was consistant. However, I think the rules should be rewritten (but not JUST for sex change issues...also other issues).
jimboston wrote:FRANKLY, THE WHOLE IDEA THAT WE HAD TO SPEND COURT TIME EVEN DISCUSSING THIS IS RIDICULOUS!
Tax dollars already went to the lawyers of the Mass. Correctional system to defend the case... tax dollars went to the public provided lawyer (assuming) that fought for the murderer, and tax dollars were paid to the judge and courthouse used in the case. The entire process has been a waste of money.. The whole idea should have been "laughed out of court" before it even got before a judge.
I would rather see money wasted in this manner than have what some other countries have where verdicts never get a chance to be truly argued in any court. That is the bottom line. We have to be very careful in curtailing such things... but the proper way is to lay out such limits more clearly in law, rather than leaving it up to doctors and a judge to decide. Doctors are obligated to protect patients, even prisoners. Judges are required to affirm the law, even when they disagree with the law.
jimboston wrote:No amount of "logic" will get me to change my stance here. The simple idea that I should ever be forced to pay for this is a travesty.
Never disputed that. But judges have to make rulings they themselves dislike all the time, because they are tasked with affirming the law, not changing it.... period.