Coercive sterilization incentives persist in the American criminal justice system.

Evidence

The ostensibly voluntary sterilization of prisoners hasn’t ceased altogether, either. In 2017, Tennessee judge Sam Benningfield ignited a firestorm of controversy when it was revealed that he offered to reduce inmates’ sentences by thirty days if they agreed to a vasectomy or a contraceptive implant. (Curiously, he offered just two days’ good time in exchange for taking a class on neonatal development and substance abuse.) The ACLU of Tennessee objected to the practice and pointed out its echoes of the forced sterilization acts of the past; Benningfield responded by saying he hoped to help inmates “get on their feet and make something of themselves.” — Anna Merlan, Republic of Lies, 164

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects to vault claims about state coercion and eugenic control of marginalized populations; parallels the forced sterilization histories catalogued with state power over bodies. — connects to: Coercive behavior modification on prisoners constitutes a form of state power over mind — Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, 1017; American eugenic sterilization laws preceded and outlasted Nazi-era ones; Forfeiture serves both punishment and health-protective prevention — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1135 (+1 more)
  • DEEPTHINKING: A voluntary-with-thirty-days-incentive sterilization framed as helping inmates suggests how power can reframe coercion as paternalistic opportunity.

Broader Connections