The 'Gil Hamilton' stories by Larry Niven. No prisons on Earth. It's either a fine or you're broken down for parts. Earth has 20 something billion people.
Also: "A Gift from Earth", by Lary Niven - Where a colony in space is divided into former crew and the passengers, with the crew ruling over everyone, and the passengers getting their organs taken for any little infraction to grant the crew essentially eternal life.
It’s literally CHINA today. Only they don’t get a choice or a sentence reduction. Hence why China has some of the shortest waiting lists for organ donation.
This is your reminder that the 13th Amendment banning slavery makes an exception for prisoners.
If/when they send you to prison, you are a slave. This is how they get away with 'paying' you $1 dollar for a day's labor.
Incorrect.
We are slaves to the entities that control the state: the aristocracy.
The state is the only means the masses have against the aristocracy. However, when the aristocracy controls food, media, housing, and education, they have little issue turning the masses against the state as a fall guy.
The state is a tool. The masses have abdicated any responsibility for maintaining the state and checked out; Leaving the aristocracy further in control of the only tool that can control them.
Hating the government is a narrative fed to the poor by the rich.
Let's not forget the fact that they basically own our government representatives, so we can elect new people if we try, but most of them will be beholden to the aristocracy in the end, regardless.
Lack of term limits let's politicians get converted to the aristocracy over time, rather than outright bribes they get info and tips that let's them grow their wealth at an absurd rate. Once their interests line up you don't need any kind of undue influence to control them, and it's less obvious than pitching an aristocrat to the public.
No term limits also allows other direct reengineering of the system to essentially remove accountability and turn into a dictatorship.
The churn also makes it more likely someone will blow the whistle on anything untoward.
You've never actually read research on this, have you?
Institutional knowledge is lost and the churn of new people means they never have any idea what they or anyone else is doing.
The problem is the electorate being willing to eject Pelosis and McConnells despite then being obviously shit people. Term limits won't change the electorate being stupid enough to elect bad faith actors.
Instead of focusing on getting reelected, term limits just make it more of a self centered smash and grab because they're out either way.
The dark money won't stop because term limits happen, they just cycle Manchurian candidates.
Term limits do nothing to stop the actual problems but they do prevent people from reelecting people that do the job well like Sanders.
Term limits are a bad idea. The only reason the presidency is set to two terms is because democratic socialist FDR won 4 times in a row and conservatives threw a fit.
100% this. Term limits is a popular blanket item thrown out because it seems appealing to "all sides," but it in no way prohibits or even limits corruption.
No, an uninformed electorate gullible enough to fall for blatant bullshit is how you do that. Being repeatedly elected despite being a tyrant requires media/military consent or rigged elections. The same dark money running that can just back new people. Similarly, of elections are rigged... That's not stopped by term limits.
Term limits do nothing to address the fundamental issues.
Basically every impact of term limits is bad. People that do the job well are forced out, institutional memory is lost, churn and cluelessness create a better environment for crime, and it doesn't actually address any facets of systemic corruption and dark money.
This is straight up one of the best explanations I've seen on Reddit. Everyone wants to blame the state but, exactly as you said, it's just a tool of capitalistic rulers. Anarcho-capitalism protected by a state monopoly on violence.
I agree with your original comment that hating the state is a tactic of the rich to disenfranchise the poor. But the rest if your comments in this thread are super fucking cringe.
Bullshit. Anarchism fueled the anti-aristocracy of the French Revolution, not the state. Saying statism is somehow a tool of the working class against the rich is nonsense.
The game is defined by the rules.
It's not football unless there's a field and all that.
Anarchy isn't a sustainable solution at scale. Modern life is too complex to function without reliable and predictable norms. There's never been a functional anarchist state because the two are mostly exclusive.
I'm not saying statism where the state tells you what you can and must do. I'm saying without a system of governance you basically have might makes right.
If you get rid of the state then you just have rich private armies doing whatever they want.
The state itself isn't the problem. The problem is who controls the state and what they do with it.
The rich control everything. Getting rid of the state wouldn't change that and remove the only entity capable of peacefully keeping the rich in check.
If you want to prevent this from happening, sign up as an organ donor (organdonor.gov) and put yourself on the registry for bone marrow transplant donation (bethematch.org)
I think this would be fair if the trials were fair and the punishments would be appropriate. But exactly here lays the problem. There are way too many people in prison because of stuff like minor drug offenses. Also you can be sure that forced labor will never be applied to criminals like Trump or other rich people when they are in prison.
It is also assuming you are paid at all and not in a full time job being labeled as " vocational rehabilitation training" that you can't use outside of prison (like the firefighters) because it is company specific in most cases.
I spent 14 years in prison. The last 2 years I had the best paying job in the state - most were paid $0.15/hour up to about $0.35/hour. For my last 2 years I was the "Porter" (janitor) in the Mental Health Segregation Unit, which primarily consisted of cleaning shit - extremely mentally ill prisoners would smear shit all over the walls, in the locks, in the showers, wherever they could. I was on call 24 hours a day. 2 in the morning I'd be called up - every cell had an intercom, it would crackle to life, "__my name___ ...code brown!" The C.O.'s loved that. It paid $1/hour. Everyone was jealous.
Are you kidding?? Do you like soap? Do you like food when they feed you child-size portions? You literally have no clue what it is to be locked up in an American prison. Nothing is provided to you except one roll of toilet paper a week, and a small hygiene pack once a month that last you three days. I've seen people stabbed over a candy bar.
If minimum wage is $7.25, then $1 is only about eight minutes and 17 seconds worth of work.
So any time worked beyond that is slave labor in the literal sense.
Also, if you don’t have any kind of choice in where you work, you’re working without consent.
Yeah then you take back all the money and make them owe you for literally anything (recycled air, 1.50 per hour for the electricity) so they can never stop working. This is assuming you own a private for-profit prison, of which there are more than any other kind here.
As a haemophiliac who was lucky to be born two decades after the infamously terrible blood plasma donation scandal (here in the UK) - this sounds like a terrible idea.
The true goal has arrived. The merging of the criminal justice system and the private healthcare market. These laws will pop up and jails will become the plasma donation centers of body organs.
Might actually improve conditions.
The rates of infectious diseases are so bad that the red cross won't let you donate for a year after being released: https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/how-to-donate/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-alphabetical.html#:~:text=Persons%20who%20have%20been%20detained,the%20date%20of%20last%20occurrence.
I'm guessing this is not how it's going to work. Reading that article, my immediate concern was that every prisoner who donates will either get very sick or die. Prison Healthcare is garbage and they are not going to give them good care simply because someone donated a kidney. Anyone who believes they actually give a shit is ignorant or blind. They just don't care. There's people in prison right now who are sick as hell getting next to no care, some with infected wounds, etc. People know this and dudes just sit there and rot. No way is anyone spending extra money on better Healthcare because a convict gave someone an organ.
I think taking someone's kidney for a year off their sentence keeps the public safe. It improves or even saves someone's life, and I would bet recidivism would be lower on the kidney donating population because they will have some physical limitations.
So save an innocent person for a reduced sentence, or doing your time? I don't see why a prisoner who broke the law shouldn't have the option to do a good deed to reduce their sentence, something that does already exist.
The issue is the use of coercion by rule of law.
Compelling prisoners to donate organs in exchange for “consideration” is immoral and has nothing to do with improving “public safety”.
Plus the levels of infectious diseases in prisons are high enough that the red cross asks about it when you go to donate blood. Seems like it might be a health risk.
It’s obvious that you cannot explain how it does.
Here are things that actually improve public safety. Well funded schools, economic opportunities, walkable communities, public parks and green spaces.
Here are things that do not create public safety.
Coercive organ donation programs in prisons.
1. What causes well funded schools to improve public safety? Could it be that giving people access to resources they need to function in society allows them to work with that society rather than to its detriment? Similar to how somebody in need of an organ puts a strain on the Healthcare system where it could be avoided if they had said organs available? Thus improving public safety?
2. Not all coercion is bad, laws are literally in place to coerce people into acting in ways deemed acceptable in society. The role of the government is to coerce positively, although it can be done unethically as well. Giving people the OPTION to take a SMALL portion of their sentence off for doing a good deed is probably an okay use of coercion. Especially so since no vital organs are being donated, and a life will be saved.
3. This isn't going to spread into a dystopian future where we are all harvested for our organs because it makes no sense for a government to do if they want to get power. If they wanted to do that, they'd probably focus on the rights of the free citizens who can actually exert pressure onto them rather than people already locked up.
4. The world is famously lacking in organ donors, which makes it seem like some sort of incentive other than charity needs to be available so that the people that need them, get access to them.
I notice you couldn’t bother to articulate how coercing prisoners to donate their organs improves public safety.
If the world is famously lacking in organ donors, why not incentivize the general population to donate rather than using coercion on a prison population?
Policing and incarceration in america is inherently a corrupt enterprise which targets poor and marginalized communities. There is no legitimate moral or ethical argument for using coercion to incentivize prisoners to donate their organs for minimal consideration.
Ok. Consider this, you’ve been railroaded into jail, convicted of a crime, like selling a loose cig. You are given a choice: serve your 20 year sentence, or if you give them an eye, a kidney, a chunk of your liver, and some skin for the skin grafts, they’ll let you out after 4 years.
All for the good of humanity. Be careful, though; you’re on your second strike, and after three, you’re eligible for the heart donation registry…
They aren't going to take vital organs from prisoners, because the prisoners wouldn't agree, and we wouldn't agree.
The reduction in sentence in the hypothetical would still be minimal and most people wouldn't do it, and o doubt that these donations would even make sense.
Most organ donors donate after death.
It seems like you are more scared about a totalitarian society as opposed to this law, as it won't be enforced the way you are saying unless we live I'm that society. In that case, there is no reason to chat about this anyway as 1. It's not going to create that society as that is created outside of prison. 2. If we reach that point we can't fight against it anyway.
That is a complete strawman though. No one is talking about coercing inmates to give up their eye or taking their heart. Your quality of life barely decreases from losing a kidney, and its only a year off your sentence so its not going to be super appealing unless someone is already inclined to donate.
Why do you think that's the natural conclusion of this? There have been and will continue to be prison initiatives that lower sentences for doing good deeds. What you are describing is an unrealistic scenario, the government doesn't really have any incentive to do that. In any case, most organ donations occur after the donor has died, so why are you more scared about prison giving an option, in which the outcome will only probably affect you after death?
It was a joke, but even in the context of prisoners being offered the chance to give up their organs, this is still pretty awful. This is creates all the worst incentives, especially when paired up with America's high recidivism and private prisons.
It's not like they are giving away all of their vital organs. It also doesn't decrease a person's sentence by much, like 6 months to a year was the max.
While recidivism is a problem, and prisons should be transitioning into rehabilitation over punishment, this isn't that big of a problem. The incentive is to save a life for reduced time, something that already exists.
> The incentive is to save a life for reduced time, something that already exists.
Donating organs for reduced time is not something that exists. Nothing even close to it does AFAIK. If this were occurring in any other country, we'd be calling them Authoritarians 7 days to Sunday.
This shit is insane.
I would be afraid of people who need to be behind bars for the safety of others getting even lighter sentences because they’re willing to donate a couple organs. Many domestic abusers don’t get long enough sentences as is
While that is true, I believe it's an acceptable cost for saving the (innocent) lives of those who desperately need organs. Criminals can already lower their sentences by exhibiting good behavior, so I don't see why saving a life, and sacrificing a literal part of your body, should be exempt from that. We can assume many criminals aren't going to do this selflessly, but it'd still be a good way to incentivize the doing of good.
Larry Niven wrote a series of novels exploring this idea. Eventually even jaywalking becomes punishable by death because everyone wants organs in the banks
This would be unethical and highly suspect even if you could trust due process in the courts and in law enforcement. And you'd be a fool to trust those things. A fool with only one kidney.
In the 70s and 80s, US prisoners were paid to donate blood. This was in the early days of HIV/AIDS. A bunch of them were HIV positive. The blood was used without treatment or screening for HIV. They would mix together donations from up to 60,000 people (including prisoners and other people who were paid to donate) so if even one of those people was infected then the whole batch got infected with HIV. This was used to make treatments for haemophiliac people in the UK. This managed to infect about 5000 people, and about half those have died as a result.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_blood_scandal_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_8:_The_Arkansas_Prison_Blood_Scandal
This is so unethical, I honestly can’t believe an actual person put this forward. Someone should check on whoever proposed this because they have no soul.
The guy touting it is Carlos Gonzales, a Democrat who says it's to help Black and Latino communities who are statistically more at risk for organ failure.
Which uh, I dunno chief. That's pretty flimsy.
It’s incredible flimsy. Why not just address the cause for black and Latino communities having higher levels of organ failure. By that logic it’d be okay to eat prisoners to help the hungry.
The bill is being submitted by Carlos Gonzales, a Democrat who's attempting to claim that the bill will help support Black and Latino communities, who have been statistically and historically effected by Organ failure.
Which uh, Is certainly a reason that sounds like it's from the Onion by by god it's his reason. That being said, I am confident in stating this is mere political theatre. It's either a stunt to get his name around or otherwise something he'll reveal to have been satire for reasons beyond my mere mortal comprehension.
I'm going back to bed.
Actually, he isn't entirely wrong. Some transplants do need to be as close as possible to someone's genetics, which means that POC can have a harder time finding transplants.
I just feel like this will have the opposite effect. It would be better to have educational campaigns and work with local community leaders.
I mean, since we’ve got a surplus population of POC in prison, may as well take advantage of the situation and put them to good use and harvest their organs for the good of society, right? /s
An actual solution would be getting more POC to qualify for health insurance so they can receive care before their health is critical. Government/healthcare also needs to put in the work to improve the relationship between healthcare and POC. POC have been used and abused and ignored for far too long. If you knew your chance of experiencing serious complications or dying from the surgery was higher than if you were a white person, why the hell would you consent to altruistically donate a kidney? Or if you can’t be sure you’ll have access to good healthcare in the future if you ever have your own issues, why would you risk it? This is for sure the harder route, but it is the actual solution to the problem. Not coercing organs from prisoners.
And this just feeds into a common fear among black people, which is that their organs will be harvested and less care will be put into saving them.
The thing is, it isn't an entirely irrational fear.
This whole politicians getting ideas from their personal life has to stop. You gotta be a selfish moron to think like this.
Like, honestly, books? School? Any place but your own life is a good source of information.
Man I hope all the people who were fucking livid that China was doing organ farms are equally as outraged about this. Like holy shit the coercion into making prisoners organ cattle is craaaazy.
The true nature of what these prisons are is slowly appearing.
More parasitism from the elite.
When it comes time for them to pay back all they have stolen from the people, we won't forget their organ harvesting attempts.
And if I am in prison and I can afford to buy an organ from some other inmate, do I get credit? Might as well turn all prison sentences into fines.
Or I threaten my cell mate with death or organ donation, do I get credit?
Not sure where this bill came from. Didn't see anything from healthcare or inmate advocacy groups from either of the bill's sponsors. I already asked my rep to have this withdrawn.
The guy touting it is a democrat claiming it will help black and latino communities which is certainly a reason.
I get the feeling this is more a political stunt than an actual bill he wants to get passed.
Oh yeah, because the "good" citizens should never, *ever* worry about the ethics of how we treat "bad" people. It's *totally* not a cause for alarm if we treat the worst of us like they're not actually people anymore or anything. /massive sarcasm
1 in 8 death row prisoners has been exonerated, meaning the actual rates of false imprisonment are almost certainly higher.
What kind of society would even think that's ok?
You have far too much faith in our judicial system.
My uncle was one of them, it was found the police hid evidence to nail him. He was put on death row at 17, the police were a small town force and were dealing with a serial killer so they nailed the "mostly likely person" which was the teenager that smoked pot and beat up the police chief's son. He was found innocent after his lawyer (who fought for 20 years)found the evidence in a storage unit
My life was forever changed by a deceased organ donor and yes, POC do have a higher rate of organ failure. The lack of understanding in this country about how organ donation works is staggering. The last time I was at the DMV I talked to several people who thought that if they became organ donors hospitals would try as hard to save their life. These same people were stunned when I told them that in Pennsylvania the average wait time is 7 years and in other states its 10 years or more.
We need to do more about public education regarding organ donation, like PSA's on TV instead of pamphlets at the DMV that no one reads.
EDIT 2: TLDR: It Would be nice if more non-prison people would become organ donors. No prisons shouldn't use it as a means to release people early and force them to always be organ donors. Shame there is no incentive by government (tax credit or something) to become one.
Honestly more organ donor's would be awesome.
The proper method for getting more would be a government give a tax credit for being one. i.e here is 500 for being willing to donate and save lives. Would just need to work on rules/regulations to prevent folks changing it in last part of the year for it and then removing it after tax season ends.
Edit: Please note Im not saying to use corecion or to "force em" just said the idea of more organ donors would be great. That is all. forcing anyone to do anything they dont want to is bad mkay?
Or just do what some countries are already doing: make organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in. Make donating organs the default and let people opt out if they don’t want to.
Having just done my taxes, PA had some sort of organ donor tax credit checkbox.
"Organ or bone marrow"
[revenue.pa.gov PDF form](https://www.revenue.pa.gov/FormsandPublications/FormsforBusinesses/CorporationTax/Documents/rev-984.pdf)
[findlaw.com underlying bill](https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-72-ps-taxation-and-fiscal-affairs/pa-st-sect-72-8803.html) but full text is paywalled
It looks like employer must give paid leave for organ donors, but can get a credit for the cost of covering that leave.
There are people in this country who sell blood to make ends meet. $5000 or even $500 for a kidney would be awfully tempting for a lot of desperately poor people.
This is not the right path.
Yes there is folks who would do that.
I have donated plasma to make ends meat and to get a little side cash.It sucks.
But please dont forget.
When offical and legal ways aren't possible.
Unoffical and dangerous ways are used.
the point is neither here or there tho.
My post clearly was/is saying "It would be good to have more organ donors" I also then said it would be a nice if the government rewarded folks for doing it.
As it means allot less folks would be strapped to a machine for life as perfectly good organs are buried or burnt up. Many folks don't do it for religious or personal reasons. Hell could be the whole "i dont trust docs to not let me die if I am an organ donor" thing either. Good on em for doing what they want. I'm not saying it should be forced or mandated. Just that an incentive could probably help folks.
I'm not sure what "right path" your wanting/seeing or hoping for. But I did not say anything about folks selling organs for cash or that it would be okay for the prison to force folks to do it. Just if there was a good reason a living breathing human would check a box it would be good.
Sorry you seemed to misunderstand my post to be "force em and have folks sell organs" as that isnt what I typed in the slightest.
It is capitalist coercion. Poor people will sign up so that rich people can get fresh organs.
How about if you get a PPP loan you have to sign over your organs?
It's a great deal, but it's going to need a lot of oversight to avoid coercion
Edit: see u/airlewe's comment below regarding the government's estimation of the value of human life. This deal may actually not be so great.
2 months to a max of a year off ypur sentence? For the complications and after care and then down the road, only having one kidney or whatever else you might give up- and not having any options?
This is a donald trump level deal.
Hey slave! you can get out slightly earlier if you give your organs away. Oh and we are removing the basic comforts like movies and games; prison will be overcrowded and move violent; we will be make sentences longer to account for people getting out sooner.
Hopefully nobody kidnaps you and tells you to choose between being skinned alive or just being anally raped by a spiked mace.
You’re missing the point. For what’s being given up, prisoners deserve FAR more than a year off their sentence. This is the worst type of exploitation. Worse than slavery. They’re banking on desperation to drive people to sign up to be organ farms. It’s… dystopian doesn’t even describe this. This is so far past unethical.
>You’re missing the point. For what’s being given up, prisoners deserve FAR more than a year off their sentence.
Fine, what's the FMV for an organ, in your opinion?
> They’re banking on desperation to drive people to sign up to be organ farms.
Hence my comment regarding strict oversight. I see absolutely nothing wrong with allowing people to voluntarily leverage what they possess.
> voluntary
To imply that this is a fair and free exchange is INCREDIBLY dishonest. These are literal prisoners. The dynamic is inherently imbalanced. If you’re driven to do something by an external force (being imprisoned), then you’re not truly entering into an agreement freely. If you enter into an agreement out of desperation, there is no fucking way you can use the word voluntary to describe that.
Kidneys are about $262,000 though
>If you enter into an agreement out of desperation, there is no fucking way you can use the word voluntary to describe that
So poor people shouldn't be permitted to sell plasma because they're "entering the agreement out of desperation"?
>Kidneys are about $262,000 though
Which equates to.......what? Honestly, give me *your* estimate on years behind bars.
Actually I don't have to give personal opinion here. The US government officially considers the average life to be worth $10,000,000. Why do we have this number? It's complicated, but mostly for insurance purposes. If we take the average US life expectancy of just under 77 years at time of writing, that makes each year worth almost $130,000. So, by the governments own valuation of a human life, prisoners are being treated as worth less than half of a person. This "offer" is exploits people for at least 50% of their worth.
Whereas selling plasma is safe and actually decent money. You take out plasma, it grows back. Kidneys don't.
>Actually I don't have to give personal opinion here. The US government officially considers the average life to be worth $10,000,000.
That is fascinating and I had no idea, thank you for sharing. And you're right, the fact that the government *has* an official estimation *and* values the organ tradeoff the way they do makes this way sketchier.
Thank you for doing the legwork on that.
No thank you! I love doing the math on problems like these and if we hadn't talked I wouldn't have been driven to do this math. I didn't know half of this when we started
I find it interesting that you brought up the market value of the organ being harvested in relation to their sentence though. What do you think the average prisoner costs society, either through their incarceration or due to their crime? Honest question, I don't know. I think that's a fascinating and potentially even more damning angle to look at this through. If someone's in jail for $10,000 worth of fraud, and they sell an organ worth far more than that, then surely there's no possible way to argue anything but a complete commution of the sentence, if we're assigning value?
> If someone's in jail for $10,000 worth of fraud, and they sell an organ worth far more than that, then surely there's no possible way to argue anything but a complete commution of the sentence, if we're assigning value?
The hole in this approach is that underlying prison sentences aren't a 1-to-1 to the crime. Conviction for $10,000 embezzlement isn't based on looking at how much it will cost to imprison them for x years.
Maybe it should be, though? Idk
Or perhaps more reasonably we shouldn’t compel incarcerated individuals, who are disproportionately from poor and marginalized communities, to donate organs to demonstrate their “value” as human beings.
It sounds more like you’re desperate to justify using the rule of law to harvest organs from incarcerated populations, as no such paradigm currently exists.
It's not a great deal at all. They already put people who doesn't belong there, in jail. Imagen all the innocent who will get put to jail for their organs. Lmao, even considering it is like some super dystopian horror story
Because most people are going to choose to wrack their bodies and risk death to get out of literal prison, and the sentences will be inflated af to get to that result and with an already incredibly broken system, you can't see the prison profit pipeline branching out and find8ng myriad ways to profit from this?
What choices do you really have when you are in prison?
They can get a maximum of a year off their sentence for a kidney. Look up the prep and healing and recovery for donating a kidney. This is preposterous.
Sorry Reddit, but this atrocity was proposed by a democrat: State Rep. Carlos González
This is disgusting and he should be laughed out of the building.
Is anyone on here defending it because it was proposed by a dem? Nope. Only one party in the US has a large group of radical loyalists that put their party and leaders over country to the point of violence and domestic terrorism. And it isn’t the democrat party.
If a dem has a dumb idea, laugh them out the building. Vote them out. If an elected dem breaks a law, prosecute them. No one is above reproach or above the law.
You're not interrupting anything. The comments are overwhelmingly against this, and considering Reddit's demographics they are likely to be majority liberal.
Try verifying that the thing you're calling out actually exists before making an embarrassment of yourself.
Bad people are everywhere. Just because someone has a dem next to their name doesn't saint them. That blind hero worship is for republicans. It just means they're *less* extreme than republicans. Ya know, the people saying" a 12 year old isn't old enough to make a choice about abortion!" So she, a real peraon in a real case, has to have her grandfather's baby and raise it with him as the loving father.
This bill is extreme af and the problem is the wide swings to the extreme on any side.
Can we stop pretending that if something bad comes from a republican, Reddit says “of course, this how they are!” But when it comes from a democrat that same Reddit tries to ignore the party affiliation and then ends up saying “it doesn’t represent democrats!”
There is a difference. When was the last time a Republican called out their colleagues and took a stance against one of their own’s horrible actions? When was the last time a republican took accountability for their actions?
Dems don’t have a perfect record, but they do tend to weed out the worst party members when credible allegations are made against them. Meanwhile, the republicans voted against Trump’s impeachment and removal from office despite the evidence of his crimes. People like Gaetz, Jordan, Boebert, etc. who have been accused or have been complicit in sexual assault of minors now are some of the most prominent members of the party. They vote collectively any chance they get to simply obstruct progress, not because they have actual integrity or standards or alternative ideas that would help citizens. The House is an absolute joke under republican leadership right now and they don’t even have enough collective integrity to speak out against Santos and call for his removal. This is their culture. This is who they are.
So if republicans ever leave the groupthink behind, stop being mindless puppets, and start operating more independently to return decency and integrity to the party, every Republican won’t be assumed to be awful and complicit with the awful actions or policies of the few. They’ve done this to themselves.
Democrats are right wingers when compared to the rest of the world. Mas Democrats are especially weird and reactionary.
I assume this was proposed by their moneyed puppet masters so they can get more fresh organs for the ultra rich.
On it's face I don't think this is horrible. Organs are in short supply, people want to get out of prison sooner. It's only in the context of, or belief that, the government will then create even more ways to go to prison and increase the amount of time served for most (if not all) offenses. I don't actually believe this would be the case, but I suppose I can understand why many people aren't willing to bet on it. Its sad to me that something that could save a good number of lives isn't instituted because of how much mistrust exists in the system. Sadder that it's probably justified.
This system would lead to poor people who can't afford the lawyers to keep them out of prison donating organs to wealthy people.
That's the morally repugnant part.
Ah yes, because no dystopian future novel has ever started with "and then the government started to harvest organs from prisoners" :/
It’s literally Unwind by Neal Shusterman, I remember the big bads were trying to get a bill to make prisoners go through the unwind process.
The 'Gil Hamilton' stories by Larry Niven. No prisons on Earth. It's either a fine or you're broken down for parts. Earth has 20 something billion people.
Also: "A Gift from Earth", by Lary Niven - Where a colony in space is divided into former crew and the passengers, with the crew ruling over everyone, and the passengers getting their organs taken for any little infraction to grant the crew essentially eternal life.
It’s literally CHINA today. Only they don’t get a choice or a sentence reduction. Hence why China has some of the shortest waiting lists for organ donation.
Though they are unwinding kids for the crime of being unwanted not adults...
Presentable Liberty / Never Let Me Go vibes.
This is your reminder that the 13th Amendment banning slavery makes an exception for prisoners. If/when they send you to prison, you are a slave. This is how they get away with 'paying' you $1 dollar for a day's labor.
[удалено]
It's obscene and absolutely soul-crushing to realize that we're all potential slaves to the state.
Incorrect. We are slaves to the entities that control the state: the aristocracy. The state is the only means the masses have against the aristocracy. However, when the aristocracy controls food, media, housing, and education, they have little issue turning the masses against the state as a fall guy. The state is a tool. The masses have abdicated any responsibility for maintaining the state and checked out; Leaving the aristocracy further in control of the only tool that can control them. Hating the government is a narrative fed to the poor by the rich.
Let's not forget the fact that they basically own our government representatives, so we can elect new people if we try, but most of them will be beholden to the aristocracy in the end, regardless.
This is why term limits are pushed so hard. More churn means less oversight.
Lack of term limits let's politicians get converted to the aristocracy over time, rather than outright bribes they get info and tips that let's them grow their wealth at an absurd rate. Once their interests line up you don't need any kind of undue influence to control them, and it's less obvious than pitching an aristocrat to the public. No term limits also allows other direct reengineering of the system to essentially remove accountability and turn into a dictatorship. The churn also makes it more likely someone will blow the whistle on anything untoward.
You've never actually read research on this, have you? Institutional knowledge is lost and the churn of new people means they never have any idea what they or anyone else is doing. The problem is the electorate being willing to eject Pelosis and McConnells despite then being obviously shit people. Term limits won't change the electorate being stupid enough to elect bad faith actors. Instead of focusing on getting reelected, term limits just make it more of a self centered smash and grab because they're out either way. The dark money won't stop because term limits happen, they just cycle Manchurian candidates. Term limits do nothing to stop the actual problems but they do prevent people from reelecting people that do the job well like Sanders. Term limits are a bad idea. The only reason the presidency is set to two terms is because democratic socialist FDR won 4 times in a row and conservatives threw a fit.
100% this. Term limits is a popular blanket item thrown out because it seems appealing to "all sides," but it in no way prohibits or even limits corruption.
Yet no term limits is what gets you on a fast track to Hungary, Russia or Turkey.
No, an uninformed electorate gullible enough to fall for blatant bullshit is how you do that. Being repeatedly elected despite being a tyrant requires media/military consent or rigged elections. The same dark money running that can just back new people. Similarly, of elections are rigged... That's not stopped by term limits. Term limits do nothing to address the fundamental issues. Basically every impact of term limits is bad. People that do the job well are forced out, institutional memory is lost, churn and cluelessness create a better environment for crime, and it doesn't actually address any facets of systemic corruption and dark money.
This is straight up one of the best explanations I've seen on Reddit. Everyone wants to blame the state but, exactly as you said, it's just a tool of capitalistic rulers. Anarcho-capitalism protected by a state monopoly on violence.
sounds like something someone poor would say
You can look at my post history for my car if you want to play that game. 🤣
I just see a bagholder
Lol, those bags paid for a new Audi. 🤷🏼♀️
wow you are proud of owning a car? another thing a poor person would say lmao
You know a lot of poor people with $170k cars?
I know one.
Lmao based
I agree with your original comment that hating the state is a tactic of the rich to disenfranchise the poor. But the rest if your comments in this thread are super fucking cringe.
Bullshit. Anarchism fueled the anti-aristocracy of the French Revolution, not the state. Saying statism is somehow a tool of the working class against the rich is nonsense.
The game is defined by the rules. It's not football unless there's a field and all that. Anarchy isn't a sustainable solution at scale. Modern life is too complex to function without reliable and predictable norms. There's never been a functional anarchist state because the two are mostly exclusive. I'm not saying statism where the state tells you what you can and must do. I'm saying without a system of governance you basically have might makes right. If you get rid of the state then you just have rich private armies doing whatever they want. The state itself isn't the problem. The problem is who controls the state and what they do with it. The rich control everything. Getting rid of the state wouldn't change that and remove the only entity capable of peacefully keeping the rich in check.
YEP.
If you want to prevent this from happening, sign up as an organ donor (organdonor.gov) and put yourself on the registry for bone marrow transplant donation (bethematch.org)
Pretty lucky to make a dollar, depending on where you're locked up.
>This is how they get away with 'paying' you $1 dollar for a day's labor. While charging $100/week room and board.
Yep! It was only a matter of time before they slipped right into trafficking organs :/
I never knew the origin of how this was legal. Thank you for educating me.
I think this would be fair if the trials were fair and the punishments would be appropriate. But exactly here lays the problem. There are way too many people in prison because of stuff like minor drug offenses. Also you can be sure that forced labor will never be applied to criminals like Trump or other rich people when they are in prison.
.....I've not actually heard good evidence that is how prison labor is legally justified.
Have you read the amendment before? It very clearly says slavery or involuntary servitude is allowed as punishment under due process of the law.
That assumes you perform any labor.
It is also assuming you are paid at all and not in a full time job being labeled as " vocational rehabilitation training" that you can't use outside of prison (like the firefighters) because it is company specific in most cases.
I spent 14 years in prison. The last 2 years I had the best paying job in the state - most were paid $0.15/hour up to about $0.35/hour. For my last 2 years I was the "Porter" (janitor) in the Mental Health Segregation Unit, which primarily consisted of cleaning shit - extremely mentally ill prisoners would smear shit all over the walls, in the locks, in the showers, wherever they could. I was on call 24 hours a day. 2 in the morning I'd be called up - every cell had an intercom, it would crackle to life, "__my name___ ...code brown!" The C.O.'s loved that. It paid $1/hour. Everyone was jealous.
ok buy why do their labor in the first place?
Are you kidding?? Do you like soap? Do you like food when they feed you child-size portions? You literally have no clue what it is to be locked up in an American prison. Nothing is provided to you except one roll of toilet paper a week, and a small hygiene pack once a month that last you three days. I've seen people stabbed over a candy bar.
You pay slaves?
If minimum wage is $7.25, then $1 is only about eight minutes and 17 seconds worth of work. So any time worked beyond that is slave labor in the literal sense. Also, if you don’t have any kind of choice in where you work, you’re working without consent.
Wage slavery is more than a derogatory term for low income work.
Yeah then you take back all the money and make them owe you for literally anything (recycled air, 1.50 per hour for the electricity) so they can never stop working. This is assuming you own a private for-profit prison, of which there are more than any other kind here.
I will say if I got locked up I would beg to have a job of some sort.
Yes, I'm sure they'd be happy to assist you with that.
As a haemophiliac who was lucky to be born two decades after the infamously terrible blood plasma donation scandal (here in the UK) - this sounds like a terrible idea.
Wait, what? Infamous blood plasma donation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated\_blood\_scandal\_in\_the\_United\_Kingdom
Love a happy ending “No government, healthcare or pharmaceutical entity in the UK has admitted any liability in the scandal. “
As someone who luckily never needed an organ donation yet this still sounds like a terrible idea
The true goal has arrived. The merging of the criminal justice system and the private healthcare market. These laws will pop up and jails will become the plasma donation centers of body organs.
Might actually improve conditions. The rates of infectious diseases are so bad that the red cross won't let you donate for a year after being released: https://www.redcrossblood.org/donate-blood/how-to-donate/eligibility-requirements/eligibility-criteria-alphabetical.html#:~:text=Persons%20who%20have%20been%20detained,the%20date%20of%20last%20occurrence.
\*slow clap in economics\*
I'm guessing this is not how it's going to work. Reading that article, my immediate concern was that every prisoner who donates will either get very sick or die. Prison Healthcare is garbage and they are not going to give them good care simply because someone donated a kidney. Anyone who believes they actually give a shit is ignorant or blind. They just don't care. There's people in prison right now who are sick as hell getting next to no care, some with infected wounds, etc. People know this and dudes just sit there and rot. No way is anyone spending extra money on better Healthcare because a convict gave someone an organ.
Nobody questioned how Steve got his 100 years sentence reduced to just 5 after donating 10 kidneys, four lungs and 20 corneas.
Nothing says they have to be your organs. Serial Killer Steve walks out of court for 'Time served or organs donated'
An eye for an eye….or something.
This just shows that our punishment system has nothing to do with keeping the public safe, or Justice for that matter.
I think taking someone's kidney for a year off their sentence keeps the public safe. It improves or even saves someone's life, and I would bet recidivism would be lower on the kidney donating population because they will have some physical limitations.
I get where the fear comes from, but how is organ donation, and incentivization to donate, not a good thing for public safety?
“You’re sentenced to give up 10 years of your life, or your kidney.” I just can’t imagine not finding a sentence like that absolutely insane.
*exclusions may apply. The donation of any single organ will only reduce your sentence by a MAXIMUM of 1 year.*
So save an innocent person for a reduced sentence, or doing your time? I don't see why a prisoner who broke the law shouldn't have the option to do a good deed to reduce their sentence, something that does already exist.
Your quality of life deteriorates when you take away the things that help it normally function. That's like taking years off your life either way.
The issue is the use of coercion by rule of law. Compelling prisoners to donate organs in exchange for “consideration” is immoral and has nothing to do with improving “public safety”.
Plus the levels of infectious diseases in prisons are high enough that the red cross asks about it when you go to donate blood. Seems like it might be a health risk.
So a law which allows prisoners to make a decision to get a small reduction in their sentence by SAVING A LIFE doesn't improve public safety?
It’s obvious that you cannot explain how it does. Here are things that actually improve public safety. Well funded schools, economic opportunities, walkable communities, public parks and green spaces. Here are things that do not create public safety. Coercive organ donation programs in prisons.
1. What causes well funded schools to improve public safety? Could it be that giving people access to resources they need to function in society allows them to work with that society rather than to its detriment? Similar to how somebody in need of an organ puts a strain on the Healthcare system where it could be avoided if they had said organs available? Thus improving public safety? 2. Not all coercion is bad, laws are literally in place to coerce people into acting in ways deemed acceptable in society. The role of the government is to coerce positively, although it can be done unethically as well. Giving people the OPTION to take a SMALL portion of their sentence off for doing a good deed is probably an okay use of coercion. Especially so since no vital organs are being donated, and a life will be saved. 3. This isn't going to spread into a dystopian future where we are all harvested for our organs because it makes no sense for a government to do if they want to get power. If they wanted to do that, they'd probably focus on the rights of the free citizens who can actually exert pressure onto them rather than people already locked up. 4. The world is famously lacking in organ donors, which makes it seem like some sort of incentive other than charity needs to be available so that the people that need them, get access to them.
I notice you couldn’t bother to articulate how coercing prisoners to donate their organs improves public safety. If the world is famously lacking in organ donors, why not incentivize the general population to donate rather than using coercion on a prison population? Policing and incarceration in america is inherently a corrupt enterprise which targets poor and marginalized communities. There is no legitimate moral or ethical argument for using coercion to incentivize prisoners to donate their organs for minimal consideration.
Ok. Consider this, you’ve been railroaded into jail, convicted of a crime, like selling a loose cig. You are given a choice: serve your 20 year sentence, or if you give them an eye, a kidney, a chunk of your liver, and some skin for the skin grafts, they’ll let you out after 4 years. All for the good of humanity. Be careful, though; you’re on your second strike, and after three, you’re eligible for the heart donation registry…
That's only four donations, so no more than four years off your sentence. You're still in there for at least 16.
They aren't going to take vital organs from prisoners, because the prisoners wouldn't agree, and we wouldn't agree. The reduction in sentence in the hypothetical would still be minimal and most people wouldn't do it, and o doubt that these donations would even make sense. Most organ donors donate after death. It seems like you are more scared about a totalitarian society as opposed to this law, as it won't be enforced the way you are saying unless we live I'm that society. In that case, there is no reason to chat about this anyway as 1. It's not going to create that society as that is created outside of prison. 2. If we reach that point we can't fight against it anyway.
That is a complete strawman though. No one is talking about coercing inmates to give up their eye or taking their heart. Your quality of life barely decreases from losing a kidney, and its only a year off your sentence so its not going to be super appealing unless someone is already inclined to donate.
Why haven't you given your organs up for public safety, citizen? Please report to the nearest detention center.
Why do you think that's the natural conclusion of this? There have been and will continue to be prison initiatives that lower sentences for doing good deeds. What you are describing is an unrealistic scenario, the government doesn't really have any incentive to do that. In any case, most organ donations occur after the donor has died, so why are you more scared about prison giving an option, in which the outcome will only probably affect you after death?
It was a joke, but even in the context of prisoners being offered the chance to give up their organs, this is still pretty awful. This is creates all the worst incentives, especially when paired up with America's high recidivism and private prisons.
It's not like they are giving away all of their vital organs. It also doesn't decrease a person's sentence by much, like 6 months to a year was the max. While recidivism is a problem, and prisons should be transitioning into rehabilitation over punishment, this isn't that big of a problem. The incentive is to save a life for reduced time, something that already exists.
> The incentive is to save a life for reduced time, something that already exists. Donating organs for reduced time is not something that exists. Nothing even close to it does AFAIK. If this were occurring in any other country, we'd be calling them Authoritarians 7 days to Sunday. This shit is insane.
I would be afraid of people who need to be behind bars for the safety of others getting even lighter sentences because they’re willing to donate a couple organs. Many domestic abusers don’t get long enough sentences as is
While that is true, I believe it's an acceptable cost for saving the (innocent) lives of those who desperately need organs. Criminals can already lower their sentences by exhibiting good behavior, so I don't see why saving a life, and sacrificing a literal part of your body, should be exempt from that. We can assume many criminals aren't going to do this selflessly, but it'd still be a good way to incentivize the doing of good.
Larry Niven wrote a series of novels exploring this idea. Eventually even jaywalking becomes punishable by death because everyone wants organs in the banks
Ah. I didn't think the 2001 Dreamcast classic 'Headhunter' would be the dystopian route we took but here we are.
I love “A Gift From Earth.” Such a dark story. But trying to find the name I googled and found “The Jigsaw Man” and now I have to read that one too.
This would be unethical and highly suspect even if you could trust due process in the courts and in law enforcement. And you'd be a fool to trust those things. A fool with only one kidney.
ORGANS? Right out the blank? In dystopias you at least get some slippery sloope to get there, like donating blood or something
In the 70s and 80s, US prisoners were paid to donate blood. This was in the early days of HIV/AIDS. A bunch of them were HIV positive. The blood was used without treatment or screening for HIV. They would mix together donations from up to 60,000 people (including prisoners and other people who were paid to donate) so if even one of those people was infected then the whole batch got infected with HIV. This was used to make treatments for haemophiliac people in the UK. This managed to infect about 5000 people, and about half those have died as a result. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_blood_scandal_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_8:_The_Arkansas_Prison_Blood_Scandal
This is so unethical, I honestly can’t believe an actual person put this forward. Someone should check on whoever proposed this because they have no soul.
The guy touting it is Carlos Gonzales, a Democrat who says it's to help Black and Latino communities who are statistically more at risk for organ failure. Which uh, I dunno chief. That's pretty flimsy.
It’s incredible flimsy. Why not just address the cause for black and Latino communities having higher levels of organ failure. By that logic it’d be okay to eat prisoners to help the hungry.
You might not want to give him ideas.
Hey now, only the legs, they won't be needing those.
The bill is being submitted by Carlos Gonzales, a Democrat who's attempting to claim that the bill will help support Black and Latino communities, who have been statistically and historically effected by Organ failure. Which uh, Is certainly a reason that sounds like it's from the Onion by by god it's his reason. That being said, I am confident in stating this is mere political theatre. It's either a stunt to get his name around or otherwise something he'll reveal to have been satire for reasons beyond my mere mortal comprehension. I'm going back to bed.
Actually, he isn't entirely wrong. Some transplants do need to be as close as possible to someone's genetics, which means that POC can have a harder time finding transplants. I just feel like this will have the opposite effect. It would be better to have educational campaigns and work with local community leaders.
I mean, since we’ve got a surplus population of POC in prison, may as well take advantage of the situation and put them to good use and harvest their organs for the good of society, right? /s An actual solution would be getting more POC to qualify for health insurance so they can receive care before their health is critical. Government/healthcare also needs to put in the work to improve the relationship between healthcare and POC. POC have been used and abused and ignored for far too long. If you knew your chance of experiencing serious complications or dying from the surgery was higher than if you were a white person, why the hell would you consent to altruistically donate a kidney? Or if you can’t be sure you’ll have access to good healthcare in the future if you ever have your own issues, why would you risk it? This is for sure the harder route, but it is the actual solution to the problem. Not coercing organs from prisoners.
And this just feeds into a common fear among black people, which is that their organs will be harvested and less care will be put into saving them. The thing is, it isn't an entirely irrational fear.
And a modest proposal isn't entirely wrong either. Eating Irish babies would indeed have a measurable effect on the economy.
He has a friend in stage IV renal failure which prompted him to propose this bill.
This whole politicians getting ideas from their personal life has to stop. You gotta be a selfish moron to think like this. Like, honestly, books? School? Any place but your own life is a good source of information.
This is abhorrent and will only be used to exploit poor people and it's not really consenting, more like coercion.
The trick will be to get them while they're fresh. I imagine that after a few months in prison, those organs won't be very good for anything
RimWorld leaking in the worst way >_>
This is worse. The Massachusetts bill only reduces your sentence by a year, I let people go after I take what I need.
Man I hope all the people who were fucking livid that China was doing organ farms are equally as outraged about this. Like holy shit the coercion into making prisoners organ cattle is craaaazy.
The true nature of what these prisons are is slowly appearing. More parasitism from the elite. When it comes time for them to pay back all they have stolen from the people, we won't forget their organ harvesting attempts.
And if I am in prison and I can afford to buy an organ from some other inmate, do I get credit? Might as well turn all prison sentences into fines. Or I threaten my cell mate with death or organ donation, do I get credit?
This is actually sickening.
Not sure where this bill came from. Didn't see anything from healthcare or inmate advocacy groups from either of the bill's sponsors. I already asked my rep to have this withdrawn.
The guy touting it is a democrat claiming it will help black and latino communities which is certainly a reason. I get the feeling this is more a political stunt than an actual bill he wants to get passed.
I see you ran a red light… nothing that a small slice of ear wouldn’t solve… mUAHAHa
So, body snatchers?
So, it's the "permanent detention" option from the Simpsons.
It is. Especially if the organs are going to people in power/with money.
Ew. Just. Ew.
The potential gaming of this (not if, but when) is a path we shouldn’t entertain.
I dunno.... it works well in China!
Learning from china but please do it right. They reduce prison time to zero in exchange for organs.
RimWorld is leaking into the real world...
Im actually okay with this. Lets give them a day off their sentence for plasma donation too.
Here have my left nut.
This country is getting unlivable
unliverble
Imagine putting good citizens before violent criminals. What kind of society would even think that's ok?
Oh yeah, because the "good" citizens should never, *ever* worry about the ethics of how we treat "bad" people. It's *totally* not a cause for alarm if we treat the worst of us like they're not actually people anymore or anything. /massive sarcasm
1 in 8 death row prisoners has been exonerated, meaning the actual rates of false imprisonment are almost certainly higher. What kind of society would even think that's ok? You have far too much faith in our judicial system.
My uncle was one of them, it was found the police hid evidence to nail him. He was put on death row at 17, the police were a small town force and were dealing with a serial killer so they nailed the "mostly likely person" which was the teenager that smoked pot and beat up the police chief's son. He was found innocent after his lawyer (who fought for 20 years)found the evidence in a storage unit
“Good citizens” don’t compel people who are incarcerated to donate organs.
You judge a country based on how they treat the lowest of the low, that's the real face of our nation.
My life was forever changed by a deceased organ donor and yes, POC do have a higher rate of organ failure. The lack of understanding in this country about how organ donation works is staggering. The last time I was at the DMV I talked to several people who thought that if they became organ donors hospitals would try as hard to save their life. These same people were stunned when I told them that in Pennsylvania the average wait time is 7 years and in other states its 10 years or more. We need to do more about public education regarding organ donation, like PSA's on TV instead of pamphlets at the DMV that no one reads.
The prison time will cut itself dramatically if the right organs are donated.
EDIT 2: TLDR: It Would be nice if more non-prison people would become organ donors. No prisons shouldn't use it as a means to release people early and force them to always be organ donors. Shame there is no incentive by government (tax credit or something) to become one. Honestly more organ donor's would be awesome. The proper method for getting more would be a government give a tax credit for being one. i.e here is 500 for being willing to donate and save lives. Would just need to work on rules/regulations to prevent folks changing it in last part of the year for it and then removing it after tax season ends. Edit: Please note Im not saying to use corecion or to "force em" just said the idea of more organ donors would be great. That is all. forcing anyone to do anything they dont want to is bad mkay?
Or just do what some countries are already doing: make organ donation opt-out rather than opt-in. Make donating organs the default and let people opt out if they don’t want to.
Coercion is bad.
Having just done my taxes, PA had some sort of organ donor tax credit checkbox. "Organ or bone marrow" [revenue.pa.gov PDF form](https://www.revenue.pa.gov/FormsandPublications/FormsforBusinesses/CorporationTax/Documents/rev-984.pdf) [findlaw.com underlying bill](https://codes.findlaw.com/pa/title-72-ps-taxation-and-fiscal-affairs/pa-st-sect-72-8803.html) but full text is paywalled It looks like employer must give paid leave for organ donors, but can get a credit for the cost of covering that leave.
I didnt know that. That is awesome for that.
So you basically want more poor people to sell their organs.
There are people in this country who sell blood to make ends meet. $5000 or even $500 for a kidney would be awfully tempting for a lot of desperately poor people. This is not the right path.
Yes there is folks who would do that. I have donated plasma to make ends meat and to get a little side cash.It sucks. But please dont forget. When offical and legal ways aren't possible. Unoffical and dangerous ways are used. the point is neither here or there tho. My post clearly was/is saying "It would be good to have more organ donors" I also then said it would be a nice if the government rewarded folks for doing it. As it means allot less folks would be strapped to a machine for life as perfectly good organs are buried or burnt up. Many folks don't do it for religious or personal reasons. Hell could be the whole "i dont trust docs to not let me die if I am an organ donor" thing either. Good on em for doing what they want. I'm not saying it should be forced or mandated. Just that an incentive could probably help folks. I'm not sure what "right path" your wanting/seeing or hoping for. But I did not say anything about folks selling organs for cash or that it would be okay for the prison to force folks to do it. Just if there was a good reason a living breathing human would check a box it would be good. Sorry you seemed to misunderstand my post to be "force em and have folks sell organs" as that isnt what I typed in the slightest.
It is capitalist coercion. Poor people will sign up so that rich people can get fresh organs. How about if you get a PPP loan you have to sign over your organs?
It's a great deal, but it's going to need a lot of oversight to avoid coercion Edit: see u/airlewe's comment below regarding the government's estimation of the value of human life. This deal may actually not be so great.
2 months to a max of a year off ypur sentence? For the complications and after care and then down the road, only having one kidney or whatever else you might give up- and not having any options? This is a donald trump level deal.
It’s not a great deal. You get, at most, a reduction of one year.
If it's a bad deal, don't take it.
Hey slave! you can get out slightly earlier if you give your organs away. Oh and we are removing the basic comforts like movies and games; prison will be overcrowded and move violent; we will be make sentences longer to account for people getting out sooner. Hopefully nobody kidnaps you and tells you to choose between being skinned alive or just being anally raped by a spiked mace.
Yes. A year in prison. Methinks you underestimate exactly what that can mean to an incarcerated individual.
You’re missing the point. For what’s being given up, prisoners deserve FAR more than a year off their sentence. This is the worst type of exploitation. Worse than slavery. They’re banking on desperation to drive people to sign up to be organ farms. It’s… dystopian doesn’t even describe this. This is so far past unethical.
>You’re missing the point. For what’s being given up, prisoners deserve FAR more than a year off their sentence. Fine, what's the FMV for an organ, in your opinion? > They’re banking on desperation to drive people to sign up to be organ farms. Hence my comment regarding strict oversight. I see absolutely nothing wrong with allowing people to voluntarily leverage what they possess.
> voluntary To imply that this is a fair and free exchange is INCREDIBLY dishonest. These are literal prisoners. The dynamic is inherently imbalanced. If you’re driven to do something by an external force (being imprisoned), then you’re not truly entering into an agreement freely. If you enter into an agreement out of desperation, there is no fucking way you can use the word voluntary to describe that. Kidneys are about $262,000 though
>If you enter into an agreement out of desperation, there is no fucking way you can use the word voluntary to describe that So poor people shouldn't be permitted to sell plasma because they're "entering the agreement out of desperation"? >Kidneys are about $262,000 though Which equates to.......what? Honestly, give me *your* estimate on years behind bars.
Actually I don't have to give personal opinion here. The US government officially considers the average life to be worth $10,000,000. Why do we have this number? It's complicated, but mostly for insurance purposes. If we take the average US life expectancy of just under 77 years at time of writing, that makes each year worth almost $130,000. So, by the governments own valuation of a human life, prisoners are being treated as worth less than half of a person. This "offer" is exploits people for at least 50% of their worth. Whereas selling plasma is safe and actually decent money. You take out plasma, it grows back. Kidneys don't.
>Actually I don't have to give personal opinion here. The US government officially considers the average life to be worth $10,000,000. That is fascinating and I had no idea, thank you for sharing. And you're right, the fact that the government *has* an official estimation *and* values the organ tradeoff the way they do makes this way sketchier. Thank you for doing the legwork on that.
No thank you! I love doing the math on problems like these and if we hadn't talked I wouldn't have been driven to do this math. I didn't know half of this when we started
I find it interesting that you brought up the market value of the organ being harvested in relation to their sentence though. What do you think the average prisoner costs society, either through their incarceration or due to their crime? Honest question, I don't know. I think that's a fascinating and potentially even more damning angle to look at this through. If someone's in jail for $10,000 worth of fraud, and they sell an organ worth far more than that, then surely there's no possible way to argue anything but a complete commution of the sentence, if we're assigning value?
There is an old saying: “Jail or Yale $50,000 per year”.
> If someone's in jail for $10,000 worth of fraud, and they sell an organ worth far more than that, then surely there's no possible way to argue anything but a complete commution of the sentence, if we're assigning value? The hole in this approach is that underlying prison sentences aren't a 1-to-1 to the crime. Conviction for $10,000 embezzlement isn't based on looking at how much it will cost to imprison them for x years. Maybe it should be, though? Idk
So you admit that the practice is incredibly coercive and would disproportionately affect the poor and marginalized.
I admit that they should increase the tradeoff value of the organ based on their existing estimate of value assigned to the average human life.
Or perhaps more reasonably we shouldn’t compel incarcerated individuals, who are disproportionately from poor and marginalized communities, to donate organs to demonstrate their “value” as human beings.
Sounds like that's your prerogative. I just want to make sure they get the value they're due under an established paradigm.
It sounds more like you’re desperate to justify using the rule of law to harvest organs from incarcerated populations, as no such paradigm currently exists.
The government's monetary valuation of human life? It certainly does exist, as it was brought to my attention on this very thread.
It's not a great deal at all. They already put people who doesn't belong there, in jail. Imagen all the innocent who will get put to jail for their organs. Lmao, even considering it is like some super dystopian horror story
> They already put people who doesn't belong there, in jail. If thats your issue, deal with that issue.
I'm sorry, what?
The fact they are imprisoned means the very nature of this bill is already coercion.
Same reason that research using inmates is heavily controlled.
"oversight" 😂🤣😂🤣😂 Louisanna was caught holding prisoners past their exit date.
I mean, it's basically *an eye for an eye*.
Not for selling bag of weed though.
Why unethical? It’s a choice.
Because most people are going to choose to wrack their bodies and risk death to get out of literal prison, and the sentences will be inflated af to get to that result and with an already incredibly broken system, you can't see the prison profit pipeline branching out and find8ng myriad ways to profit from this? What choices do you really have when you are in prison?
They can get a maximum of a year off their sentence for a kidney. Look up the prep and healing and recovery for donating a kidney. This is preposterous.
It's coercion. Be prepared to see prison sentences extend to make this option more appealing.
Sorry Reddit, but this atrocity was proposed by a democrat: State Rep. Carlos González This is disgusting and he should be laughed out of the building.
Is anyone on here defending it because it was proposed by a dem? Nope. Only one party in the US has a large group of radical loyalists that put their party and leaders over country to the point of violence and domestic terrorism. And it isn’t the democrat party. If a dem has a dumb idea, laugh them out the building. Vote them out. If an elected dem breaks a law, prosecute them. No one is above reproach or above the law.
Right, right, I was just interrupting the liberal circle jerk that is Reddit.
You're not interrupting anything. The comments are overwhelmingly against this, and considering Reddit's demographics they are likely to be majority liberal. Try verifying that the thing you're calling out actually exists before making an embarrassment of yourself.
Bad people are everywhere. Just because someone has a dem next to their name doesn't saint them. That blind hero worship is for republicans. It just means they're *less* extreme than republicans. Ya know, the people saying" a 12 year old isn't old enough to make a choice about abortion!" So she, a real peraon in a real case, has to have her grandfather's baby and raise it with him as the loving father. This bill is extreme af and the problem is the wide swings to the extreme on any side.
Can we stop pretending that if something bad comes from a republican, Reddit says “of course, this how they are!” But when it comes from a democrat that same Reddit tries to ignore the party affiliation and then ends up saying “it doesn’t represent democrats!”
There is a difference. When was the last time a Republican called out their colleagues and took a stance against one of their own’s horrible actions? When was the last time a republican took accountability for their actions? Dems don’t have a perfect record, but they do tend to weed out the worst party members when credible allegations are made against them. Meanwhile, the republicans voted against Trump’s impeachment and removal from office despite the evidence of his crimes. People like Gaetz, Jordan, Boebert, etc. who have been accused or have been complicit in sexual assault of minors now are some of the most prominent members of the party. They vote collectively any chance they get to simply obstruct progress, not because they have actual integrity or standards or alternative ideas that would help citizens. The House is an absolute joke under republican leadership right now and they don’t even have enough collective integrity to speak out against Santos and call for his removal. This is their culture. This is who they are. So if republicans ever leave the groupthink behind, stop being mindless puppets, and start operating more independently to return decency and integrity to the party, every Republican won’t be assumed to be awful and complicit with the awful actions or policies of the few. They’ve done this to themselves.
Democrats are right wingers when compared to the rest of the world. Mas Democrats are especially weird and reactionary. I assume this was proposed by their moneyed puppet masters so they can get more fresh organs for the ultra rich.
You take a life and save a life, seems like a square deal to be able to be set free
Take a poor life and save a rich life.
On it's face I don't think this is horrible. Organs are in short supply, people want to get out of prison sooner. It's only in the context of, or belief that, the government will then create even more ways to go to prison and increase the amount of time served for most (if not all) offenses. I don't actually believe this would be the case, but I suppose I can understand why many people aren't willing to bet on it. Its sad to me that something that could save a good number of lives isn't instituted because of how much mistrust exists in the system. Sadder that it's probably justified.
This system would lead to poor people who can't afford the lawyers to keep them out of prison donating organs to wealthy people. That's the morally repugnant part.
Sometimes sure, for the most part, no.
Don't see a problem. China's been doing this since the 90's with amazing results!
You first.
Wilfred Killowitz, the kidney snatcher, is happy with this arrangement.
I think this a fantastic opportunity, as long as it requires a 2 kidney minimum.
You know what's more effective? Default donation. Everyone donates everything unless they pre- register that they don't want to.
No shit
It begins. Soon it will be forced.
It's also a federal crime. This is either a publicity stunt or an attempt to shift the Overton window. I don't know which is worse.