Commanders Post at The Warpath - View Single Post

HailGreen28 · 09-06-2012, 11:07 PM

This part blew my mind:

Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf ruled that sex reassignment surgery is the "only adequate treatment" for Kosilek, and "that there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosilek's Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care."

This is Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

How did the state violate Koslek's 8th amendment rights? "Adequate medical care" seems like a major reach for something so... elective. By elective I mean the surgery, not even arguing whether gender preference is really elective or not.

Trying to think of an example on how ridiculous this "ruling" is. If a prisoner suffers psychological problems from low self esteem because of his/her looks they were born with, does the state violate their 8th amendment rights by denying them plastic surgery?

In either case, sex change or facial surgery, even if one makes the case it would improve the prisoner's condition, how does the state violate their 8th amendment rights by NOT providing the surgery?

Am I missing something here, or is Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf totally senile or insane at this point?

09-06-2012, 11:07 PM	#7
HailGreen28 Playmaker Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 3,754	Re: How do you like your tax money spent? This part blew my mind: Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf ruled that sex reassignment surgery is the "only adequate treatment" for Kosilek, and "that there is no less intrusive means to correct the prolonged violation of Kosilek's Eighth Amendment right to adequate medical care." This is Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." How did the state violate Koslek's 8th amendment rights? "Adequate medical care" seems like a major reach for something so... elective. By elective I mean the surgery, not even arguing whether gender preference is really elective or not. Trying to think of an example on how ridiculous this "ruling" is. If a prisoner suffers psychological problems from low self esteem because of his/her looks they were born with, does the state violate their 8th amendment rights by denying them plastic surgery? In either case, sex change or facial surgery, even if one makes the case it would improve the prisoner's condition, how does the state violate their 8th amendment rights by NOT providing the surgery? Am I missing something here, or is Chief Judge Mark L. Wolf totally senile or insane at this point?