Afraid Of Rape in Prison? Don't Commit theCrime

Crapola, I say.

In another forum recently, I noticed people alluding to prison rape as an acceptable result of being put into prison, and that anyone who commits a crime deserves what they get.

Doesn’t rape fall under the heading of cruel and unusual punishment? Doesn’t permitting rape in prison, make rape a de facto punishment for just about any and every crime. Escaping that punishment is dependent on the given inmate's toughness, and avoiding that punishment frequently turns an otherwise relatively mild-mannered convict into a much more dangerous person. (What makes the whole thing even more absurd is that the inmates most likely to be victimized by rapists are usually the least likely to be "deserving", if we are measuring by the severity or violence of the crime committed by the victim/inmate.)

It seems sick, twisted and simply wrong to take the attitude that anyone who commits a crime deserves to be raped, or that it's acceptable that they be raped.

The founder of Stop Prisoner Rape was a perfect example of why tolerating prison rape is barbaric, and his experience seems to undercut any claim we might make to being champions of judicial fairness or human rights. He was arrested for unlawful assembly at a Quaker Pray-In anti-war demonstration, didn't pay the bail out of principal, and ultimately ended up being raped 60 times in a two-day period. I hate to use a “story” instead of a cite, but a high school friend of mine embezzled $16 from his employer when he was 17 years old, and because he was unprotected from rape in the adult prison he was sent to, ended up committing murder.

It's time we stopped bredding criminals in our prisons. It's time we started trying to help the helpable become decent members of society instead of hopeless victims and degenerates that are virtually guaranteed to become even more villainous than before they went in.

Peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Goofy

In no means is it an acceptable punishment for crime. But it is one of the factors you have to consider before committing a crime.
I dont think its right, people that are usually raped are new and scared and cannot defend themselves. But do you have any suggestions on how to prevent something like this from happening? The only way that I can think of, is to lock them up individually and not give them any contact with other inmates. That would take care of gangs, rape, etc...
But is that considered cruel and unusual? :bugeye:

Id like to hear other views or comments. Good subject Goofy.

Groove on

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps there should be different kind of prisons. To prevent the so called light criminals from behaviour like rape from the real criminals who act like they are in command in prison and rape every newbie on the block.

Being in an anti-war demonstration is hardly a crime to me, then again, I guess you're talking U$ here, so nothing new under the sun. Jees, isn't it about time the U$ does something about the behaviour of 'their' criminals?

Rape is never an option. It's the most cruel 'thing' you can do to another human being who cannot defend him/herself in any way. And absolutely no help from the prison guards. They are afraid of the prisoners in most of the cases and stay out of it. Too afraid to get harmed theirselves.

Oh I quit with it again, it just makes me feel more sick about the system in the U$...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Indeed, a sticky situation. On one hand, it needs to be punished. On the other hand, the people who commit these rapes are likely to be the people in prison for life, or people for which a bit more prison time is relatively meaningless, and I hardly doubt that this is a problem particular to the US prison system.

I think that Banshee is probably onto something. In addition to maximum and minimum security prisons, perhaps we should build a group of "medium security" prisons, for people who have been found guilty of non-violent crimes. The problem is that anyone moved out of a maximum security prison into a medium security prison is going to have the prison culture impressed onto them pretty completely, and with the new inmates coming in, I would think that the cycle would restart again.

But that doesn't really solve the fundamental problem, does it? In *any* system there's going to be one person who will enforce physical power over others, especially in a system where people are added because of their propensity to do just that sort of thing. So, do we need to "indoctrinate" prisoners of a maximum security prison with enough violence by the guards so that they know who really is on top? That sounds at least unusual, and rather cruel to me, and may use negative reinforcement to encourage the same brutality through the ranks.

What about smaller prisons? If there is one 20,000 person structure, wouldn't it be easier to have 20 1000 person structures? Or even 200 100-person structures in the same complex? Hell, that would even probably make things more fair for the guards, because the inter-complex communication would be much smaller. Unfortunately, there is a *large* capital investment that would necessarily be required if we chose this solution, and no one wants to spend alot of extra money on prisoners.

There could also be some sort of other punative system in place, raping a fellow inmate (something that's likely to be provable) could be grounds for harsher punishment. I think that the consequences would *have* to be corporeal or capital, because there are only so many ways of getting through to animals-and let's face it, that's what many of these people are.

 

Rapists should be killed. One of the few things I don't tolerate at all, ever, in any situation. They are sub-human scum who pollute the Earth by existing.

 

With present technology it should be economically feasible to keep every place in a prison under automatic surveillance. AI systems could monitor for certain activities. (Such as an inmate screaming for help.) As well as alerting guards, the system could record the event for later evaluation and prosecution. There should be some means of remotely stopping a crime inside a prison.

It might be hard to keep such a system from being compromised or subverted. Might require periodic testing and monitoring by an outside agency. Could violate a prisoner’s civil rights. (Such as the “right” to molest.)

Radio “imprisonment” could also be used for non-violent, low risk criminals. Tamper-proof radio transmitters could monitor and enforce movement restrictions. The degree of restriction could be tailored to the crime. The technology exists and should be economical.

 

Would you risk your life for the amount of money an office worker makes? Banshee, did you know that guards do not carry weapons? I think some harsher prisons are starting to get their guards plastic shields, but thats about it. Why dont we start paying the guards descent money and training them properly? Why are we sooo concerned about trying to help out prisoners who commit crimes? Yes, maybe we should have maximum/minimum security prisons it might help a little, but I doubt it.
And I agree, I dont think rape in prisons is only a US problem.

Imahamster

Thats a great idea - now whos going to pay for it all

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

A couple things to add.

1 We already have minimum security prisons, and I am under the impression that rape is not a problem in them.

2 I am under the impression that it is law that prisoners can have no expectation of privacy, which allows cells to be searched and meetings to be taped.

3 I am fully in support of keeping a well stocked armoury with appropriate safety features in prisons, to discourage any sort of rioting and whatever else might be necessary.

4 A video surveillance system should be installed, monitored by guards.

 

Maybe have different classes of prisons based on the type of crime, but have those classes also determine the amount of money spent on those imprisoned.

1) Non-violent offenders. White collar crims. Surveillance, reasonable food and lodgings, maybe some efforts at rehabilitation and education.

2) Violent offenders who caused no permanent loss, no permanent physical or emotional injury. Spend a middling amount of money and effort on them.

3) Murderers, rapists, and those who have caused any other form of permanent emotional or physical injury. Put them in little concrete boxes and forget about the bastards.

 

Digital cameras and microphones have dropped greatly in price. A computer front end to process the image and sound to detect dangerous situations should be relatively cheap. This is similar to systems being marketed for home security today. A prison-wide wireless intranet would allow the surveillance devices to notify guards, record a disturbance, and notify an outside monitoring agency. The outside agency should keep the guards from abusing the surveillance system and doctoring evidence.

The system should only be implemented if it reduces the cost per prisoner of incarceration. As the present prison cost is over twenty thousand a year per prisoner (based upon hamster recollection), such a system should be able to save money. (Might be funded out of educational funds for retraining, as the network could be dual function.)

 

In Australia, prisoners cost us around $55,000 each per year. That's more than my father ever made in a year. They get TV, internet, sports, free medical care, free food, arts and crafts classes, "rehabilitation", and more. I'm so damn happy these murderers and rapists are so well looked after...

 

Wonder of wonders ...

Banshee
" And absolutely no help from the prison guards. They are afraid of
the prisoners in most of the cases and stay out of it. Too afraid to get
harmed theirselves."

And what prison movies have you been watching lately, my dear?

ImaHamster2
"The outside agency should keep the guards from abusing the surveillance
system and doctoring evidence."

Gee. Considering that most, if not all, 'guards' are ignorant, uneducated
Neanderthals ... Who would 'abuse' or 'doctor' sophisticated electronic
systems for them?

The two of you: Get real

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

goofyfish ...

"It's time we stopped bredding criminals in our prisons. It's time we started
trying to help the helpable become decent members of society instead of
hopeless victims and degenerates that are virtually guaranteed to become
even more villainous than before they went in."

Damn, I didn't know we were 'bredding' criminals in prison.

I was under the foolish impression that society breeds the criminals who
are then incarcerated to 'protect society' ... The society that bred them.

That is except for the no-good son-of-a-b*****s who acomplished it all
on their own.

Take care

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Chagur, this hamster does not assume that the motive or talent to abuse a system comes from “ignorant, uneducated Neanderthals”. Nor does this hamster assume that low paid employees don’t have such technical skill. This hamster believes that some prisoners have the means to bribe guards and access technology. This hamster also believes that prison officials with the capability to tamper with the system might be tempted to do so.

As a general principle this hamster does not believe in extending police power without an independent oversight agency to protect against misuse. The outside monitoring agency also serves to protect the prison officials in the event of disputed evidence.

As this is a hypothetical system this is as “real” as this hamster chooses to get.

 

Somebody tinkle in your Wheaties this morning, Chagur?

I believe I've read where you've had experience with both law enforcement and the prison system.

Options:

Tear down other's ideas...

Offer some "real" insight of your own...

Or, be a well-mannered dragon and let the folks sort through it unscorched...

Take care...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

CB

 

A few points

Nathaniel Hawthorne, in the American classic novel, The Scarlet Letter, makes the point early on that two permanent institutions of human society are jails and graveyards. That is, there will always be criminals, and people will always die.

Bearing that in mind, what are prisons for?

• Are prisons houses of rehabilitation?
• Are prisons houses of punishment?
• Are prisons mere relief for our consciences?

We have in the United States the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, which reads,

The Eighth Amendment is in place to prevent such things as public whippings (a Puritan tradition), sexual molestations (a Puritan tradition) and also the atrocities of debtors' prisons (regarded as an English monstrosity in the day), and so forth. Take our "three strikes" laws, in which your third felony results in some ridiculous punishment, such as life in prison. Sounds good, eh? So you were convicted of date rape in high school. Whoops. Okay, we understand that these mistakes happen, so after a certain time we will let you back out. Did you hurt someone defending yourself in a fight? (I do know a guy who went to prison at 17 for just that; of course, he didn't just defend himself, he proceeded to freak out and beat the guy within an inch of his life.) Now ... did you steal a slice of pizza? This link should lead you to a website documenting some of the problems of that three-strikes law.

There are a number of confusing aspects about criminal law in the United States. For instance, in the case of the slice of pizza, a petty theft was automatically escalated to a felony--thus allowing the 25-to-life sentence--based on a piece of legalistic pucky.

Or carrier-weight laws in the drug war. The law as applied to the drug war reflects no other portion of American justice. Ever hear of Tylox? It's a painkiller with 350 mg acetamenophin (Tylenol) and between 5 and 50 mg coedine. I'm currently searching Families Against Mandatory Minimums for the story, but as I recall, a hippie leaving a Dead concert was sentenced to 25 years in prison for possession of a roach and a Tylox. How did they reach this conclusion? Well, the total weight of the pill at >400 mg plus the weight of the plastic bottle equaled a gram of coedine, classified as street heroin for sentencing purposes, and then applied to the marijuana roach to tack an automatic distribution escalation (this process is under fire per Apprendi v. New Jersey, a firearms case), and the unsealing of a juvenile Minor in Possession of a Controlled Substance charge, which helped classify him as recidivist. In fact, the FAMM site is great testament against the state of prisons today, as we must bear in mind the nature of the drug war.

What effect do prisons have in society? In the US, we have long held racial tensions regarding the crime rate among black Americans. Consider the Department of Justice's own statistics on the Crack Standard. First of all, crack cocaine is no different from powdered cocaine when you get to the molecular level. That is, I can crush a crack rock and snort it. Yet 5 grams of crack earns you five years in prison under the federal standard, while the minimum at the time of its induction for powdered cocaine was 500 grams equals five years. 1995 statistics showed 2,400 or so prosecutions under the crack standard, of which eleven were not black and three were white. However, other federal numbers showed that 65% of crack users documented in 1995 were white. If we travel back to the late 1980s and early 90s, statistics reflected two grim possibilities for black males: prison or death. 1 in 3 would not see their 18th birthday at all, and 1 in 3 would serve prison time (invoking the old difference 'twixt jail and prison) before their 30th birthday. When we put the two facts side by side, and consider the nature of prisons, we come back to the essence of the questions above: What is the purpose of prisons?

Now, take the stigma of having served prison time and try to get a job ... it's getting a little better these days, since the impact of the drug war is so mighty. Serving a drug conviction isn't nearly as damaging if you're white as a harder felony. But the simple fact is that unless we wish to throw everybody in prison for life for petty infractions of the law (speeding, stealing a slice of pizza, &c.) and spend that $55,000 per annum on their incarceration (I'm too lazy to look up the American number right now) prisons must necessarily provide rehabilitation, education, and a number of other things that hardliners in this country would refuse prisons. At present, prisons are breeding grounds for violent criminals. I suppose, of course, we could put you to death for hitting your wife, but what would the impact of that be after a certain time when that many people are removed from society? Such sentencing, of course, violates the Eighth Amendment, and I highly doubt that the American hardliners can muster enough support to revoke that Amendment (2/3 of Congress to pass and 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify).

In the end it's a simple question of what prisons are intended to do. Generally speaking, we must at some point reintroduce the convict to society. What kind of person do we wish to reintroduce to public life?

I would venture a guess that, in the United States, at least, the reason people look so hard upon the "luxuries" of prisons is that in order to recondition prisoners, we must guarantee certain human rights that people just don't seem to want to give each other in the law-abiding community.

Prisons are a reflection of society.

thanx much,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You missed one: To protect the rest of us from murdering, raping scum.

Society functions by people living by certain ways, ways that let as function as a society. Some people refuse to do so, just take whatever they want, hurt people. I see no reason why society should extend protection to those who would not do so for their society. Prison is not about doing good for the people who try to screw a society over. They are about protecting the rest of us from this vicious, lying, thieving scum.

 

Yep, scum

• http://www.famm.org
• http://www.november.org

Yep, murdering, raping scum.

In the United States, we're building prisons faster than schools, and for years the trend has shown a reduction of bedspace for violent criminals (e.g. murdering, raping scum) while we devote more and more bedspace to nonviolent criminals.

It's nice to say that prisons are there to protect us from murdering, raping scum, but that's hardly an answer to what prisons are for. In general, prisons fail to protect us from murdering, raping scum because prisons manufacture murdering, raping scum.

Consider Joe, your a run-of-the-mill petty crook. Send him to maximum-security prison for possession of cocaine. Great. You've got a guy put away for five years in which you won't have to worry about him grabbing your purse or, worse yet, getting high and hanging out with his friends. In prison, what happens?

• Job skills, education, and rehabilitation, or ...
• Getting raped, lifting weights, and learning to be a mortal force.

Once Joe gets back out on the street after his five-year minimum plus a little time for the misbehavior of hurting someone while trying to avoid being raped, and of course a little more for trying to avoid being beaten by the guards, and he comes out a lean, taut crime machine with an attitude problem. You can always send him back to prison, but now someone's dead because he couldn't get a legitimate job, and ended up killing someone in a crappy drug deal.

On the other hand, womens' prisons are a nightmare. Women are routinely groped, raped, and otherwise violated by guards. Whenever the news wants a sob story on prisons, a womens' prison is the place to look. Of course, if we all had George W Bush for governor, we could put those women to death. After all, killing your husband in an act of defense is punishable by death in Texas. Betty Lou Beets had a troubled history, and had been arrested on prior occasions for domestic violence, but while George W Bush was pronouncing himself tough on crime, he was also excusing himself from her execution by saying it was out of his hands. Nonetheless,

There is, in fact, a Betty Lou Beets homepage that points out, in Betty's own words,

Nobody protected her from the raping scum.

It's a clean, simple answer that prisons exist to protect us from the murdering, raping scum, but the truth of the matter is that they don't.

I take it, then, Adam, that once one is in prison, regardless of why, they should never be let out? The reason I conclude that from your post is that, at present, as I have noted, prisons are breeding grounds for violent criminals. We have at least two options to address this:

• Try to rehabilitate prisoners to function in society.
• Never release anyone from prison for any reason.

Given the number of people we throw in prison, and the reasons we do so, the second option is not viable, at least in the United States.

Yep. All people convicted of crimes and sentenced to prison are the same, aren't they?

I got a call from a friend of mine. She had to go downtown to get a friend out of jail today. I still don't know how she did it, but she got the charges dropped before arraignment by explaining the ridiculously high probability that the woman accusing him of beating her was lying through her teeth. Another friend of mine was inches from prison when his wife finally relented and confessed to the court that she made up the charges of domestic abuse.

Quite frankly, she realized that she would have to get a job. That's the only reason she dropped the charges; well, except for the fact that they were false.

What is the difference between what could have been and what is? Well, let's get one thing straight about American law. Two weeks ago, my partner of six years escalated our relationship by introducing physical violence. In front of people on the street, in front of the police, in front of God if you will, she threw a punch. A drunk woman striking a man is apparently not a crime; I knew damn well better than to hit her as hard as she needed to be hit. Why? Because I know that you literally have to let a woman kill you if you wish to escape the wrath of the law.

But once they're in prison, they're all the same, eh? Just scum.

Well? Once you're in, should you ever be let out? And no, by your generalization, it does not matter why they're in prison.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

See my post from the previous page...

 

Well?

That's a far cry from your generalization.

In this country we have what are colloquially referred to as "resort prisons". These are federal prisons reserved for nonviolent, white-collar criminals. Ask any of the over 100 Reagan-administration staffers who would eventually serve time there. Some of them even have tennis courts and swimming pools.

Furthermore, I remind you that in this country, bedspace for violent criminals is being reduced for drug-possession convicts. I know a guy who was convicted once of possessing methamphetamine. He served worse time than he did on his second felony conviction, when he was busted running guns.

After all, if we threw all the rapists in prison and forgot about them, life would be great. The male-female ratio would shift to about 1:100. Eighty per cent of my male classmates from high school would be in little concrete boxes.

And, I do think it less-than-dignified to respond to the idea of what to do with people when they get out of prison by providing a generalization such as your murdering, raping scum example and then retreating to prison classifications.

The ones that are never getting out of prison anyway aren't of that much concern. After all, they're never getting out of prison.

But what of the rest of them? Therein lies the essential question that has yet to be answered.

--Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!