You are conflating very different issues. Sterilisation is a punishment, incitement is a crime. In Australia, for instance:Terrapin Station wrote: ↑January 30th, 2021, 5:40 amThe whole point of the analogy is that I don't agree that preventing future crimes is a sufficient justification for invoking (punitive) force towards any arbitrary thing that will prevent future crimes. The only prevention move I agree with on that end is incarceration when someone has already committed a crime and there is good reason to believe that they would commit the same or a similar crime if freed. (Though even then I don't agree with the approach we take to incarceration.) I think it's immoral to forcibly sterilize anyone just because there's an increased chance that they'll produce offspring who will commit murders, and I think it's immoral to prohibit speech just because there's an increased chance that it will influence people to commit murders (or whatever actions I might morally object to).Greta wrote: ↑January 29th, 2021, 8:08 pm TP, that analogy does not work. Do we sterilise white collar criminals and burglars as well? Do we sterilise shoplifters and jaywalkers as well?
You keep ignoring the middle ground, such as the middle ground between incitement and personal responsibility. Now you don't take into account the middle ground between forced sterilisation and other, less extreme deterrents.
"Generally, under the Commonwealth Criminal Code it is a crime to urge the commission of an offence. A person can still be guilty even if committing the offence incited is not possible. The following maximum penalties apply: 10-years jail if the offence incited carries life imprisonment."
Such rules can be found worldwide, and for good reason. It's simply shallow to, say, treat a Mafia boss who orders a hit to be innocent while only convicting the hitman who physically comitted the murder.