The problem of sterilization of American prisoners in the context of the U.S. Constitutional contradictions (1907-1914)
During the specified time period, sterilization laws were adopted in 12 states (Indiana, Washington, California, Connecticut, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Michigan, Kansas, Wisconsin, Iowa and New Jersey). Most of them (11 of the 12) provided for the sterilization of prisoners. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits any cruel and unusual punishments within the territory of the U.S. The author answers the important question to identify the contradictions between this Amendment and state laws: are the sterilization operations (vasectomy, salpingectomy and oophorectomy) unusual and cruel? From the physiological point of view, they are not because they do not cause any physical suffering or injuries. When the sterilization laws were adopted, the final decision was based on the assumption that the pain from the surgery is the only problem of discussion, and the fact that the loss of the ability to reproduce may be more severe punishment was completely ignored. According to the author, sterilization for certain types of crimes could be a disproportionate punishment. The contradiction between laws and this Amendment also lies in the nature of the adopted laws. The Amendment clearly prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. Application of sterilization laws to persons other than the criminals, as well as the procedure and purpose of their implementation, suggests the idea that they should not be seen as punishment, but only as exercise of police power. According to the Constitution, punishment is not a reprisal of one individual against the other, but the legal system of sanctions by the judiciary against a person who broke the statutory norms. Accordingly, the punishment should come from the established Code (penal or civil) and be applied in compliance with it, i.e. have a legal (punitive/corrective/educational) and not eugenics and therapeutic nature. The author also sees a contradiction between adopted sterilization laws and the U.S. Constitution because they represented a bill of attainder, which is prohibited by Article 1 (Section 10). According to the laws, the subject was deprived of a due process and prosecution of legal cases was passed to the prison administration (or commission) in a closed hearing without participation of the jury. Epistemological reasons for the development and adoption of these laws were the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin and ideas of rationalism and scientific progress. Sterilization logically and organically evolved from the ideas of the 19th century, such as naturalism, nationalism and nativism. Historical reasons for the creation and adoption of sterilization laws were rapid development of industrial capitalism in the United States, as well as wide economic and social changes of the Progressive Era. The appearance of sterilization laws was stimulated by periodicals and approval from famous eugenicists; it was also encouraged by appearing eugenicists communities financed by famous businessmen and patrons.