I know we can debate anything here on Hatrack. So I’m anxious to hear this one. Should be interesting. I’m wondering how you can have the nerve to bring up a bill like this, much less vote for it!
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
If they'll bring up this Bill, they might as well bring up that Mike and the rest.
-Trevor
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, could you explain what about these you find so objectionable?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Yeah, who would DARE try to debate the merits of trying to limit the spread of AIDs in prisons?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If I lived in California, it would bother me that my tax money was being used for the sexual recreation of inmates.
I have less problem with the condoms, as that can be a health care issue.
But the viagra -- spending my tax money so that inmates can get some? That would bother me.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I will point out that I doubt a lot of condoms are going to be used in prison - rape, particularly in a prison setting, is more about power than two men having a consentual and mutually enjoyable sexual encounter.
Take a guess in which encounter a condom is more likely to be used.
I suspect the condoms will be used, but not for the intended purposes.
-Trevor
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Unless this is a new case, these weren't inmates, these were ex-cons who had paid their dues. The article doesn't mention them being inmates.
Also, the notion of sex offender has a wide range; some of these people may be dangerous, enabled with viagra. Others may have been 19 with a 17 year old girlfriend (in a place with a AOC of 18). I don't see why those last people, when they have erectile disfunction, should be prevented from having a normal sex life.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, If I read the brief mention of that correctly, the situation is not at all like you interpreted it and Jay tried to present it. The viagra thing had nothing to do with inmates. It was a Medicaid issue and one I'm willing to bet came down to beauracratic incompetence and/or poor planning and not an effort to get Viagra to sex offenders. Sure, I'd be upset too, but because of the stupidity and inefficiency evidenced, as it is evidenced in so many other places.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Going from trial records, the people in charge may not have the information to make the special distinction between "voluntary" statutory rape and "involuntary" statutory rape.
-Trevor
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not saying they should be able to, but I'm also in favor of providing health care where medical caregivers deem it necessary -- and since these people have paid their time, and there're plenty of circumstances where even a "sex offender" could have a legitimate need for viagra, I say give 'em viagra if they get a prescription and have health care, state or otherwise, that would normally cover it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I have to say, there is no distinction at all made in that article-- just "registered sex offenders". Okay, first of all, a good many of them may have made one mistake, like sleeping with an underage girl, consentually, and be required to register even though they will never do it again. (Laws on this kind of thing can be really stupid.) They may be trying to have normal relationships with their wives. How do we know, and why do people get so worked up about this without all the facts? I'd hesitate to make any kind of judgement until I knew details.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I will point out that I doubt a lot of condoms are going to be used in prison - rape, particularly in a prison setting, is more about power than two men having a consentual and mutually enjoyable sexual encounter.
Despite sterotypes, I would wager that far more consentual homosexual sex is happening in prison than rape.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Condoms are important in preventing not only the spread of HIV/AIDS, but also Hepatitis C. A lot of drug users that go into the prison system come out Hep C positive, and not through using.
Having condoms available is better than no condoms at all, and hopefully can help prevent the continuing spread of HIV.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Depends on the prison, X.
-Trevor
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jay, Do you have anything to add to the discussion?
edit: It should be mentioned that the condom issue is about allowing non-profit organizations to distribute condoms in prisions, not paying for it out of taxpayer money, as seems to be implied by the way Jay couched it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Even in cases of rape, I would think inmates might be scared enough of HIV/AIDS to use a condom if they were available.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I doubt it, but the drawbacks to offering condoms is outweighed by the potential benefits.
Fear of disease requires an appreciation for one's mortality and a desire to influence it.
Despite the number of STDs floating around the general population, condom use has not significantly increased.
I doubt you'd see a meaningful increase in condom use within the prison population, but that's just speculation on my part.
-Trevor
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
trevor, Where are you getting the idea that condom use has increased? Increased from when? It has quite obviously done so over, say, the 80s. As far as I know, it was increasing all the way through the 90s, at least on college campuses.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Trevor, condom use has improved, in some groups.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Do you mean, "where do I get the idea that condom use has not increased?"
I'll look for some of the studies mentioned. It could be I'm just blowing smoke (again).
I seem to recall one study based on counting condoms found in trash and the like which would seem to be a little more factual than an anonymous survey, but I will continue looking.
-Trevor
Edit: This study strongly disagrees with my assessment.
[ June 23, 2005, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
MrSquicky -- that's what I get for not paying closer attention. Let's pretend that I haven't said anything in this thread. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:They may be trying to have normal relationships with their wives. How do we know, and why do people get so worked up about this without all the facts? I'd hesitate to make any kind of judgement until I knew details.
If they are trying to have normal relationships with their wives, then no one is saying they can't. They're just saying - not on my dime. Nothing prevents anyone with a prescription for Viagara from obtaining Viagara. They are just objecting to putting something into the hands of a convicted sex offender that might enable him to offend again.
To me, it's like saying that a convicted murderer who murdered with hunting rifles being given a hunting rifle at taxpayer expense. Sure, maybe he was young when he committed the murder and he'll never do it again. Sure, there are legitimate reasons for having a hunting rifle - maybe he wants to go hunt deer. But I'd really rather my tax dollars didn't put that gun in his hand.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, That's the impression that the organization that sent Jaw the talking points email wanted you to get. No worries.
I totally agree with Belle here. There's a huge difference between the state paying for these people to get Viagra and the state not letting them have a normal sexual relationship. I don't see any reason why the state should be obligated to pay for that. It's a a step away from Medicaid funded botox.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:That's the impression that the organization that sent Jaw the talking points email wanted you to get. No worries.
You just made me feel worse. But I deserve it.
Although I wonder...
I don't know much about sexual crimes and what increases the likelyhood of them, but I wonder if having access to viagra and a normal healthy sex life might make some sex offendors less likely to commit additional sex crimes.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Depends on the offender, the nature of the crime and the motivation behind the offender.
Being aroused naturally or through chemical stimulation does not determine the subject of the person's ardour.
Example: A gay man on Viagra will not stop being attracted to men just because of the erectile dysfunction medication.
-Trevor
Edit: Homosexuality was a bad example to use, pending a definitive answer to the nurture v. nature argument.
An offender's motivations for committing sex crimes will not have changed by introducing erectile dysfunction medication. A habitual sexual offender is driven by pyschological need and until that psychological imperative is altered, removed or outright reprogrammed, the targets of his sexual interest will not change.
A man who believes beating his wife is a form of affection is unlikely to change his behavior because he's sexually aroused and has an erection - in fact, quite the opposite if this man believes this is how affection and sexual behavior is supposed to be manifested.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(DING DING DING! Well, perhaps not Viagra, but more openness and easy access to treatment for sexual disorders of all types. CA's mental health system SUCKS. Thanks, Mr. Regan.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's kind of an interesting idea. I don't know what I'm talking about, but I could imagine that it might actually aid in treating some of the compulsive fetish disorders, like when guys go around stealing women's shoes.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think its more like not giving painkillers on a taxpayers dime to someone in pain, who has previously abused painkillers (or, say, prescription drugs in general).
Viagra is medicine; hunting rifles are not.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Does the government support the idea that a "healthy sex life" is a requisite to good health?
Does the government therefore have an obligation to fund medication to assist in this health issue?
Does the government's financial obligation stop with medication, if we have accepted the idea that a "healthy sex life" is indeed a requisite to good overall health?
-Trevor
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Viagra is medicine; hunting rifles are not.
I have no idea what point you are making with this.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Viagara is not a life saving medication, and some insurance plans don't cover it anyway. No former convict is going to die or writhe in excruciating pain because the state didn't pay for his Viagara.
It's not medically necessary, and there is no reason that the state must pay for it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
What if it's part of his treatment for his sexual disorder to try to have a normal relationship with his wife and this is to facilitate that?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Viagra is only slightly more a medicine than breast augmentation is a surgery. Technically, they both fit that definition, but if you're looking at the use of public funds to ensure basic health services, neither of them come close to making the grade.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:What if it's part of his treatment for his sexual disorder to try to have a normal relationship with his wife and this is to facilitate that?
Then he can pay for it himself.
There is big difference between the state saying "You can't have Viagara" and the state saying "We're not going to pay for your Viagara."
No one is being prevented from doing anything here. They are just being forced to pay for something themselves.
And in that case, my example was a poor one - because a convicted felon cannot get a gun permit at all, and in this case the person can certainly have the Viagara, he's just got to bear the cost himself.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It would depend on how much effort is put into rehabilitation and not punishment.
The US penal system is based on a "two for the price of one" concept - an offender is punished and in an effort to avoid future punishment, is therefore motivated to rehabilitate himself. [edit] This is based on several assumptions - that the offender is capable of self-rehabilitation and that the offender is interested in self-rehabilitation. The concept of prisonization is at least one strike against the entire institution as offenders become indoctrinated into the legal and prison system as a way of life.[/edit]
Depending on the offender's sexual disorder, I'd have to be convinced he was successfully and completely altered from his previous behavior patterns before supplying chemical enhancements to "cement" his new sexual focus.
-Trevor
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm going to step back from this discussion now because I'm getting irrationally angry, especially at generalizations. I still like you all, I'm just letting you know I may not post on this thread again. It's not you, it's me; we're touching on a sensitive subject for me here.
See y'all in some other thread. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Sorry KQ - I didn't mean to inadvertently offend.
-Trevor
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
We are we paying for anyone- criminal or not- to get Viagra when there are children with no basic health care?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
*snort* That's a very good question.
If anyone has a good answer besides lobby groups and general self-indulgence, feel free to chime in.
-Trevor
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Viagra is only slightly more a medicine than breast augmentation is a surgery.
This here is one of my biggest pet peaves. A drug that can make you go from completely impotent to being able to normally have sex is not a medicine? You are saying its a vanity thing?
Only someone who could never concieve of it happening to them can say this. No, it won't save your life. It can, however, bring your quality of life from very low to very high. Imagine never being able to have sex with anyone ever. Impotence is like a vow of celebacy that you didn't want to take. Your signifigant other isn't happy, your self esteem takes a huge plunge, you start to wonder if your signifigant other would be better off with another man... Even getting a signifigant other is almost out of the question, unless you can bear the shame of telling her, and she's okay with never having sex again. You may even consider suicide. One of the central joys in life will never again be yours. Its like never being able to taste food again.
Now along comes a pill that cures all of that. And what happens? It is scorned by people as being vain and unimportant. There was a thread a while back about how we should have spent the research money on something else instead of Viagra, and now someone compared it to breast implants.
No, its not comparable to breast implants. Its comparable to a woman taking a pill that cures her of having her vagina sealed shut.
I have no opinion on whether medicaid should cover viagra to those who are sex offenders. But to millions of men Viagra is a miracle drug. Not to me, yet, but perhaps someday. Maybe you too MrSquicky, if only because God loves to be ironic.
Edit: I won't even go into detail about how you cannot naturally concieve a child when you are impotent. At very LEAST admit its a valuable fertility drug. Or are those comparable to breast implants too?
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
So it's a quality of life issue. Much like a woman and the size of her breasts. Or, if she has had a masectomy, breasts at all.
In a culture that places an amazing emphasis on a woman's breasts, every self-esteem issue you listed for impotent men can be applied to women.
It's not just cosmetic.
Of course, it's still a gray area as to life versus quality of life.
-Trevor
Edit: And calling it a fertility drug isn't quite right as it does nothing to improve the man's sperm or the sperm's ability to impregnate a woman.
Viagra does improve the delivery system, which I suppose is more fun than having the sperm withdrawn at needlepoint. Probably cheaper, too.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yes, I realized that the condoms are from other then govt. sources, but still. It’s against the rules for them to have sex, but here’s a way for you to do it safely. What’s next? Theft is really against the rules, but he’s a mask so you can do it safely. Here’s an auto glass breaker so you don’t cut you hands when you bust a window to steal the car. He’s some weapons grade nuclear material so you don’t hurt yourself trying to develop it. And I agree with the statement that Viagra should never be paid for by govt. Now castration for sex offends, sure let’s pay for that.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
You can still have sex without breasts. You can still concieve a child without breasts.
You know, why do I even bother?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:It can, however, bring your quality of life from very low to very high.
I think you are overstating it a little bit. If you are a miserable person without sex, sex won't make you a happy person.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I think you're vastly understimating the power of a woman's insecurities and self image.
She might able to fake having sex, but if she despises herself and her body, is she ever really "in the mood?" Rather a sort of emotional impotence for women, rather than a comparable physical situation.
-Trevor
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Sure it's a male fertility drug, Xavier, but I can tell you from experience as can other hatrackers I'm sure - insurance doesn't pay for fertility drugs.
Again, we're back to the same argument - not that Viagara doesn't have intrinsic value and worth as an erectile dysfunction treatment - certainly it does. The question is - should the state be paying for it at all - especially in the case of people who've abused people sexually in the past.
No one is questioning that Viagara is a good treatment for those that need it. Please keep that in mind.
Fertility drugs were a wonderful benefit to me, because of them I have three of my four children - only one was conceived without help. And yet, I paid for everything myself. And I don't mind that, I don't think it's something the state and/or insurance companies should have to pay for.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I very much doubt that there are millions of men who are completely impotent who are helped by this drug. In some cases, this is no doubt true, but in my completely unsupported view, in most cases it's a "sometimes I have problems" and "I want to get an erection now" drug, as well as taken recreationally for the "four hour erections" that they advertise.
Maybe I'm wrong about that and millions of men are saved from biochemically based total impotence. But I highly doubt it.
edit: And I consciously chose the breast augmentation thing for the women's body issues connotations.
There are cases where either is very important for a higher quality of life, but in the majority of cases, I don't think this is so.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Insurance certainly seems to have paid for viagra in this case, and will continue to do so for non-sex offenders on the exact same plan.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:It can, however, bring your quality of life from very low to very high.
I think you are overstating it a little bit. If you are a miserable person without sex, sex won't make you a happy person.
Since Xavier can't be bothered to pursue his thought, I'll pick up where I think he was headed.
It won't make you happy per se, but it will stave off the feeling of emasculation and the subsequent depression that accompanies the lack of erectile function.
So much of a man is defined by the penis that it isn't difficult to imagine how someone might react to it's inability to function.
How much sweating were you doing at the thought of getting snipped?
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I very much doubt that there are millions of men who are completely impotent who are helped by this drug. In some cases, this is no doubt true, but in my completely unsupported view, in most cases it's a "sometimes I have problems" and "I want to get an erection now" drug, as well as taken recreationally for the "four hour erections" that they advertise.
Maybe I'm wrong about that and millions of men are saved from biochemically based total impotence. But I highly doubt it.
edit: And I consciously chose the breast augmentation thing for the women's body issues connotations.
There are cases where either is very important for a higher quality of life, but in the majority of cases, I don't think this is so.
I don't think you're wrong at all - America is the land of quick fixes and easy cures. For a lot of people, Viagra and the other drugs are just that - an easy fix to a problem that might able to be addressed in other ways.
To say nothing of the "party element" of this drug.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Insurance certainly seems to have paid for viagra in this case, and will continue to do so for non-sex offenders on the exact same plan.
Better lobby than companies offering fertility treatments. Much larger profit margin.
-Trevor
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Trevor, And I'm saying that there's huge difference between total and occasional impotence. I could be completely wrong about the relative numbers there, in which case I'll appologize for what I said. If I'm right though, in most cases it's definitely nice, but hardly extremely important.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I know that. I was just pointing out that the "viagara is a male fertility drug" isn't an effective argument, since fertility drugs in general aren't normally covered.
I would imagine most proponents of covering viagara argue from a quality of life angle.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And who says one needs to be completely impotent to be helped by the drug? If you can only get an erection once every couple of weeks, are you living a healthy, normal sex life?
Belle: we give out lots of meds on insurance that aren't life saving. Such as the aforementioned pain medication. We give out meds for many reasons, including letting people have a normal quality of life who normally can't.
Sex offenders have already been punished. I haven't ever even heard of a case where viagra enabled a sex offender to be a repeat offender. This sounds more like a desire to punish sex offenders than some urge to protect potential future victims, particularly as it does victimize all those sex offenders who have done their time, quite possibly for relatively innocuous crimes, and have erectile dysfunction which prevents them from, in the opinion of their doctor, leading a healthy sex life.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Oh, I agree completely.
Xavier's stance, while wonderfully impassioned, addressed a relatively small percentage of the population.
I submit that I suspect the pharmaceutical lobby pushed for Viagra and other EDs to be available on insurance because they knew men would flock to the drug for all the reasons you listed above.
And doctors would be pressured to subscribe the drug almost on demand because if he or she didn't, the patient would move on to another doctor who wanted their business.
-Trevor
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not even saying viagra should be covered. I'm saying if the plan covers it, cover it for ex- sex offenders just like everyone else.
Those're two separate arguments.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
For many, many ex-sex offenders, the way they stay ex is through intensive therapy. If an impotence drug is approved as part of that therapy or as not harmful by the terapist, I see no reason to deny it, but I don't see how making other people pay for it is a justifiable decision, especially as I'm pretty darn sure that most of these cases did not have therapeutic oversight.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Sex offenders have already been punished. I haven't ever even heard of a case where viagra enabled a sex offender to be a repeat offender. This sounds more like a desire to punish sex offenders than some urge to protect potential future victims, particularly as it does victimize all those sex offenders who have done their time, quite possibly for relatively innocuous crimes, and have erectile dysfunction which prevents them from, in the opinion of their doctor, leading a healthy sex life.
As I noted before, it strongly depends on the offender and the reasons for offending.
The hypothetical 19/17, voluntary statutory rape is a sex offender who is unlikely to offend again.
A compulsive offender does not fall into that category and the effectiveness of current rehabilitation models for such crimes is sketchy at best.
The article doesn't mention what crimes these sex offenders had committed and if they have re-offended, there is no way to know whether or not the drug played a role in that.
But until there is clarification, I would rather not re-equip an offender who may or may not be at high risk to re-offend.
-Trevor
Edit: I await Mr. Squicky's rebuttal to my premise that current rehab models for high-risk offenders is of limited effectiveness. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I have no rebuttal. I think that our penal system is very poorly constructed and fails terribly in a rehabiliative role. I don't see this changing any time soon either.
Frankly, I think that our efforts are better spent on primary preventative rather than post-crime rehabiliative ones anyway. I think we should be concentrating more on preventing kids from going into crime than on trying to prevent people from repeat offending. In effect, I ithink it's better to prevent people from being broken rather than try to fix them after the fact.
But, from what I can see, primary preventive measures, whether in medicine, social dynamics, or psychology are not given a great deal of importance and tend to be ruled more by what people would like to believe are true rather than hard evidence.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
And I submit, that in many cases, the doctor prescribing the viagara has no idea the drug is for a sex offender.
Viagara prescribed by a therapist as part of a rehab program is different from a sex offender walking into a family doc's office, and saying "I'm having trouble one or two times a week with my girlfriend, can you give me some viagara?" Which one of those two do you think happens most often?
Is there policy or procedure in place that encourages doctors to check sex offender lists before prescribing medication?
And back to the argument that we don't deny pain pills to former drug addicts. No, we don't - but we surely do limit their access and doctors dealing with a known former abuser very carefully consider their dosages and the duration of treatment. So the former addict DOES get treated differently when it comes to prescribing pain pills. I think the sex offender should also be treated differently.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Belle, I never said anything about insurance covering it. Really. That was never part of my argument. I was expressing my frustration at those who consider Viagra the way MrSquicky, Trevor, and mph think of it.
I won't address them, because I don't think anything I say will change their minds, but I don't like it when people address arguments that you never made. It was by far my biggest pet peave of the Pool Jumping thread.
I'm not saying its the people who read my posts' fault, I think its probably my own fault for being unclear. I was thinking during the pool thread of putting a clarifier on my debate posts, stating exactly what I am debating. For instance, in my previous post, I might have put:
I am arguing that: Viagra is more than a vanity drug, and its a drug which has helped many, many with both quality of life and fertility issues, proving its medical worth.
I am not arguing that: My opinions on Viagra's worth have anything to do with medicade covering Viagra for sex offenders, or anything to do with insurance at all.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
It was me that brought up insurance because you called it a fertility drug. I made the leap that you were saying "It's a valid medical drug, like a fertility drug and should be paid for" and argued back that fertility usually isn't paid for.
If that's not where you intended your argument to go, then sorry for misrepresenting what you said. I was unclear.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Its okay .
I think it was my fault actually .
But no, I wasn't expressing any opinions on insurance stuff.
My gut instinct is that fertility drugs (and contraceptives for that matter) should indeed be covered, my opinion on that doesn't really effect this debate at all.
One problem I have with medical insurance (which also has nothing to do with this current debate) is that wisdom teeth removal should be covered. The only reason I can think of for no coverage is that it has to do with your teeth. So maybe they think that your dental insurance should cover it. But dental insurance doesn't cover it either. At least mine doesn't.
Its a surgery that you need to undertake if you have impacted wisdom teeth. It was nothing you could have prevented. Why does nobody insure it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd be fine with a blacklist for certain categories of sex offenders (such as any already repeat sex offenders); but a general blacklisting of sex offenders? That's hurting too many men who have paid their time, in many cases deeply regret their time, and are on a plan which pays for that medicine for everyone else on that plan.
I'm of the "one innocent man is too many" persuasion, and also the "denying one (edit: worthy) person prescribed medicine in order to prevent nebulous potential harm through a connection that's never been shown to exist is too many" persuasion.
For instance, what if there isn't any connection at all between viagra use and repeat sex offenses (shouldn't be too hard to collect the data given how well sex offenders are tracked; interesting study idea)? Why are we denying viagra provided to other people on the same plan then, vindictiveness? I would rather not be part of a society that's willing to prevent people who have been punished and aren't recidivist from living normal lives supposedly supported by a medical plan they're on based on an unproven, vaguely possible link between viagra and repeated sex offense or some need to hurt sex offenders beyond their lawful sentences.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
fugu, you and I agree on one thing - let's study it and see if there is a link to recidivism or the recreational type use of Viagara to offend.
We are not on the same page with the "one innocent man is too many" in this particular case (though I suspect we agree on the death penalty) because my flip side thought is "one child molested or woman raped with the aid of viagara paid for by my tax dollars is too many" persuasion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd be fine with studying it -- make sure the study checks different categories of sex offender, btw.
However, in the meantime, as we know there are classes of sex offender who are perfectly normal people who happened to be in a bad situation (19 year old with a 17 year old, as an instance), I say keep it okay. They have served their sentences, they're already required to register their location so anybody can find them, and the default principle should always, always be that, except in situations where we have good reason to do otherwise, that when someone reenters society from prison they get back their rights.
We don't have a good reason to do otherwise. We don't have any evidence of a link (I haven't even seen a link to a single case where viagra enabled a sex offender, much less a repeat sex offender) posted here (or anywhere). Let them enjoy the same treatment that other people enjoy until we have a reason to deprive them of that treatment.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And yes, we don't want public monies going to enable sex offenders. But you know what? Some of those people receiving viagra on the plan who aren't sex offenders are prolly going to have first offences as sex offenders. Some policemen use their guns to commit crimes. Et cetera.
Until we've got a well backed-up reason to stop prescribed medicine for a known and common medical problem to a class of people, we shouldn't stop it.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.