The assumption that crime is caused by a genetic defect is without foundation and is a tool of totalitarian government.

Enough research has been done to indicate a genetic disposition to criminal behaviour. For a start Try http://law.jrank.org/pages/12004/causes.

So must I conclude that the guilty Enron executives, the murderous Khmer Rouge in totality, all the Gestapo nasties and the German concentration camp guards, the people who burned witches in the Middle Ages, the whites who persecuted and hung blacks during the time after the American Civil War, the people who ran the pogroms in Europe, most of the people who conducted the Crusades, all of the nasties throughout history who have and are conducting murder, mayhem, robbery, rape etc. did so because of bad genes? Come on!

It would be unconstitutional at least, at most against human rights.

Nothing about the available evidence suggests that all evil-doers are genetically defective. It suggests that certain genetic traits increase the likelihood of typical crimes by individuals. Large scale crimes aginst humanity by institutions are the result of the group dynamic, or the mob mentality, and are a different matter altogether. We're not dealing with ex-nazis in the prisons here in California.

Sterilizations of retarded persons were a common thing in the first half of the 20th century in the United States. Several thousand in California. Why not criminals ? After all, they have demonstrated their irresponsibility and there no reason to assume they would make good parents.

Where does the constitution say that incarcerated criminals should be allowed to procreate while in prison ? If we decide we can stop that during incarceration, and if we decide we can stop them from owning guns after release, then I say we can stop them from reproducing in general.

Considering that the earth is already extremely over-populated I see nothing wrong with having the response to that problem begin with criminals.

yeah, too far out, and what type of crimes are going to attract the rule? white collar too.

what about no babies for poor people - no job, no money, no baby. you can;t afford to look after yourself, how can you look after a baby. need to prove you can do it. this should take care of most of your y-chromosome issue.

What about people who commit crimes after they've already had children? ? ?

Do we send thier kids to the gallows as kind of a retroactive sterilization?

Just wondering. . .

My sentiments exactly, crossed genes or not, whack em.

A safer tomorrow - a better future for your kids - no more mugging,advanatages galore. Sounds a little cruel

Given the plutocratic nature of the justice system, and its racial bias towards incarcerating persons of color - the recommendation to sterilise mostly black persons is aweful eugenic and a bit suprising given that race eugenics has beendiscredited as morally despicable in our time.

You do realize this is on par with capital punishment, and I hope you have further realized that we have killed people for supposedly doing a crime that they actually never did. We would be sterilizing people who actually never did a crime. Not to mention, we'd have to kill the criminal's kids as well. Can you stomach that?

I must ask, what crimes do you propose should require sterilization as a punishment?

Sterilization is not on par with capital punishment by a long shot. I would much rather be sterilized than executed any day! In fact, I personally would rather get a vasectomy than go to prison. Really, being sterilized is no big deal. Thousands of men get voluntary vasectomies every year. My brother-in-law got one years ago and he is quite happy with it.

We wouldn't "have" to kill any children, we would just prevent additional ones. This isn't a true eugenics program.

Terrible idea, far to much of a slippery slope. It basically says let's sterilize the people that we don't like. Not a good idea at all.

There is no slippery slope to this at all. It isn't suggesting that we just sterilize anybody that we don't like; only convicted felons. Would you say that sending felons to prison is a slippery slope because we could lock up anybody we don't like? Felons have forfeited many of their rights by breaking the law. They forfeit the right to vote, to buy a handgun, and to work in many professions that require trustworthiness. It is not unreasonable to say that they have forfeited the right to have more children. If we can't trust them with a gun, should we trust them with a child?