Solution to Rising Crime, Poverty Rates in America

[David Floyd]

There is a very simple solution to both the crime rate and the poverty rate, not to mention a partial solution to the drug problem. It's unfortunate that our politicians don't have the balls to vote this legislation into place, but I can't see how it would unconstitutional, or at least any less Constitutional than most of the laws that get passed these days anyway.

Here's what you do:

If a person is in a position to go on welfare and/or accept food stamps, then that person must also voluntarily accept being sterilized. The idea is, if you want to leech off of society, you don't get to breed.

Note that I would NOT extend this policy to those receiving unemployment benefits, as unemployment benefits have a time limit and requirements, unlike food stamps and welfare. Also, those who are on welfare and food stamps don't contribute much to society anyway, nor are they likely to in their life time. Unless you count crime as a contribution, that is.

Yeah, yeah, I know this would disproportionately affect minorities, but so what? I guarantee you it would also drastically reduce the crime rate, and would directly and indirectly reduce the unemployment and poverty rates by forcing people to get jobs, even low paying, "demeaning" jobs (that, let's face it, are probably commiserate with the average skill set of a welfare recipient anyway).

[Kuciwalker]

Needs a constitutional amendment.

[David Floyd]

Funny, seeing as how a law for federal welfare payments needs a Constitutional amendment to exist in the first place. I'll take another look and let you know when I find it.

[David Floyd]

But more importantly, let's focus on the effectiveness of the idea - we all know it'll never happen, so why worry about that?

[darrensmits]

Nothing is impossible!!

There were even worse conditions in the past, but we are out of it and are in a much better position today. What is required is a change in the thinking other than the ones that's prevalent these days. Don't lose hope, just cling on even to the last log floating and there will be light soon.

[a.kitman]

i would guess most people would chose a life of crime instead of going on welfare then.

[onodera]

Sterilize all criminals with terms over 3 years. Problem solved. 8)

[David Floyd]

Yep, let's also include harsher sentencing. Mandatory minimums, 3 strike rules, etc. And no conjugal visits, either.

[Caligastia]

If a person is in a position to go on welfare and/or accept food stamps, then that person must also voluntarily accept being sterilized. The idea is, if you want to leech off of society, you don't get to breed.

Sterilization is too permanent. Welfare is not necessarily forever. I wouldn't have a problem with mandatory IUDs, though.

[Patroklos]

3 strike rules

Three strike rules are horribly retarded unless you stipulate that only serious crimes count.

[Heraclitus]

I agree sterilization is too drastic. Perhaps compulsory contraception for the duration of time spent on welfare plus 6 months?

[OzzyKP]

Note that I would NOT extend this policy to those receiving unemployment benefits, as unemployment benefits have a time limit and requirements, unlike food stamps and welfare. Also, those who are on welfare and food stamps don't contribute much to society anyway, nor are they likely to in their life time. Unless you count crime as a contribution, that is.

You are so charitable. David Floyd the great humanitarian.

[Ecofarm]

Could we legalize drugs instead? That's what I thought the thread would be about... imagine my surprise.

I'm glad Peter Tosh didn't make a song "Sterilize it".

Yeah, yeah, I know this would disproportionately affect minorities, but so what?

That's rasist.

[Darius871]

Needs a constitutional amendment.

Why so certain? So far all we have from the Supremes are one case unequivocally finding state-imposed sterilization constutional and one case rejecting it only insofar as it is imposed for punitive purposes against some crimes but not white-collar crimes when there was no compelling showing that the government interest of removing criminal propensities from the gene pool - which the court still considered legitimate - would be served by that distinction. Theoretically, because welfare recipients are similarly situated with one another, an across-the-board policy with no arbitrary distinctions would not run afoul of those cases.

Then again, both cases were before cases like Roe, Casey, Lawrence, etc. started making up substantive rights out of thin air using the Due Process Clause, with a general trend of reproduction-related stuff being hands-off. OTOH, welfare benefits are strictly a privilege granted by legislative grace unlike the inherent "rights" to get your fetus yanked out or do another guy in the ass, so it's a crapshoot where the modern court would go. If Floyd's idea came up it'd pretty much be up to Kennedy's mood that day.

[Ecofarm]

Get real. Noone is agreeing to any sort of sterilization except for extreme rapists. And that is very unikely.

The OP argument is highscoolish. Sounds like someone is in 10th grade Debate Class and just read Atlas.