• 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
I voted "He should stay in prison and get the transplant if he can raise the money." If any regular law abiding citizen needed a hearty transplant wouldn't we have to be put on a waiting list and pay for it ourselves? So why should someone in prison especially for something extremely despicable get a free heart transplant while everybody else has to pay for theirs?
 
jamesrage said:
I voted "He should stay in prison and get the transplant if he can raise the money." If any regular law abiding citizen needed a hearty transplant wouldn't we have to be put on a waiting list and pay for it ourselves? So why should someone in prison especially for something extremely despicable get a free heart transplant while everybody else has to pay for theirs?
Click to expand...

Because they are a ward of the state, and all of their basic needs are the responsibility of the states.
 
Your Star said:
Because they are a ward of the state, and all of their basic needs are the responsibility of the states.
Click to expand...
Heart transplant is not basic. Besides that a child molester put himself in prison.
 
Your Star said:
Because they are a ward of the state, and all of their basic needs are the responsibility of the states.
Click to expand...
I would think this goes above and beyond "basic", though. It does seem somewhat counter-intuitive that the best way for someone of "limited means" to get this surgery is by being in prison.
 
X Factor said:
I would think this goes above and beyond "basic", though. It does seem somewhat counter-intuitive that the best way for someone of "limited means" to get this surgery is by being in prison.
Click to expand...

Oh golly no. You just apply for social security disability and you suddenly have free care. No need to commit a crime.
 
I'm gonna think it's gross. And I'm going to think it's disgusting. And I don't know why God does things like create pedophiles. I just think these pedophiles should not act on their urges but I don't know if that's possible for them to do. If they are caught acting on their urges it tells me they cannot control their urges and have to be removed from society forever without killing them
 
He should stay in prison and get a transplant (if he's a viable candidate, which it seems like he is) at the taxpayers' expense. When someone is imprisoned, part of it is that we as the taxpayers take on the burden of providing for that person. Shelter, meals, medical care, all of that.
 
A state sanction against criminal behaviour is deprivation of liberty. Being locked up is the entire punishment. While in control of his liberty, the state has a duty of care to the prisoner, involving humane treatment including medical care.
 
Was there a situation proposed? I can't seem to find it

My personal belief is that we are all miracles, equally .No person is more of a miracle than another person or fetus. So I wouldn't easily answer the question about who should got the liver. I'd probably leave it to others.

tI is my belief that this how God sees it.
 
He is a human being, we cant just let him die or release him early because of his sickness...
 
Your Star said:
Because they are a ward of the state, and all of their basic needs are the responsibility of the states.
Click to expand...

not a ward of the state, a prisoner of the state....and heart transplants are not a basic need.

we let people die all the time, why should a perv get any preference?
 
UtahBill said:
not a ward of the state, a prisoner of the state....and heart transplants are not a basic need.

we let people die all the time, why should a perv get any preference?
Click to expand...

Same thing really, and necessary medical needs are a basic need, and heart transplants is a necessary medical need. It would be unconstitutional to not give him the same treatment any other prisoner would get, because of his crime.
 
Your Star said:
Same thing really, and necessary medical needs are a basic need, and heart transplants is a necessary medical need. It would be unconstitutional to not give him the same treatment any other prisoner would get, because of his crime.
Click to expand...

true, so all criminals suffer the same....have his relatives on the outside do fund raisers like they do for innocent children with cancer.....
 
UtahBill said:
true, so all criminals suffer the same....have his relatives on the outside do fund raisers like they do for innocent children with cancer.....
Click to expand...

That would be cruel and unusual, like I said before, it's hard to swallow, but it's our law.
 
I think he should still get the heart transplant. It would be cruel and unusual punishment to deny him medically necessary procedures and would be akin to illegally giving him the death penalty. I don't like that we have to pay for it, but the state should pay for his procedure and allow him to have the heart transplant. He was sentenced to serve time, not to die or sentenced to never be released. Even in jail he still has a life.
 
X Factor said:
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.



What if he were on death row (say he killed his victim)? Would your answer change?
Click to expand...


Yes. If he were on death row, although I don't agree with the death penalty, he has already received a death sentence. I don't think we are obligated to keep him alive in order to kill him later.
 
see, my question is a bit more basic. why is a child rapist living long enough to need a heart transplant?
 
X Factor said:
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).
Click to expand...

To be honest, whatever term you choose to use will not really change the reality - that this hypothetical person we're talking about deserves love and support, just as you and I do.

X Factor said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand that you feel very strongly about this, and I am not telling you to change your mind. My view is that if we can excuse the suffering of another human being so cavalierly, then it is likely to contribute to a situation where others can treat you and I similarly in our moments of desperation.

If you have ever faced death or even almost died, you will know that it completely changes the game, or at least gives it a powerful potential to.

I believe in even a child molester's sovereignty of life, and for them to be allowed to reach out to others for support. In doing so, we not only cultivate compassion for that person over there, but for ourselves as well.

No matter what you have done in your life X that others may try to judge you for, I would extend the same courtesy to you.
 
Obviously the answer is "yes." Denial of healthcare is not an accepted criminal penalty.
 
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, not treating a medical condition because the person is old is fine?
 
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...

Nonsense. Life is a death sentence. I suppose if this man threatened 6o kill himself if we didn't turn him loose and give in a job in the Head Start Program, we would be killing him if we didn't turn him loose. Actually, we hear this death penalty whine every time an old person is convicted. Bernie Madoff's sentence is a "death sentence" because he's old.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom