dlowan wrote:It'd be interesting to find out how it works, in practice, having post surgery MTF transexuals in the female prison population.
Even more interesting - How will it work when someone fabricates their gender identity disorder and goes through the MTF process and gets transferred to a women's prison all in an attempt to shorten their prison term?
In this particluar case with Kosilek - he's a habitual liar who's changed his story at every phase (not that that would be unsual for many murders...)
His gender dysphoria had never been mentioned until his trial - 3 years after he killed his wife, when he was 40 years old. While I suppose it is possible that he could have lived with gender dysphoria for years and not let anyone know, the sudden claim along with claims that the dysphoria was causing him to "black out" for periods of time came conviently as a truely off-the-wall defense at his trial.
fishin wrote:dlowan wrote:It'd be interesting to find out how it works, in practice, having post surgery MTF transexuals in the female prison population.
Even more interesting - How will it work when someone fabricates their gender identity disorder and goes through the MTF process and gets transferred to a women's prison all in an attempt to shorten their prison term?
In this particluar case with Kosilek - he's a habitual liar who's changed his story at every phase (not that that would be unsual for many murders...)
His gender dysphoria had never been mentioned until his trial - 3 years after he killed his wife, when he was 40 years old. While I suppose it is possible that he could have lived with gender dysphoria for years and not let anyone know, the sudden claim along with claims that the dysphoria was causing him to "black out" for periods of time came conviently as a truely off-the-wall defense at his trial.
How would being transferred to a women's prison shorten one's prison term?
dlowan wrote:fishin wrote:dlowan wrote:It'd be interesting to find out how it works, in practice, having post surgery MTF transexuals in the female prison population.
Even more interesting - How will it work when someone fabricates their gender identity disorder and goes through the MTF process and gets transferred to a women's prison all in an attempt to shorten their prison term?
In this particluar case with Kosilek - he's a habitual liar who's changed his story at every phase (not that that would be unsual for many murders...)
His gender dysphoria had never been mentioned until his trial - 3 years after he killed his wife, when he was 40 years old. While I suppose it is possible that he could have lived with gender dysphoria for years and not let anyone know, the sudden claim along with claims that the dysphoria was causing him to "black out" for periods of time came conviently as a truely off-the-wall defense at his trial.
How would being transferred to a women's prison shorten one's prison term?
Being transferred itself wouldn't. The larger picture is that his defense for the killing of his wife is, in a nutshell, "my gender identity disorder made me do it!".
Every time a court orders the prison system to proceed further with his transition it strengthens his argument for his eventual parole hearing. (I believe his first shot at parole comes up in just about 2 years)
If the surgery his ordered, he's transferred, etc... he/she can then present that all as evidence to the parole board to try and have his/her sentence shortened and be released on parole.
Ah...I had thought that but was wondering.
Is there anything around on how he argues that a gender identity disorder makes him less culpable in murder?
dlowan wrote:Ah...I had thought that but was wondering.
Is there anything around on how he argues that a gender identity disorder makes him less culpable in murder?
I'll look later on today and see if I can find anything more than press clippings. As I recall his argument at his trial was GID led to depression which led to drug abuse which resulted in a black out wherein he killed the wife.
But I'll see if I can find something more substantial... This all happened right at the dawn of the WWW so there might be things like court transcripts somewhere.
dlowan wrote:
How would being transferred to a women's prison shorten one's prison term?
Being transferred itself wouldn't. The larger picture is that his defense for the killing of his wife is, in a nutshell, "my gender identity disorder made me do it!".
fishin wrote:dlowan wrote:
How would being transferred to a women's prison shorten one's prison term?
Being transferred itself wouldn't. The larger picture is that his defense for the killing of his wife is, in a nutshell, "my gender identity disorder made me do it!".
I also think that he might be angling to get into an institution which might also work.
There are all sorts of whack-jobs in prisons - with or without GID. How far does the State and/or prison system have to go to take care of their mental or emotional or physical issues?
I would have thought that basic health care was enough. Anything over and above that, given that these people would not have been able to afford anything additional on the outside themselves if they were still free, should not be paid for by the State.
I really don't give a crap what their mental anxieties are. They are in prison to be punished for a crime. They should get only basic medical and that's it. They don't deserve more than that.
While I can see the value in reform, especially if a criminal can be parolled in the future, I just don't understand why the State has any responsibility to pay anything toward an inmates need to become a different sex. He can whine about his emotional state all he wants. We, the tax-payers, should not have to foot the bill.
Heeven wrote:There are all sorts of whack-jobs in prisons - with or without GID. How far does the State and/or prison system have to go to take care of their mental or emotional or physical issues?
I would have thought that basic health care was enough. Anything over and above that, given that these people would not have been able to afford anything additional on the outside themselves if they were still free, should not be paid for by the State.
I really don't give a crap what their mental anxieties are. They are in prison to be punished for a crime. They should get only basic medical and that's it. They don't deserve more than that.
While I can see the value in reform, especially if a criminal can be parolled in the future, I just don't understand why the State has any responsibility to pay anything toward an inmates need to become a different sex. He can whine about his emotional state all he wants. We, the tax-payers, should not have to foot the bill.
Well, thing is, as I understand it, that most western countries, at least, accept the need for mental health care for inmates as well as physical health care.
I suppose that might, at least in theory, be different in our two countries, as we have a universal health care system here? (In practice, all kinds of health care is notoriously bad in prisons here...especially mental health care.) But perhaps the state in your country would not be covering hormones etc.? We certainly would here, but gender reassignment surgery, as I understand it, requires that a person pay themselves, with assistance from private medical cover if they can/will purchase it.
Given that gender dysmorphia is an accepted diagnosis, as I understand it, in the DSM IV R, I don't think that prisons, if they DO provide health care to inmates, (which I assume would be regarded as a human right under US law, if not under various UN agreements signed by the US) get to cherry-pick. The "cherry-picking" gate-keepers are the health professionals, not whether individual citizens like, or don't like, a particular diagnosis, or do, or don't, consider its sufferers to be "whining."
Pretty much spot on. In the U.S. I believe Estelle vs. Gamble is still the prevailing legal precedent and in that U.S. the US Supreme Court ruled that prisoners must be provided with medical/mental care/treatment. Not providing it was ruled to be a violation of the Constitutional prohibition on "cruel and unusal treatment". They further ruled that the cost of that treatment could not be used as an excuse to withhold treatment.
Quote:
The questions here, as I understand it, are:
a. Is this a genuine case?
b. Is it truly necessary for this person's mental health that he receive further treatment?
c. Does the prison system provide surgery if a and b are answered in the affirmative?
The complicating factor here appears to be(not unexpectedly) a possibility that the person in question may be disingenuous in his presentation, and may believe he has legal benefits to obtain from the diagnosis.
"a." is certianly a question but there are cloudy issues surrounding "c." as well. As I said, the prisons can't use cost as a factor in denying any medical treatment. They can however, look at things like whether or not they have the ability to provide post-surgical care/treatment and rehabilation. This is where the State of MA has been balking - they don't have any experience with this particualr area. Since they'd have to rely on outside medical facilities for this they have to find a facility that they can secure a convicted murderer in (the standard patients in any hospital surgical ward aren't likely to take kindly to having a convicted murder in the adjacent bed, the medical staff may not be famaliar with security procedures, etc...).
So, under "c.", is the state required to provide the surgery even if they can't secure the prisoner in a medical facility to have the surgery performed? And is the state required to develop a comprehensive program to deal with what post-surgical needs arise? And of course, where does the person stay pre- and post-surgery? This is a one-of-a-kind case but at the same time, if you isolate him/her then you've also violated his/her rights there too.
The lower courts (nationally) have had varying decisions on these issues so there is no standard that can be applied. This particular case is pushing the limits of these questions in MA.
dlowan wrote:Heeven wrote:There are all sorts of whack-jobs in prisons - with or without GID. How far does the State and/or prison system have to go to take care of their mental or emotional or physical issues?
I would have thought that basic health care was enough. Anything over and above that, given that these people would not have been able to afford anything additional on the outside themselves if they were still free, should not be paid for by the State.
I really don't give a crap what their mental anxieties are. They are in prison to be punished for a crime. They should get only basic medical and that's it. They don't deserve more than that.
While I can see the value in reform, especially if a criminal can be parolled in the future, I just don't understand why the State has any responsibility to pay anything toward an inmates need to become a different sex. He can whine about his emotional state all he wants. We, the tax-payers, should not have to foot the bill.
Well, thing is, as I understand it, that most western countries, at least, accept the need for mental health care for inmates as well as physical health care.
I suppose that might, at least in theory, be different in our two countries, as we have a universal health care system here? (In practice, all kinds of health care is notoriously bad in prisons here...especially mental health care.) But perhaps the state in your country would not be covering hormones etc.? We certainly would here, but gender reassignment surgery, as I understand it, requires that a person pay themselves, with assistance from private medical cover if they can/will purchase it.
Given that gender dysmorphia is an accepted diagnosis, as I understand it, in the DSM IV R, I don't think that prisons, if they DO provide health care to inmates, (which I assume would be regarded as a human right under US law, if not under various UN agreements signed by the US) get to cherry-pick. The "cherry-picking" gate-keepers are the health professionals, not whether individual citizens like, or don't like, a particular diagnosis, or do, or don't, consider its sufferers to be "whining."
Pretty much spot on. In the U.S. I believe Estelle vs. Gamble is still the prevailing legal precedent and in that U.S. the US Supreme Court ruled that prisoners must be provided with medical/mental care/treatment. Not providing it was ruled to be a violation of the Constitutional prohibition on "cruel and unusal treatment". They further ruled that the cost of that treatment could not be used as an excuse to withhold treatment.
Quote:
The questions here, as I understand it, are:
a. Is this a genuine case?
b. Is it truly necessary for this person's mental health that he receive further treatment?
c. Does the prison system provide surgery if a and b are answered in the affirmative?
The complicating factor here appears to be(not unexpectedly) a possibility that the person in question may be disingenuous in his presentation, and may believe he has legal benefits to obtain from the diagnosis.
"a." is certianly a question but there are cloudy issues surrounding "c." as well. As I said, the prisons can't use cost as a factor in denying any medical treatment. They can however, look at things like whether or not they have the ability to provide post-surgical care/treatment and rehabilation. This is where the State of MA has been balking - they don't have any experience with this particualr area. Since they'd have to rely on outside medical facilities for this they have to find a facility that they can secure a convicted murderer in (the standard patients in any hospital surgical ward aren't likely to take kindly to having a convicted murder in the adjacent bed, the medical staff may not be famaliar with security procedures, etc...).
So, under "c.", is the state required to provide the surgery even if they can't secure the prisoner in a medical facility to have the surgery performed? And is the state required to develop a comprehensive program to deal with what post-surgical needs arise? And of course, where does the person stay pre- and post-surgery? This is a one-of-a-kind case but at the same time, if you isolate him/her then you've also violated his/her rights there too.
The lower courts (nationally) have had varying decisions on these issues so there is no standard that can be applied. This particular case is pushing the limits of these questions in MA.
Hmmm...I'd be way more convinced by the after care stuff than by the problems of maintaining security in a hospital. Prisoners have to be treated in general hospitals all the time, and, while it ain't pretty, and it DOES present security risks, it is doable, and is done. I would guess it is more a SHOULD it be done that a CAN it be done thing...I doubt they'd hesitate with most surgery.
Hmmm...I'd be way more convinced by the after care stuff than by the problems of maintaining security in a hospital. Prisoners have to be treated in general hospitals all the time, and, while it ain't pretty, and it DOES present security risks, it is doable, and is done. I would guess it is more a SHOULD it be done that a CAN it be done thing...I doubt they'd hesitate with most surgery.
I'd be very surprised to learn that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not have a designated high security hospital facility in an existing hospital. For example, the Ohio State University Medical Center supplies this need to the state department of corrections in Ohio. There is a secure ward which is patrolled by uniformed corrections personnel, with a reception/access control station at the entrance to the ward. There are numerous cameras which look at the ward from several angles, which look at the hall at the entrance to the ward, the emergency exit stairwell and the elevator which leads to the hall in front of the ward. The cameras are monitored in the Lieutenant's/Shift Supervisor's office opposite the ward entrance, and in the hospital security control center. (The security systems company i worked for maintained the camera system for the hospital, including that ward.) Perhaps you could find out, Fishin', if there is any such facility in Massachusetts.
This is his appearance for crying out loud. He was born a man. I realize he wants very badly to be a woman, but there are limits to what people expect. Just because he is institutionalized does not put the onus on the authorities to provide anything over and above basic medical care.
If the man had a heart attack, I would understand that he be taken care of in a hospital - that is a real medical emergency. His wanting hair laser removal is not!
His body was never changed against his will during his birth/growing up years. He has always had this body. It is his choice to change it. It may be a choice caused by great unhappiness and great emotional distress but it is still a choice to change what was naturally there in the first place.
If my vagina were changed with a penis against my will I would be emotionally traumatized.
If I wanted to change my vagina to a penis because I felt that I was emotionally and mentally a man and could not stand to be in a female body any more, I would not expect anyone else other than me to pay for it.
