California Law

[Occhidiangela]

Get your #$%& straight, Occhi. One minute you're outraged because people are #$%&ing in prison, and oh, you want them punished, not having fun! But the next minute, you're going on and on about how prison sex is assrape, which doesn't sound pleasant at all! So which is it? Are they having fun, or aren't they?

Y'know, that's rhetorical. I don't really care for you to elaborate, because for you, the public health issue involved (which sparked the CA bill in the first place) is compeletly secondary. First priority to ensure that prisons are properly punishing inmates. Well, great, while you're figuring out the best way to punish people, we still have a public health issue. Maybe your solution to ill-punished prisoners will take care of the health issue simultaneously, but frankly, you don't seem concerned about it. And that's kinda creepy.

-Lem

You seem to be missing the point. The State blatantly condoing sex in prison, which implies unequal treatment under the law for heterosexuals, seeing as how they are incarcerated in same sex prisons. There is also the problem of failure to enforce the law against assault in prison, but perhaps that is a separate issue.

Fix the problem, not the symptom. The "health risk" is a symptom of a prison system out of control.

You go to prison? Your sex life is your hand. Period. This concept is consistent with punishment.[b]

Fun doesn't enter into it.

Can you wrap your fuzzy little brain around that?

Occhi

[eppie]

You seem to be missing the point. The State blatantly condoing sex in prison, which implies unequal treatment under the law for heterosexuals, seeing as how they are incarcerated in same sex prisons. There is also the problem of failure to enforce the law against assault in prison, but perhaps that is a separate issue.

Fix the problem, not the symptom. The "health risk" is a symptom of a prison system out of control.

Your last sentence says what I with less succes tried to say a few times before.:) Thanks, I agree.

I actually think (so maybe I'm wrong) that sex in prison (the kind you both want) has never been an issue in the ideas behind the punishment system.

About a difference between hetero and homosexuals, I don't see the reason why this is brought up. As said before in this thread, those rape are often not committed by people that are gay (in the outside world). When you put a lot of men together for a long time like in prisons, submarines, the army, same gender schools 'mental deformations take place.

[kandrathe]

Your last sentence says what I with less succes tried to say a few times before.:) Thanks, I agree.

I actually think (so maybe I'm wrong) that sex in prison (the kind you both want) has never been an issue in the ideas behind the punishment system.

About a difference between hetero and homosexuals, I don't see the reason why this is brought up. As said before in this thread, those rape are often not committed by people that are gay (in the outside world). When you put a lot of men together for a long time like in prisons, submarines, the army, same gender schools 'mental deformations take place.

It has to do with why they thought handing out condoms was a good idea. Are they;

1] Condoning forcible rape, and suggesting the attackers don a condom to be "safe"?
2] Condoning homosexual relationships between inmates?
3] Condoning the Brute/Bitch hierarchy?
4] Idiots that think the only answer to HIV infection is "safer sex"?

[--Pete]

Hi,

It has to do with why they thought handing out condoms was a good idea. Are they;

1] Condoning forcible rape, and suggesting the attackers don a condom to be "safe"?
2] Condoning homosexual relationships between inmates?
3] Condoning the Brute/Bitch hierarchy?
4] Idiots that think the only answer to HIV infection is "safer sex"?

Clearly the first word of 4 is sufficient to cover the situation. Perhaps the best thing would be to put the ivory tower ignorant people who voted for this measure into a maximum security federal jail for a week or two to give them a lesson in the realities.

As to the issue itself, I don't see why it merits much discussion. Condoms are cheap, so even a bankrupt (in so many ways) state like California can afford them. They'll have no effect on the problem and really don't address it anyway, which is typical of modern day legislation of all kinds. And the whole bit about 'sending a message' is just new age crap. People don't listen to government messages. Hell, people pay almost no attention to what the government is doing most of the time precisely because instead of addressing real problems, government fritters its time away on trivia (like making on-line poker playing for real money a crime here in Washington).

Our ignorant and apathetic citizenry deserves the government we have. And our poor excuse for an educational system (AKA, mandatory baby sitting service) is a large part of the reason for the ignorance. But that's another rant for another time.

--Pete

[Doc]

Our ignorant and apathetic citizenry deserves the government we have. And our poor excuse for an educational system (AKA, mandatory baby sitting service) is a large part of the reason for the ignorance. But that's another rant for another time.

--Pete

Actually, I rather look forward to a post much like that one from you in the near future. I'd like to hear your opinion and examine your views on the issue. Something worth reading in all likelyhood.

Anyhoo, would make for an excellent bit of conversational fodder.

Carry on.

[Occhidiangela]

And our poor excuse for an educational system (AKA, mandatory baby sitting service) is a large part of the reason for the ignorance. But that's another rant for another time.

--Pete

If you like, I can save you some typing by posting a link to a conversation but sadly, I could not find the discussion about Mass, and the virtues of the teaching methods of Scientology. I hope to find it, there was some good interplay in that discussion about education. No, my diploma is not from Xen U. :lol:

Whilst browsing through that forum, I realized that I have lost my sense of humor, or at least my sense of whimsy.

What is the opposite of kinder, gentler?

*cue Hank Williams, JR*

Why do you drink?

Occhi

[LemmingofGlory]

You seem to be missing the point. The State blatantly condoing sex in prison, which implies unequal treatment under the law for heterosexuals, seeing as how they are incarcerated in same sex prisons. There is also the problem of failure to enforce the law against assault in prison, but perhaps that is a separate issue.

No, I already understood your point... I just expected something less reactionary and idiotic from you. It's one thing to joke that the bill is discriminatory, but to actually buy into so much that it becomes the basis for an attack on the bill is just absolutely birdbrained. And even if it wasn't a false premise, there are much better ways to attack the bill.

And I don't see this so much as the State condoning sex in prison. (If it wanted to do that, it'd pass out lube too.) If anything, the State is condoning passing stupid, useless laws, and as far as that goes, the State setting a very good example of it.

Can you wrap your fuzzy little brain around that?

There was more that I agreed with in this post of yours than previous ones, though I'm not really sold on the purpose of prison being punishment (even though that's the way things are currently set up).

-Lem

[Occhidiangela]

If anything, the State is condoning passing stupid, useless laws, and as far as that goes, the State setting a very good example of it.

Though I'm not really sold on the purpose of prison being punishment (even though that's the way things are currently set up).

-Lem

On point one, we have an accord.

On point two, punishment without effective rehabilitation certainly leaves much to be desired. Who is willing to foot the bill?

Occhi

[BigGrim]

I don't get it. There are so many arguments here that go back and forth between what a prisoner is and isn't entitled to, what prisons stand for, and how unfair the prison system is. Why is that the issue? The point of this bill isn't to promote prison sex, its to prevent STDs! (I certainly hope its not to prevent pregnancy.)

The bottom line is that people will have sex and that there is a high incidence of STD's amongst the prison population that must be controlled from a health care perspective. Someday, these people will be returned into society after they have served their time and I'd rather they not come out with uncurable diseases if they can be prevented.

The cessation of the proliferation of STD's should be the highest priority here, not what prisoners are and are not entitled to. It might be because I work in health care and I've been taught that prevention is far more effective than treatment, but that seems counter to what Americans think about health anyway.

From an economic standpoint, unless you have the means to seperate prisoners on a regular basis into individual cells, protect the prisoners who probably fear for the lives if they report anal rape, or the staffing and equipment to monitor the lives of these people twenty four hours a day...you cannot prevent all cases of inmate sex.

Condoms are cheap. Some people may use them. Clinics often give basic ones away for free in high risk areas for STD's like amongst the homeless in the hopes that it prevents some cases of transmission. Some cases, not all. For the price of a box of condoms, that might prevent the infection of one prisoner...weigh that versus the cost of treating that prisoner for HIV or hepatitis.

If you think this measure is the wrong way to handle that, say so. Don't preach on about how these people deserve less for what they've done or how it discriminates against heterosexuals. It is a public health issue, which means it will eventually effect you and me. If not by infected prisoners being released into the population, in the cost of health care treatment to these people in the future. Unless, of course, people are advocating that these people shouldn't be treated for disease because they're criminals?

This thread should be less about morality and more about practically. People say this will do nothing to fix the problem, but does it make it worse?

[kandrathe]

...
It is a public health issue, which means it will eventually effect you and me. If not by infected prisoners being released into the population, in the cost of health care treatment to these people in the future. Unless, of course, people are advocating that these people shouldn't be treated for disease because they're criminals?

This thread should be less about morality and more about practically. People say this will do nothing to fix the problem, but does it make it worse?

I agree that the topic is about practical solutions. I believe that handing out condoms will not help curb the spread of the disease, and is a stupid non-gesture by idiotic politicians grand standing. But, quarantine will. To me (a farm boy) it's pretty simple. You need three groups; recent arrivals, infected, and uninfected. You keep the recent arrivals in single bed cells, and during group times you supervise them very closely to prevent any fraternization. When tests come back, and/or quarantine period is over you move the infected and the clean into their respective populations.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I agree that the topic is about practical solutions. I believe that handing out condoms will not help curb the spread of the disease, and is a stupid non-gesture by idiotic politicians grand standing. But, quarantine will. To me (a farm boy) it's pretty simple. You need three groups; recent arrivals, infected, and uninfected. You keep the recent arrivals in single bed cells, and during group times you supervise them very closely to prevent any fraternization. When tests come back, and/or quarantine period is over you move the infected and the clean into their respective populations.

Yep, perfect in theory. The reality is that jails have six and eight men in rooms designed for four, parole prisoners that are known to be dangerous to make room for the new inmates, have forty to sixty percent of the correction officers that they really need (and make up a lot of the manpower lack through forced overtime).

The legislature can pass a stupid, cheap law and maybe even fund it. They sure as hell can't, especially in bankrupt California, afford the type of program you propose.

I once heard politics described as "the art of the possible." I think this is very much such a case. Grand standing, indeed, because that's all that's left to them.

--Pete

[--Pete]

Hi,

Actually, I rather look forward to a post much like that one from you in the near future. I'd like to hear your opinion and examine your views on the issue. Something worth reading in all likelyhood.

Anyhoo, would make for an excellent bit of conversational fodder.

Carry on.

It might indeed lead to some interesting discussion, but on my part will have to wait for a while. In the meantime, this article in the NYT at least touches on some of the issue.

(May take signing up, but that is free)

--Pete