Prisoner’s Rights Run Amok

by Diane Dimond on September 17, 2012

Do Prisoners Deserve More Rights Than Law Abiders?


Recently, I wrote about the sometimes deadly lack of air conditioning for prisoners during our blisteringly hot summers. Despite several inmate deaths in cell blocks with temperatures as high as 130 degrees, I got a raft of reader e-mails taking me to task for being too soft on convicts.

This week, I turn the tables to announce my absolute, unequivocal opposition to a pro-prisoner court order you may find positively shocking. I know I did.

The prisoner at the center of the controversy is Michelle Kosilek. But up until 1993 this person was known as Robert Kosilek. In 1990, Robert’s wife, Cheryl, already distressed over his drinking came home to find him dressed up in her clothes. A fight ensued and the trial court found Robert was guilty of strangling Cheryl with a wire and abandoning her naked body in the family car outside a local mall.

Kosilek Under Arrest For Murder

Just before Kosilek went on trial for Cheryl’s murder in 1993 he declared he was a woman trapped in a man’s body and legally changed his name to Michelle. Kosilek appeared in court with long luxurious hair and wearing eye makeup, rouge, women’s glasses, slim cut jeans and a set of dangling circle earrings. Despite self-identifying as a female, upon conviction, Kosilek was sentenced to an all-male prison in Norfolk, Massachusetts to serve life in prison without parole.

Over the years, Kosilek’s attorneys have repeatedly filed motions asking the court to order sex-reassignment surgery for the convicted murderer. In 2002, after specialists testified Kosilek did, indeed, suffer from severe gender identity disorder the court allowed Kosilek to begin receiving taxpayer funded psychotherapy, female hormone injections, laser hair removal and access to women’s underwear and make-up. All of that wasn’t enough for Kosilek’s peace of mind, however. Court documents revealed s/he  attempted self-castration and twice attempted suicide in prison.

Michelle Kosilek After Conviction

Now, let’s pause here so I can be clear. I have no doubt that gender identity disorder exists and that it can be psychological hell for those who are born this way. But there are lots of people on the outside struggling with Kosilek’s problem, unable to come up with the money for a gender reassignment operation. Do we afford convicted killers health care rights that law abiding citizens don’t have? The answer is yes, according to a recent decision from U.S. District Court Judge Mark Wolf.

Judge Wolf Rules Sex Change "Medically Necessary"

“It may seem strange that in the United States citizens do not generally have a constitutional right to adequate medical care, but the Eighth Amendment promises prisoners such care,” Judge Wolf wrote in ruling that the state of Massachusetts must pay for the prisoner’s sex-change operation. To do otherwise, Wolf ruled, would constitution cruel and unusual punishment.

Now, stop and think about this a minute. Here is a person who lives in the general population of an all – male prison. It may be one thing for him to dress up like the character Klinger from the old M*A*S*H* TV series but it might be something altogether more dangerous for Kosilek to actually become transgendered and think nothing will change within his testosterone driven prison community. Judge Wolf heard testimony from prison officials about the unique security problems Kosilek’s case would present but he dismissed the argument. As it stands now Kosilek gets his free operation but the state could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court which would delay things.

Other states have grappled with similar federal cases filed by prisoners wanting a sex change operation but I couldn’t find one where a judge actually ordered taxpayer funded surgery.

Michelle Kosilek in Court

Judge Wolf’s apparently groundbreaking decision seems so shortsighted to me. He made it sound as if he had no choice in the matter, that it was a “medical necessity” for this prisoner. It’s as if the judge forgot the state has already bent over backward to accommodate this prisoner’s numerous wishes over the years.

I’m not the only one who is outraged by this. After the ruling, U.S. Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts said Kosilek’s surgery would be, “An outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars.” A niece of Cheryl Kosilek nearly begged the state to quickly appeal the decision saying, “As far as I’m concerned, he deserves nothing. If he wants to attempt suicide … let him.”

Sex Change Surgery Team

Judge Wolf’s written ruling didn’t address what would happen to Kosilek after the operation. Would s/he be left to fend for her/himself in the all-male population or be transferred to a women’s prison? What if Kosilek decides he is unhappy with the results and wants further surgery? And, most important, what signal does this send to all the other poor but law-abiding souls who cannot afford the psychotherapy, the hormones, the gender reassignment surgery? For the truly desperate it seems to be an invitation to commit a really serious crime so they can advance their goal of changing sexes.

I can see providing a prisoner a heart transplant or expensive cancer treatments so they don’t die. That, to me, fits in the “medically necessary” category. But, to those Kosilek sympathizers who declare granting this operation is humane – I asked them one question: How humane was Robert Kosilek when he pulled that wire around his wife’s neck and tugged on it until it nearly took her head off? He’s gotten enough rewards for his murderous behavior.



Diane Dimond September 17, 2012 at 10:58 pm

ABQ Journal Reader Maryevelyn writes:

“Hello Diane, Thanks so much for your article about the Killer receiving Gender Adjustment treatments at taxpayer expense. I agree with you 100%. Thanks again.”

Diane Dimond September 17, 2012 at 11:00 pm

Twitter follower @Frasier2009 ?writes:

“@DiDimond How many wounded soldiers could benefit from that money? What a disgusting waste of money!”

Diane Dimond September 17, 2012 at 11:01 pm

Facebook Friend Morgan Roebuck writes:

“I’ll do the surgery! now where is that hammer…?”

Diane Dimond September 17, 2012 at 11:02 pm

Facebook Friend Doreen Siskin writes from Massachusetts:

” Diane,
I am from Taxachusettes. This story gets me so mad. Our governor Patrick is trying to intervene … Unbelievable you kill your wife then get free UNNECCESARY surgery !!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Diane Dimond September 17, 2012 at 11:03 pm

Facebook Friend William Drummond writes:

“How about heart transplants, hip replacements, triple bypass? Where to draw the line?”

Diane Dimond September 17, 2012 at 11:05 pm

Where do I draw the line? As I wrote – at LIFE SAVING SURGERY. If a prisoner will die without the surgery then I say, by all means, perform the operation. I’d even go for surgery that corrects unbearable physical pain – i.e. hip joint deterioriation, etc. ~ DD

Diane Dimond September 17, 2012 at 11:06 pm

Facebook Friend William Drummond responds:

“I teach at San Quentin in California. Some of my students were sentenced to life when they were 14-17 years old. They will be guests of the state for another 50 years. How much will their medical care cost over their lifetimes? Judges and juries in their haste to “throw away the key” don’t take this fact into account. But the federal courts do. Re-read last year’s Supreme Court decision. It came from a conservative court! Denial of medical care constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment.” If you can’t pay for lifetime care, don’t give a lifetime sentence.”

Diane Dimond September 17, 2012 at 11:07 pm

Facebook Friend Bill Voinovich writes:

“Why don’t they just REMOVE his parts & then tell him they “goofed”…
SORRY, Bubba, but if you’re getting it for FREE, don’t bitch when they mess it up……….
After all, I read a story about a hospital in NY(?) that amputated the WRONG ARM.
What’s he need a sex change for ANYWAY????
All his prison buddies ALREADY like him just the way he is……..
Save the tax money, Elwood.NO SURGERY FOR YOU..Now GET BACK IN YOUR CAGE!!!!!!!!!”

Diane Dimond September 17, 2012 at 11:30 pm

Facebook Friend Darcy Miller writes:

“You know i find this very scary that they have that much freedom to get that type of surgery.I want to know what is going to happen w hen the surgery is complete does that then mean he will fight to move to a womans prison for safety reasons? THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HEART TRANSPLANT AND A SEXCHANGE OPERATION. One is likely to save a life and the other in that type of enviroment a sex change operation will most likely cause him to be hurt by other inmates.”

Diane Dimond September 18, 2012 at 11:42 am

Facebook Friend Darryl DuPont writes:

“I was baffled how this judge applied the 8th amendment. I understand rulings have required medical treatment under the 8th but I thought it was applied to lack of medical attention under “cruel & unusual”. Prisoners have died of cancer in the past after not getting treatment, so how can sex reassignment fall under the 8th? Bad Judge.”

Diane Dimond September 18, 2012 at 11:44 am

William Drummond writes in response:

William Drummond @Darcy Miller, two years ago my students did an exploration of many of these issues in the CA prison system. One piece was devoted to San Quentin inmates undergoing sex reassignment. The prison atmosphere was surprisingly tolerant toward these inmates. The media portray inmates as animals. The truth is much more complex. If you are interested, follow this link:

Berkeley News21: Behind Bars | California’s Convict Cycle
A group of journalists at the University of California, Berkeley report on incarceration in California.”

Michael Sweet September 18, 2012 at 12:21 pm

I don’t even know how to respond to this…so I won’t

Diane Dimond September 18, 2012 at 11:32 pm

Facebook Friend Rita Dicarlo writes:

“I cant even respond intelligently to this article! Signed, live kidney donor 10-03-07.”

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: