The state Department of Correction may face legal bills of roughly $2 million for unsuccessfully challenging what three prisoners say is their right to treatment for gender disorders.
The most high-profile of the cases is that of Michelle Kosilek, the convicted murderer who successfully sued for a sex change operation after doctors found it was the only appropriate treatment for a severe case of gender identity disorder. A judge earlier this month said he will order the state to pay $700,000 in legal fees to the inmate’s legal team.
Comments
This article is looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's not the defense that it costly, it is the erroneous decisions by Judge Wolf and others that are creating this unnecessary expense for the state. These are easy cases that should be dismissed on the pleadings for failure to state a claim.
Murderers and rapists have "rights" while serving time for committing brutally heinous crimes against innocent victims in order for them to be able to live the lives and enjoy the rights and privileges that our Founding Fathers had in mind - that they are "entitled" to - and which these predators themselves brutally ripped from and denied their human prey? What were prisons like in the early years of our country during the administrations of Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and Monroe? Did those brilliant men really wring their hands in angst and despair that the incarcerated of their day were being denied all sorts of rights also including conjugal visits and other such entitlements let alone millions of dollars in legal fees? Would they truly believe that such rapists and murderers "rights" were exactly what they had in mind and such convicted criminals' entitlements were to be included in the beautiful documents that they crafted? Rights and privileges are not unlimited and unrestrained. There are limits, boundaries, responsibilities, and penalties. Where are they here?
The article states:
"Kosilek’s legal team, led by Frances S. Cohen of Bingham McCutchen LLP, has offered to forego the legal fees if the state chooses not to appeal the surgery, which can range from $10,000 to $50,000, but the state has refused." I believe the law firm has offered to FORGO its fees--to do without rather than to go before.
Prisoners are wards of the commonwealth. Imprisoning people is a choice made by our society. Providing health care is not a choice, it's a fundamental human right. Gender identity disorder is an illness--a treatable one. Incarcerated people who need surgery are routinely transported to appropriate medical facilities. The answer to the DOC's arguments, and to those of readers who disagree with court rulings, is to look dispassionately on the situation. Incarceration is the punishment; withholding medical treatment is not.
With respect, I will disagree on this point. It is true that surgery would have been cheaper than the resulting legal fees, but Kosilek's legal team did him a disservice to suggest he had a case. The appeals process is not yet exhausted, and if the Commonwealth wins they will be in a position to demand recompense from Brigham McCutchen. They are not necessarily making an altruistic offer. Gender identity disorder is not life threatening, hence not an illness that requires surgical intervention. Kosilek was offered hormonal therapy and counseling but refused, instead upping the ante to demand surgery. At no point has medical treatment been withheld.
I, for one, am glad that society made the "choice" to lock up Kosilek, a man who strangled his wife with a wire. The fact that he has a mental disorder shouldn't protect him under the Constitution. Is he miserable having a gender disorder? Probably, but not as much as the family and friends of the woman he brutally murdered. What do you propose to do to make their misery go away? The fact that people care more about a murderer than of innocent victims is disturbing.
Why do inmates have the right to a higher standard of care than the rest of The Commonwealth's citizens? It appears that we should all commit crimes to have access to extraordinary medical care, like sexual reassignment, in prison. I know of several people dying of cancer and other diseases who cannot afford basic care and DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO BASIC HEALTHCARE.
Not only is The Commonwealth saying that this kind of care is a necessary human right, but it is saying that those who take life have more rights than their victims. This further dehumanizes the thousands of victims of crime in our state and makes the murderers into gods served medicines and treatments that the rest of us cannot afford.
First of all, everyone in the Commonwealth is entitled to basic healthcare. If they can't afford it, they can get it from Mass Health. There's a penalty for not having coverage, so those who don't have it apparently would rather pay the penalty. It's their choice. Those you know who can't afford basic healthcare must live in another state.
Your second point is equally mistaken. The Commonwealth is fighting the issue in Federal court, *not* saying it's a basic human right. The rest -- dehumanizing citizens, murders into gods, etc. -- is total claptrap.
And lordchaucer agrees with you, which says a lot about him!
The government - state, federal, and even local - do not want to acknowledge that healthcare is insane in this country. Tyger is correct and the dirty little secret is that those with cancer should comit a crime, go to jail, and THEN they won't go bankrupt from healthcare costs because it will be paid for by the states. Just like emergency rooms are poor people's main healthcare option, prison can take the bankruptcy problems off the table if you are of moderate means and cannot afford the treatment of your cancer. Insane!
So, let me see if I understand. We purportedly put people in prison for "correction". Actually, as everyone knows, there is little attention or money spent on "correction". On processes and aids that make it more likely that the inmate will be able to lead a productive and law abiding life once they leave prison. No, the reasons we put inmates in jail is for 1)punishment for their crime, 2)to get them off the streets so they don't commit more crime (and to help ever more anxious Americans relax, 3) to provide a an ego boost to the powers that be that those who don't cooperate will be punished, and 4) to fund the correction industry and provide tertiary fees to their supporters (hint, hint). _______________________________________________________________________________________________ Now, I think that inmates should be treated humanely (after all, it is only by the Grace of God -- if there is a God -- or by the stupidity of the people that many on Beacon Hill are not -- yet, at least -- residing in similar circumstances). I think they should get good health care. I also think they should also receive carrot and stick "correction". But, let's fact it, being punished by being put in prison for years and years has a negative psychological impact. So, how are hormone treatments and sex change operations -- which do not relate to health needs, but to psychological wants -- to be justified when a big reason that they are incarcerated in the first place is punishment (ie, negative psychological impacts)? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Finally, note that there are all kinds of psychological desires out there -- the "typical" ones (there is no such thing are "normal") and the unusual. Think of a bell curve of psychological proclivities. Do we provide sadists with scenarios where they can act out their sadism? Do we not incarcerate those who are claustrophobic? How about those who are afraid of germs? Those who want to participate in gang rapes? Are polygamists allowed group conjugal visits? _____________________________________________________________________________________________ The Commonwealth is doing the right thing by not just giving up its position and paying for sex change operations. On the other hand, dragging their feet and playing games to avoid complying with judicial orders is both inappropriate and suggestive of a lack of respect for the law. But, we knew that already. This is a state of "good" or "bad" people, not of law. That's the inevitable result of parochialism...
The test for whether or not this procedure should be covered is to submit it to a law abiding citizen's insurance and see if it is covered. Despite my high premiums, copays and deductible, this would come back as DENIED. There you have it, same basic rights as an ordinary citizen...if he can find people willing to fundraise to pay for this on his own, then get it. But I and other citizens have to walk away from prescriptions at the pharmacy, because it isn't covered or we can't afford yet another $50 copay...
Are you *sure* it would come back denied. I've never tried it so I don't know what my insurance company would rule, much less how all insurance companies would rule.
Have you tried it and been turned down, or are you just making an assumption?
Actually, I just googled "sex-change insurance" and found that some insurance companies cover it, and others who denied the coverage, lost when they were sued. There goes your assumption.
I agree that if we don't allow the inmates to have the surgery we may be violating their rights. I disagree with the fact that the state has to pay for it. If they were on the street they would have to pick up the tab that should remain the fact when they are incarcerated.
Don't you think that he could write about his plight of being a woman trapped in a man's body, make money from the book then pay for his own surgery? That would not be profiting from his crime, would it?
By the way, I don't see why the inmate's legal expenses should have been reimbursed.
I hope they continue to fight this, regardless of what those who are defending these inmates are saying. While not treating an inmate for a life-threatening illness should be considered cruel and unusual punishment, I don't see why someone convicted of a brutal murder, like Kosilek, who suffers from a mental disorder, should be protected by the Constitution.
Kosilek strangled his wife with a wire and has brought pain and suffering to her family and friends. Wolf's interpretation means we should care more about the murderer's state of mind than that of the family and friends. I doubt this is what our forefather's had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.
Take it to the Supreme Court. At some point common sense must win out over the interpretations of those who are more concerned about prisoners rights than with innocent, law-abiding citizens.
This comment has been removed.
what you go in as it what you stay as
A fair and appropriate adjudication of this issue does not and should not involve the inmate's crime or his personality. Otherwise, you are one of the "good people"/ "bad people" redneck liberals.
This comment has been removed.
This comment has been removed.
We are insane. Time to just say no and refuse the order.
The facts of this matter are so bizzarre. It's like something that would occur in some strange weird dream, where when you wake up sweating a bit, feeling confused and then realizing, with a sigh, that it was only a strange weird dream. I don't get it. This person is convicted murderer.
The state is making a weak argument. We should never pay these fees or pay for sex change surgery. We should fight the claim that there is a civil right to be whichever sex people want to be, not just claim that there are other concerns that allow the DOC to deny their rights. There is no right to be whichever sex someone wants to be, people only have a right to reproduce offspring as the sex they are most likely able to do so using their unmodified natural gametes. People do have a right to have plastic surgery on their own body and to dress however they want to, and even change their legal recorded sex to match their public identity, but that doesn't extend to a right to actually reproduce as either sex. Once we establish that there is no right to reproduce as either sex, then we can work backwards to prove that there is no civil right being denied when we don't help people change their sex.
I'm sure Corrections has taken into consideration that many citizens would disagree with the state paying for sex-change procedures. I think that's their primary motivation and that they don't expect to prevail.
Still, it's amazing that the state is wasting this much money in order to pacify a vocal minority who are emotionally involved. Most people would understand that it's a legal requirement, whether or not they agree with it.
I don't think the state should be required to provide the procedures, but I also don't think there's any value in spending our taxes on a lost cause. Just throw in the towel, for goodness sake.