11 Comments

If you released non-violent prisoners you would solve the overcrowding. The War on Drugs has not reduced violence but has overfilled the prisons.

The irony here is that these felons, once released, are not permitted to associate with other felonious types, yet in prison we require it.
There should be no free and open physical contact while in prison. Keeping each prisoner largely isolated from undesired elements (each other) is necessary. Left to their own devices, prisoners are not going to provide a rehabilitating effect upon each other.

Prison rape is a bad thing. It’s something we should definitely deal with… when it’s the worst thing (or in the top 20) going on.

I do not condone prison rape (or any rape), but at least most of the victims ar in prison for a crime. To go with a cliched but simple example, the average child who dies of starvation is innocent.

Yes, it’s bad. LOTS of things are bad. This issue is not important enough to be worrying much about while so many worse things are going unaddressed (genocide in Darfur, for another simple example).

The Fur are not American citizens, and were not put into peril by the actions of the American government. Prisoners in American prisons are. Therefore, the American government has more responsibility to its prisoners.

Deoxy pulls at our heartstrings with the plea for the children. But the children are not wards of the state legally and physically prevented by the state from defending themselves from assault.
How much confidence does this give you if the police were to show up at your door with a material witness subpoena to place you under ‘protective custody’?

Once the state owns your body, it assumes an extraordinary duty to protect it.

We (correctly) condemned Saddam Hussein and his sons for the cruelty of their “rape rooms.” Yet we have American elected officials like Bill Lockyer openly calling for the rape of white-collar defendants.

Ted,

Not common, but I’ve got to call you on that one. While the case can be made (as both jb and nevins do) that my claims aren’t relevant (there are similar claims right here in the US – the foster care system, for instance, is dreadful, and our family law courts, which put children in the foster care system are also atrocious… both much more pressing as well, and both immune to those claims), the comparison of a tyrant’s “rape rooms” (where suspects OR THEIR RELATIVES are taken specifically to be raped BY STATE EMPLOYEES) to prisons (where people already convicted of crimes are known to rape each other the point of prisons being to be where we put such people to keep them away from society) is quite beyond the pale.

We agonize about Iraqi detainees with panties on their heads and yet continue to permit prison rape. This is a situation in the control of the state exclusively. How can permissiveness that allows prison rape to be considered anything but state sponsored terrorism of american citizen prisoners?

Deoxy, here are Bill Lockyer’s precise words: “I would love to personally escort Lay to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, ‘Hi, my name is Spike, honey.'”

Now, in this scenario, the tattooed dude named Spike isn’t officially in the pay of the state (other than the sexual gratification he’ll get from the rape condoned by state officials). But I don’t see very much else distinguishing Lockyer’s proposal (which was aimed at someone who turned out not to be guilty of the accusation in question) from Hussein’s rape rooms.

We correctly condemn court systems that order gang rapes to take place. We clearly wouldn’t tolerate under any conception of the Eighth Amendment at any point in this nation’s history a judicial punishment of gang rape. Putting prisoners in a situation where they are certain to be raped is not something I am going to shrug off: even if you think it’s okay because it provides additional deterrence for criminal acts, this is more than offset by the fact that the most strong and violent in our society (who are most in need of deterrence from wrongdoing) (1) are not likely to be the rape victims and (2) are most likely to be the rape perpetrators, meaning that they are being underdeterred because prison gives them free rein to commit more crimes.

While we can’t possibly prevent all prison rapes, we can certainly do more: we wouldn’t tolerate it if prisoners starved to death because the prison system couldn’t afford food.

It’s bad enough that our government tolerates prison rape; it’s absolutely despicable that some officers of the bar actually celebrate it.

If the chance of getting raped by your fellow inmates is a deterrent that keeps someone from a life of crime, I’m all for it…

The only way to prevent it happening is to put every single prisoner in 24/7 solitary confinement.
I’m certain the “human rights” groups would have complaints about that as well.

J. Wenting: You make the assumption that everyone in the prisons with the choice of possible rape or 24 hr. solitary are all murderers, rapists, or others who may well deserve this treatment.

You may find yourself in prison in the future for smoking a cigarette, saying the wrong phrase that ended up being “hate speech” (who knew?), or trying to defend your family from a burglar – in many states. This is the way things are going in the U.S. of A.

Oh, maybe it’ll be 10 years for cutting off the heads of parking meters with a pipe cutter.

At least you’ll have lots of time to think about how this used to be a free country during your time in solitary confinement.

“Shakin’ the tree, boss, shakin’ the tree. What we have heah, Mr. J.T. Wenting, is failya ta communicate. Baaam, baaaam, ba-bloom. Ouch!”