Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

S.C. bill may reduce inmates' sentences in exchange for organs

AzioAzio Registered User regular
edited March 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
AP wrote:
Inmates in South Carolina could soon find that a kidney is worth 180 days.

Lawmakers are considering legislation that would let prisoners donate organs or bone marrow in exchange for time off their sentences.

A state Senate panel on Thursday endorsed creating an organ-and-tissue donation program for inmates. But legislators postponed debate on a measure to reduce the sentences of participating prisoners, citing concern that federal law may not allow it.

"I think it's imperative that we go all out and see what we can do," said the bills' chief sponsor, Democratic Sen. Ralph Anderson. "I would like to see us get enough donors that people are no longer dying."

The proposal approved by the Senate Corrections and Penology Subcommittee would set up a volunteer donor program in prisons to teach inmates about the need for donors. But lawmakers want legal advice before acting on a bill that would shave up to 180 days off a prison sentence for inmates who donate.

South Carolina advocates for organ donations said the incentive policy would be the first of its kind in the nation.

Federal law makes it illegal to give organ donors "valuable consideration." Lawmakers want to know whether the term could apply to time off of prison sentences.

"We want to make this work, we really do," said Republican Sen. John Hawkins. "But I want to make sure no one goes to jail for good intentions."

Mary Jo Cagle, chief medical officer of Bon Secours St. Francis Health System in Greenville, urged senators to find an allowable incentive.

"We have a huge need for organs and bone marrow," Cagle said.

But Melissa Blevins, executive director of Donate Life South Carolina, said any incentive would break the law and the principle behind donations.

"It really muddies the water about motive. We want to keep it a clearly altruistic act," she said.

Under the proposals, money for medical procedures and any prison guard overtime would be paid by the organ recipient and charitable groups. The state would also decide which inmates could donate.

Corrections Department Director Jon Ozmint said he believes inmates would donate even without the incentive.

"There are long-term inmates who would give if they knew a child was dying," he said. "They're lifers. They know they're going to die in prison."

More than 95,300 Americans are awaiting an organ transplant, according to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. About 6,700 die each year.
It might just be me, but I think this is a startling new low for American politicians. I cannot believe that elected legislators in a first-world country are actually entertaining the idea of locking criminals up in a place where they will most definitely be raped by other criminals, and then offering them six months less daily rape in exchange for their fucking organs. Who the fuck comes up with this shit?

This is a product of a system that considers prisoners to be second-class human beings, whose health can acceptably be ignored by those responsible for supervising them and, apparently, whose organs can acceptably be extorted. This cannot happen.

Azio on
«1345678

Posts

  • SOLUTESOLUTE __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    Azio wrote: »
    This is a product of an increasingly rampant mentality that considers prisoners to be second-class human beings,

    Hey, let's not mince words.

  • Target PracticeTarget Practice Registered User
    edited March 2007
    Larry Niven wrote a story about something kind of like this.

    I forget what it was called. Maybe just "Organ Donor" or something.

    Anyway. This is pretty disgusting, yeah.

    sig.gif
  • The PastryThe Pastry Registered User
    edited March 2007
    ... Are you...

    are you fucken serious?

    This is almost unusaully stupid.

    Richy wrote:
    Three cheers for bi-partisanship! After these past six years of bitter divisiveness, isn't it great to finally see politicians of all parties come together to havest the organs of non-voters?
  • PorkChopSandwichesPorkChopSandwiches Registered User
    edited March 2007
    This would make a good basis for a horror story though.

    A young man finds his urge to kill rising after he receives the kidney of a murdering rapist.....

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    SOLUTE wrote: »
    Azio wrote: »
    This is a product of an increasingly rampant mentality that considers prisoners to be second-class human beings,

    Hey, let's not mince words.

    You're right, that is a grotesque phrase. I've made it a little nicer.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    "I think it's imperative that we go all out and see what we can do," said the bills' chief sponsor, Democratic Sen. Ralph Anderson. "
    [...]
    "We want to make this work, we really do," said Republican Sen. John Hawkins.

    Three cheers for bi-partisanship! After these past six years of bitter divisiveness, isn't it great to finally see politicians of all parties come together to havest the organs of non-voters?

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Jail time is clearly "valuable consideration". I mean, in what strage world is fucking a half a year of your life not "valuable consideration"

    wbBv3fj.png
  • The PastryThe Pastry Registered User
    edited March 2007
    sig'd

    Richy wrote:
    Three cheers for bi-partisanship! After these past six years of bitter divisiveness, isn't it great to finally see politicians of all parties come together to havest the organs of non-voters?
  • CatoCato __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    I support this paying of debt to society.

    An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes.
  • One Thousand DicksOne Thousand Dicks :D! Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Richy wrote: »
    "I think it's imperative that we go all out and see what we can do," said the bills' chief sponsor, Democratic Sen. Ralph Anderson. "
    [...]
    "We want to make this work, we really do," said Republican Sen. John Hawkins.

    Three cheers for bi-partisanship! After these past six years of bitter divisiveness, isn't it great to finally see politicians of all parties come together to havest the organs of non-voters?
    Allow me to explain how our federal government works. To begin with, by the federal government I mean Democrats and Republicans working together. And the only thing dumber than a Democrat or a Republican is when those pricks work together. You see, in our two-party system, the Democrats are the party of no ideas and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas. It usually goes something like this. A Republican will stand up in Congress and say, "I've got a really bad idea." And a Democrat will immediately jump to his feet and declare, "And I can make it shittier."

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I don't have a problem with this in principle. However, I would rather see it done in an informal manner.

    Let Donate Life and the state board of health attempt to 'recruit' donors from prisons without using incentives. Then, when a prisoner's parole hearing comes up, one of the factors that can be calculated into whether or not they get to walk is if they donated an organ. There would be no guarantee that donation = early parole, but it should be one of many determining factors.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    What the fuck? Tell me this has no chance of getting passed.

  • NightDragonNightDragon Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I read that article recently. It's pretty gross, yeah.

    I dunno, no matter how I look at it, it seems like a disturbing idea. I don't really agree with lessening a criminal's sentence because they gave an organ. Something about it just seems immoral.

    rotate.php BloggerLink.gifTumblrLink.gif
  • Descendant XDescendant X Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ...and people have some sort of moral objection against selling their kidneys?

    steam_sig.png
    Wii U: HankFacepunch
    Feel free to add me.
  • CatoCato __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.

    An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes.
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ...and people have some sort of moral objection against selling their kidneys?
    No. People have some sort of moral objection to giving criminals the choice "6 months in prison or a kidney".

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited March 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    I don't have a problem with this in principle. However, I would rather see it done in an informal manner.

    Let Donate Life and the state board of health attempt to 'recruit' donors from prisons without using incentives. Then, when a prisoner's parole hearing comes up, one of the factors that can be calculated into whether or not they get to walk is if they donated an organ. There would be no guarantee that donation = early parole, but it should be one of many determining factors.

    I'm not sure your idea is much better. I mean, I like it in theory, where a prisoner can decide whether or not to altruistically donate his organs, and the parole board can consider such altruism. In practice, I see it becoming a means of bribing the inmates.

    I just see no good coming from this. Well, okay I see good for those who get organs, but I see a net bad.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElendilElendil Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    AP wrote:
    Inmates in South Carolina could soon find that a kidney is worth 180 days.

    That's it? Man.

    Per3th.jpg
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Cato wrote: »
    I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.

    And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Descendant XDescendant X Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Richy wrote: »
    No. People have some sort of moral objection to giving criminals the choice "6 months in prison or a kidney".
    That's what I'm saying. Selling your organs on an open market is illegal and apparently morally reprehensible, but giving prisoners a choice between jail time and organ donation is almost a state law.

    This is vile.

    steam_sig.png
    Wii U: HankFacepunch
    Feel free to add me.
  • CatoCato __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.

    And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?

    I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?

    Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.

    An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Cato wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.

    And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?

    I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?

    Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.

    Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    That's what I'm saying. Selling your organs on an open market is illegal and apparently morally reprehensible, but giving prisoners a choice between jail time and organ donation is almost a state law.

    This is vile.
    Oh, I see. I had misunderstood your position. Never mind.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.

    And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?

    I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?

    Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.

    Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?

    Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?

    This is fun.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.

    And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?

    I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?

    Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.

    Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?

    Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?

    This is fun.

    I would rather die than have another person's rights violated.

  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited March 2007
    At first I'm shocked and awed, but then - well, I guess donating organs is a demonstration on the part of a prisoner of good behaviour and willingness to work with the rest of society again.

    I think it ought to be rewarded and recognised. If prison Mike decides to spend his sentence growing out his hair to donate to a cancer patient, or to the more extreme undergoes an operation to donate a kidney or bone marrow, a parole board or whatever body might have the power to let him out early should really keep that sacrifice in mind.

    However, when you actually structure a system of rewards, the result is the absence of a reward starts to be seen as a punishment - it's no longer voluntary but something you have to do because most rational people will be looking to reduce their sentence.

    But 6-months for giving up a kidney that will cripple you for life is kind of stingy (EDIT: which, checking back and seeing some comments, I guess puts donating a kidney back into the realm of rational decision making. 6-months is a nice break, but not necessary. It would, in a way, be worse if they were telling prisoners they could knock 5-years off their sentence).

  • AzioAzio Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.

    And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?

    I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?

    Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.

    Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?

    Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?

    This is fun.

    I would rather die than have another person's rights violated.

  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.

    And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?

    I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?

    Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.

    Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?

    Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?

    This is fun.

    I would rather die than have another person's rights violated.

    Yeah, I'd rather die than violate someone's rights by giving them a choice to leave prison.

    Where they have no rights.

    Wait.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.

    And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?

    I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?

    Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.

    Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?

    Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?

    This is fun.
    You could make the same argument for organ selling. In fact, you could make this argument stronger by including organ selling. After all, the poor want money and don't care if they have one less kidney, and the rich want another kidney and don't care if they have less money. It's win-fucking-win.

    Except creating an organ market, be it for money, suspension of jail time, political privilege, a trip to the moon, or anything else you want to trade, opens the door to horrible, horrible abuses. The kind we don't want to see happen. Sucks for people who need organs to live, but organ trading is just too slippery a slope to get on.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • Descendant XDescendant X Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Richy wrote: »
    That's what I'm saying. Selling your organs on an open market is illegal and apparently morally reprehensible, but giving prisoners a choice between jail time and organ donation is almost a state law.

    This is vile.
    Oh, I see. I had misunderstood your position. Never mind.

    No problem. My initial statement was a little unclear.

    I should note that I have received a kidney transplant in the past (goin' on 10 years this month!) from a cadaver. I waited five years for my transplant and was six months away from having to start dialysis.

    Even with the wait I had, I wouldn't be too pleased if I found out that my kidney came from an offender who traded his organs for a shorter sentence. The fact that he is a criminal doesn't matter to me, but the idea of being coerced (and it is coercion, subtle though it may be) into donating an organ is disgusting.

    EDIT: And these guys are serving a prison sentence for a reason - punishment, denouncement, rehabilitation, etc. - take your pick. Allowing them to shorten their sentence in this manner makes sentencing pointless and could lead to judges impoing harsher sentences in order to account for the possibility of organ donation.

    steam_sig.png
    Wii U: HankFacepunch
    Feel free to add me.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.

    And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?

    I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?

    Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.

    Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?

    Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?

    This is fun.

    I would rather die than have another person's rights violated.

    Yeah, I'd rather die than violate someone's rights by giving them a choice to leave prison.

    Where they have no rights.
    Prisoners have rights.

  • NewresNewres Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Elendil wrote: »
    AP wrote:
    Inmates in South Carolina could soon find that a kidney is worth 180 days.

    That's it? Man.

    A kidney or 6 months of buttrape.... choices choices.

    But why stop here. I am sure plenty of people in 3rd world countries would love to get some money, so why not buy their organs. And the can not vote either.... problem solved. ;)

    960751-1.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Won't this be unfair to the Jehovah's Witnesses?

  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Cato wrote: »
    I would totally prefer people to die for lack of organs.

    And what of the prisoners who we essentialy harvest the organs from?

    I'm sorry, were they not given a choice?

    Six months is not too long to wait if you don't want to give up an organ.

    Would you like to spend six months in prison and tell me if that isn't too long to wait?

    Would you like to die because you don't get an organ transplant?

    This is fun.

    I would rather die than have another person's rights violated.

    Yeah, I'd rather die than violate someone's rights by giving them a choice to leave prison.

    Where they have no rights.
    Prisoners have rights.

    Not as many as people who are not in prison.

  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited March 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Won't this be unfair to the Jehovah's Witnesses?

    "Sorry you have to die dad, but it wouldn't be fair to the Jehovah's Witnesses if you lived."

    "Sorry you can't see your family for six more month's Jake, it wouldn't be fair to the Jehovah's Witnesses."

    Hahahaha. No.

  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited March 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Won't this be unfair to the Jehovah's Witnesses?
    I don't think so.

    That's like saying it's unfair to Jews and Muslims that the grocery store sells delicious bacon.

    But ideally this could be part of a wider scheme of community service prisoners can partake of to reduce their sentence.

  • HozHoz Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I don't get how their rights are being violated. It's not like this bill is putting them in prison.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    This would be more interesting if organ harvesting was part of a sentence, rather than an option.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited March 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    This would be more interesting if organ harvesting was part of a sentence, rather than an option.
    Soylant Green is sex offenders!

  • evilmrhenryevilmrhenry Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Larry Niven wrote a story about something kind of like this.

    I forget what it was called. Maybe just "Organ Donor" or something.

    Anyway. This is pretty disgusting, yeah.

    Long Arm of Gil Hamilton. (It may be a series.)

    The perspective of the book would be that this creates an incentive for longer sentences and criminalization of more acts outside of any claims of reformation or separation from society. I agree with it.

«1345678
Sign In or Register to comment.