• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should a Convicted Child Molester Get a Heart Transplant at Tax Payer Expense?

Should a Convicted Child Molester Get a Heart Transplant at Tax Payer Expense?

  • He should be released because he's sick and tax payers should pay for the transplant if he cannot.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • He should remain in prison and tax payers should pay for his transpla.nt

    Votes: 21 55.3%

  • He should stay in prison and get the transplant if he can raise the money.

    Votes: 9 23.7%

  • He should be released and the tax payers should not be on the hook for his care.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • He should remain in prison and he should not get a new heart because he's a sexual predator..

    Votes: 8 21.1%

  • I don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    38
X Factor

X Factor

Anti-Socialist
Dungeon Master
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
61,609
Reaction score
32,221
Location
El Paso Strong
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This was in the news today;
A convicted rapists serving an 18-year-to-40-year sentence at Coxsackie Correctional Facility was flown to a Rochester hospital to undergo a possible heart transplant, Fox 23 reported Thursday. The station reports taxpayers will be on the hook for the procedure if it happens.
Click to expand...

http://blog.timesunion.com/crime/fox23-taxpayers-to-finance-rapist-prisoners-heart-transplant/7763/

So, what's your opinion on what should happen here?

These will be the choices once I get the poll up.

-He should be released from prison because he's sick and tax payers should pay for the transplant if he cannot.
-He should remain in prison and get the transplant at tax payers expense.
-He should remain in prison and he should get the transplant but only if he or his family can raise the money themselves. (I had to shorten this one for the poll)
-He should be released from prison and the tax payers should not be on the hook for his care.
-He should remain in prison and he's a sexual predator so he should not get a heart.
-I don't know.
 
Last edited:
He should remain in prison and get the transplant at tax payers expense.

He was sentenced, and he should fulfil that sentence.
 
Technically he is a ward of the state, and the state is responsible for all prisoners well being, and I think not treating a medical issue just because they are a heinous criminal, I think would violate the constitution, so I think he should get the transplant.
 
The dilema really is a good one. Our Constitution and sense of decency require us to provide proper medical care to people in custody. This isn't like someone having plastic surgery or an elective surgery. As a result the choice is clear, we either do the surgery or release the person. Since he was convicted, I would say that he should remain confined and we should do the surgery.
 
Denying the medically necessary procedure would be akin to imposing a death sentence and we do not have the death penalty for child molestation in this country. The Constitution does not allow for it.
 
Your Star said:
Technically he is a ward of the state, and the state is responsible for all prisoners well being, and I think not treating a medical issue just because they are a heinous criminal, I think would violate the constitution, so I think he should get the transplant.
Click to expand...
But if he gets the heart, that means somebody who's (probably) not a sex offender would not get the heart.
 
X Factor said:
But if he gets the heart, that means somebody who's (probably) not a sex offender would get the heart.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but it's not legal for them to deny him healthcare I don't think, so our hands are tied here.
 
I think it's hard to say because you don't want to rob a person who has not committed a crime from getting a transplant which may be the case if you allow criminals to have them. But at the same accord, less you gave a life sentence you don't really want to condemn a man to death. Still I would have more sympathy for the common citizen in need of a heart as opposed to the criminal. And perhaps that's emotional, but that's pretty much how I feel.
 
disneydude said:
The dilema really is a good one. Our Constitution and sense of decency require us to provide proper medical care to people in custody. This isn't like someone having plastic surgery or an elective surgery. As a result the choice is clear, we either do the surgery or release the person. Since he was convicted, I would say that he should remain confined and we should do the surgery.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I think it's an interesting question. I probably should have made it multiple choice. I'm actually torn myself between letting him have the transplant if he can pay for it and not letting him have it at all. I think if he were released, for sure the tax payers should not have to pay for it.

disneydude said:
Denying the medically necessary procedure would be akin to imposing a death sentence and we do not have the death penalty for child molestation in this country. The Constitution does not allow for it.
Click to expand...

What if he were on death row (say he killed his victim)? Would your answer change?
 
If he is a convicted child molester, then all the more reason to give him a new heart. For all we know it could change his life for the better.

I don't see why a person's mistakes in life should prevent them from being cared for.
 
Temporal said:
If he is a convicted child molester, then all the more reason to give him a new heart. For all we know it could change his life for the better.

I don't see why a person's mistakes in life should prevent them from being cared for.
Click to expand...
Because you're taking away somebody else's chance at life that did NOT molest a child. What if we were talking about a raging alcoholic and a liver transplant? Since there is a finite amount of available organs, doesn't that mean we have to make value judgments about where the transplant would do the most good?
 
He should be given a sex-change operation, the first half, the removal part, is free, but the second half, has to be done at his own expense.
And he stays in prison for his full term.
I have zero sympathy for people who prey on children....
 
X Factor said:
Because you're taking away somebody else's chance at life that did NOT molest a child. What if we were talking about a raging alcoholic and a liver transplant? Since there is a finite amount of available organs, doesn't that mean we have to make value judgments about where the transplant would do the most good?
Click to expand...

The child molester's heart is not failing because they are a child molester as an alcoholic's liver would fail because they are an alcoholic. That's beside the point anyway.

Talking about where the transplanted heart would "do more good" is not up to you, or anyone really. Talking about things like that in terms of good and bad is only serving to overlook a human being who is in need. You have no idea what a heart transplant could mean for this PERSON.

Using the identity of "child molester" is really begging the question, and trying to bait people away from the human being behind the issue.

In other words, it's an emotional argument that is not based in anything that is actually happening right now.

EDIT: Let me approach this from a different angle. Most people have done stuff in their lives that they are not proud of. But then, most of us do not have to wear that as an identity by force. If you ever needed a heart transplant, we wouldn't dig up your negative history and decide if you truly deserve one or not. You'd get one if it were available.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
What if he were on death row (say he killed his victim)? Would your answer change?
Click to expand...

If all his appeals were over then probably, but if not, then no, because due process wouldn't have been completed.
 
Organ donation and transplants are a priviledge - not a right. . . and in fact, not so much even a priviledge as they are an odd medical arrangement.
 
I think the essential question is does denying him medical care violate the Constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment? You're essentially turning his prison term into a death sentence. However, in other cases the state tries to make an actual death sentence as quick and humane as possible. This is a slow and inhumane death.

I'm not a Constitutional expert, but to me that's the most important consideration in this case.
 
given our government is currently structured, even though i don't agree with it, he is obligated to get the heart transplant with taxpayer money. I would change the system instead of judging this single guy. I don't really think tax payers should be paying for peoples surgeries personally... unless in some specific instances of disability.
 
He should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. Prisoners have their health taken care of by the state, so he should too. It's not up to a transplant committee to decide if a person is morally worthy of life, only if they are a sound medical choice. Besides, just because someone is convicted of a crime doesn't mean they actually did it.
 
Temporal said:
The child molester's heart is not failing because they are a child molester as an alcoholic's liver would fail because they are an alcoholic. That's beside the point anyway.

Talking about where the transplanted heart would "do more good" is not up to you, or anyone really. Talking about things like that in terms of good and bad is only serving to overlook a human being who is in need. You have no idea what a heart transplant could mean for this PERSON.

Using the identity of "child molester" is really begging the question, and trying to bait people away from the human being behind the issue.

In other words, it's an emotional argument that is not based in anything that is actually happening right now.
Click to expand...
What's funny is I used "child molester" in an attempt to use the least possible incindiery term. I coulda called him a kiddy diddler, child rapist or sexual predator (<----this one is an actual valid description).

EDIT: Let me approach this from a different angle. Most people have done stuff in their lives that they are not proud of. But then, most of us do not have to wear that as an identity by force. If you ever needed a heart transplant, we wouldn't dig up your negative history and decide if you truly deserve one or not. You'd get one if it were available.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you for the most part, but I think child molesters are the lowest of the low. I think I could probably overlook any other crime, even murder, when looking at who gets a heart, but sex offenders are in a class all by themselves.
 
let him rot in prison, the molestation of our children should not be tolerated.
 
Paschendale said:
He should be subject to the same rules as everyone else. Prisoners have their health taken care of by the state, so he should too. It's not up to a transplant committee to decide if a person is morally worthy of life, only if they are a sound medical choice. Besides, just because someone is convicted of a crime doesn't mean they actually did it.
Click to expand...
Let's say you were in a situation where there were two people who were going to die, and you have the power to save one of them. You know one of them is a sex offender and the other is not. How would you choose who to save?
 
X Factor said:
Let's say you were in a situation where there were two people who were going to die, and you have the power to save one of them. You know one of them is a sex offender and the other is not. How would you choose who to save?
Click to expand...

Morally I think everyone here concurs that the person who didn't molest the kid should get the transplant over him. But this isn't a question that can be answered by morals, but by law. The state is required to provide this guy medical care, and should be treated like any other patient. It's hard to swallow, but that is the way our system is set up.
 
X Factor said:
This was in the news today;


Fox23: Taxpayers to finance rapist prisoners heart transplant - Crime Confidential - Capital Region cops and courts - timesunion.com - Albany NY

So, what's your opinion on what should happen here?

These will be the choices once I get the poll up.

-He should be released from prison because he's sick and tax payers should pay for the transplant if he cannot.
-He should remain in prison and get the transplant at tax payers expense.
-He should remain in prison and he should get the transplant but only if he or his family can raise the money themselves. (I had to shorten this one for the poll)
-He should be released from prison and the tax payers should not be on the hook for his care.
-He should remain in prison and he's a sexual predator so he should not get a heart.
-I don't know.
Click to expand...

I think for this particular instance, yes, it should be taxpayer expense, but if he were a murderer and on death row, no, he shouldn't, that would be a waste of a heart, litereally, because this would a waste of a heart too, figuratively.
 
Bruce said:
He should remain in prison and get the transplant at tax payers expense.

He was sentenced, and he should fulfil that sentence.
Click to expand...

Wow! I picked the popular choice for once! But in my world they live on an island they can't get off. But they have a fine hospital for free operations.
 
Your Star said:
I understand that, but it's not legal for them to deny him healthcare I don't think, so our hands are tied here.
Click to expand...

Where is the violation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom