the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

lr_jkr9_15_08constific.jpg

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

Law-Rev-Forum-2.jpg

law-rev-contents2.jpg

Law-Prof-Blog-Census.jpg

Categories

Accounting
Administrative Announcements
Administrative Law
Admiralty
Advertising
Agricultural Law
Anonymity
Antitrust
Architecture
Articles and Books
Bankruptcy
Behavioral Law and Economics
Bioethics
Blogging
Book Reviews
Capital Punishment
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Conferences
Constitutional Law
Consumer Protection Law
Contract Law & Beyond
Corporate Finance
Corporate Law
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Culture
Current Events
Cyberlaw
DRM
Economic Analysis of Law
Education
Empirical Analysis of Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Estates and Trusts
Evidence Law
Family Law
Feminism and Gender
First Amendment
Food
Google & Search Engines
Health Law
History of Law
Humor
Immigration
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property
International & Comparative Law
Interviews
Jurisprudence
Law and Humanities
Law and Inequality
Law and Psychology
Law Practice
Law Professor Blogger Census
Law Rev (Boston College)
Law Rev (Boston University)
Law Rev (California)
Law Rev (Chicago)
Law Rev (Columbia)
Law Rev (Cornell)
Law Rev (Duke)
Law Rev (Emory)
Law Rev (Fordham)
Law Rev (Georgetown)
Law Rev (GW)
Law Rev (Harvard)
Law Rev (Illinois)
Law Rev (Indiana)
Law Rev (Iowa)
Law Rev (Michigan)
Law Rev (Minnesota)
Law Rev (Northwestern)
Law Rev (Notre Dame)
Law Rev (NYU)
Law Rev (Penn)
Law Rev (S Cal)
Law Rev (Stanford)
Law Rev (Texas)
Law Rev (UCLA)
Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Law Rev (Virginia)
Law Rev (Wash U)
Law Rev (Wm & Mary)
Law Rev (Yale)
Law Rev Contents
Law Rev Forum
Law School
Law School (Hiring & Laterals)
Law School (Law Reviews)
Law School (Rankings)
Law School (Scholarship)
Law School (Teaching)
Law Student Discussions
Law Talk
Legal Ethics
Legal Theory
Media Law
Movies & Television
Philosophy of Social Science
Politics
Privacy
Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)
Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Privacy (ID Theft)
Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Privacy (Medical)
Privacy (National Security)
Property Law
Race
Religion
Reparations
Science Fiction
Second Amendment
Securities
Securities Regulation
Social Network Websites
Sociology of Law
Supreme Court
Tax
Teaching
Technology
Tort Law
Web 2.0
Weird
Wiki
Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Archives

November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

 

« This Post Will Be Barely Illuminating | Main | Terrorists Among Us »

May 30, 2006

Sex change and inmate rights

posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger

And now, from the Department of Most-Likely-to-Make-Your-Conservative-Cousin's-Head-Explode, comes this one. The headline pretty much says it all: "Convicted Killer Asks Judge to Force State to Pay for Sex Change." The news story delivers on the promise of the headline, too:

A man serving a life sentence for the murder of his wife is asking a federal judge to order the state to pay for a sex-change operation for him, saying that denying him the surgery amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. . . . Kosilek sued the Department of Correction for the second time last year, saying that numerous psychiatrists who had examined him -- including two of the DOC's own experts -- had determined that a sex-change operation is "medically necessary." "We ask that gender identity disorder be treated like any other medical condition," said Kosilek's attorney, Frances Cohen.

What do we think of these kinds of accounts? As someone who considers himself a left-leaning moderate, I haven't yet arrived at any consensus on this story.

My first reaction comes from my pragmatic side; it is the cynical observation that these kinds of cases are very, very politically inexpedient. These are the kinds of cases that inflame popular prejudices, and ultimately lead to the scaling back of protections for defendants and prisoners everywhere. We can point to numerous incidents across the country of prisoners assaulted by guards, or kept in horrendous conditions -- yet popular perception on prisoner's rights is likely to be disproportionately skewed towards things like sex changes for convicts. That popular perception hurts prisoners everywhere.

Mr. Kosilek's noisy insistence on receiving a sex change as treatment for his gender identity disorder could well result in conservative legislative reactions, and ultimately less receptive judicial environments for things like habeas claims about more egregious physical abuse of inmates. And if that happens, it strikes me that cases like Mr. Kosilek's result in a net negative for prisoner's rights.

On the other hand, my inner liberal idealist insists, shouldn't I be particularly concerned about the rights most likely to be infringed? What use is a system of prisoners' rights, if it stops short of actually protecting rights that might be controversial? And on the same vein, I'm at least somewhat wary of signing on to anything that looks like a retreat in prisoner's rights. Retreat is seldom good, is it?

Finally, though, my inner conservative speaks, and argues that maybe prisoner's rights are oversold, anyway. Does the Constitution really require a sex change for an inmate? Maybe that's a standard remedy for that disorder in the 90210 zip code, but most people with that disorder get along okay, don't they? Just how gold-plated does our inmate care have to be, anyway? Isn't there some reasonableness cap?

(The inner pragmatist speaks up again here, and wonders how much broad drug-treatment intervention could be financed for the price of one or two costly surgeries).

So I'm not sure where I stand, in the end. I suspect that the news account of the case will result in a few predictably vitriolic and shrill conservative responses, which will be easy to parry and mock. On the other hand, there are at least some valid concerns underlying the conservative critique of high-cost inmate care -- it can't be high-dollar surgeries for everyone everywhere, can it? If the reasonableness line happens to exclude Mr. Kosilek, I doubt for now that I'll be too sad. (Though perhaps my co-bloggers or our commenters can make arguments, one way or another, to convince me otherwise).

Posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger at May 30, 2006 08:15 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/900.

Comments

Gender identity disorder is real and serious. It's a psychological disease, and it's been known to lead to, e.g., suicide. If there's a surgery to prevent that, why not?

(Posted anon to avoid crossing the line between "cases at work" and "internet discussion".)

Posted by: Someone tangentially involved in a similar case (reg commentor) at May 30, 2006 10:00 PM


A story on a different but related issue was reported by Ann Althouse last month, provoking a fairly spirited round of discussion; the issue at hand was a man who claimed that as a pre-op "transsexual" who had been taking female hormones, he should not be incarcerated in a men's facility. My argument in that situation was that the real problem was that the state had previously made the mistake of ratifying his illness by amending the gender displayed on his drivers license, thereby fostering the reaonsable expectation that he would enjoy the legal status of his "new gender". Of course, I also made clear there that I join Tammy Bruce in declining to accept that GID is anything other than a form of mental illness that should be treated as such, not with surgery, but with pyschotherapy where possible and pharmacological solutions otherwise. It remains a mystery tome why GID - alone among variants of apotemnophilia - is treated with slavish indulgence of the sickness.

That general disapprobation, of course, controls in this case. His lawyer is surely correctr that he should be treated, but I simply don't buy that "treatment" for a chap with this disorder involved GRS. It involves actual treatment. It has become desparately unfashionable in America to tell someone that they not only cannot have what they want, but that,in fact,what they want is not the best course of treatment for them. We are far more concerned with pandering and performing unnecessary surgery, all because we have made a fetish of refusing to tell a man that he is mentally unbalanced and needs treatment. It is not a perfectly valid lifestyle choice to mutilate oneself, and the misguded effort to remove the moral opprobrium from any human activity has only gone to encourage it.

This is, though, all happening in Massachusetts, the one-state argument for federalism. Indiana is now accepting political refugees from MA...

Posted by: Simon at May 30, 2006 11:35 PM


this case has been in the news, off & on, awhile. By all accounts, this guy done nothing on his own to further his sex-alteration agenda before killing his wife.

Some observations: if this is a first of its kind, I'd think it'd be kind of hard to argue that denying the operation qualifies as "unusual"

also, since I'm guessing this kind of operation doesn't come cheap and, accordingly, can't be had by all - should killing your wife really give you special access to that which others cannot get?

..and since the guy/gal's in jail for life w/out parole, I'm hoping that the impact on the person's sex life of not having the operation will have no impact on the final decision.

finally, if a federal judge does order the operation - expect that order to become Exhibit A in once again explaining to the public why the appointment/confirmation of federal judges is so important...which many of you can then easily "parry and mock" your way to once again screwing up a great opportunity to retake the Congress.

Posted by: Maryland Conservatarian at May 30, 2006 11:54 PM


Policy thought: Most criminals are men. Perhaps sex change is (or in volume, could become) a cheaper cost-avoidance than long-term incarceration?

(tongue firmly in cheek)

Posted by: bill at June 1, 2006 02:16 PM


Bill:
Perhaps that could be an optional punishment for men convicted of rape: they could avoid life imprisonment by electing to be subjected to gender reassignment surgery. Such a punishment has the potential to be both punitive and prophylactic.

Posted by: Simon at June 2, 2006 11:28 AM


Rather than enter into the holier-than-thou dodge and parry play acting that blogging has become how about looking at this in a different light altogether? No vitriolic shill needed and I'm very conservative fically and morally. The thing we fail to see in people is the nearly insane levels to which we will go to satiate their own egos, physical gratifications and hedonistic tendencies. How many on top of the world so to speak people have we seen give up the things that matter most for a fleeting shot at fame, a line of drugs or other addictions seemingly unable to stop themselves from zoning in on the bug zapper of life?

I don't truly care if the constitution has an outlet, or verbal hole in it large enough to slam an endzone bill-at-the-expense-of-taxpayers touchdown in it. Once we lost the right to common law (once known more appropriately as common sense) we have to real legal footing to stand on because we know that smoke, mirrors or substance eventually someone will nick a bit of my hard earned credits and pay for something I or you find abhorrent.

The sad thing is that the shrill voices winning in the who get to spend my tax revenue is increasingly going to those who are doing things that set people on less equal ground than ever before. (now there's another good thread). An example from my area is that apparently a cross in San Diego constitutes the establishment of religion.

Let's look at the motivational possibilities here for a man in a life sentance situation.

If I were incarcerated in an all male prison for life and I was in a cell with another man and I was experiencing the high probability of being raped on a regular basis I would rather cut the little man off and get transferred to a place with some women. Get me a psychiatrist and a ticket out of hemroid hell!

Or, maybe the repeated raping has demeaned the man so severely that his phyche has been altered to believe that he just needs the proper plumbing to continue being a submissivly abused man.

His hatred for women is so complete that he will stop at nothing to get at the throat of just one more before he dies.

A little lonely man in a cell forgotten by all who never dreamed he'd be caught for offing his wife now just craves more attention and coddling and cannot think of another way to cry out for attention except to shock the world with a revelation that he might be in the wrong body. Change me to the other version I want to try that for awhile at taxpayer expense.

Why doesn't anyone ever feel like they are in the wrong body, of a too evolved species and want to have "Species Reassignment Surgery"? I'm too human can you make me more simian I feel like an ape in a man's body.

The funny thing is that gender identity disorientation presupposes that there is some essence that can somehow be transferrred or trapped into a wrong body otherwise it should be treated as a delusional state with the proper meds. Giving in to the patient and saying they have this issue means the medical community must understand or at least percieve the concept of a spirit.

Go figure

Posted by: Brien H at August 21, 2006 08:18 PM


My question is who or whom is doing a Favor for a Favor and what does the judge get out of it?


Raleigh, NC

Posted by: raleigh,nc at February 27, 2008 06:58 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Michael O'Shea

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Robert Ahdieh
Miriam Cherry
Mark Edwards
Susan Kuo
Jonathan Lipson
Scott Moss
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Geoffrey Rapp
Susan Scafidi
Howard Wasserman






ad-logo3.jpg

blawg100_winner2.jpg

Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Craig Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Dan Kahan
Sam Kamin
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Joseph Liu
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo PeƱalver
Neil RIchards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Paul Secunda
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
Beltway Blogroll
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
Convictions
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
JD2B.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian
Mirror of Justice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
Political Theory Daily Review
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member