California Law

[eppie]

I believe it is your own ignorance that is at fault here not my comprehension. I've worked law enforcement - the times that I have had to use force to restrain a prisoner can be counted on one hand - hell one finger (not the middle one Occhi;)) and in that case an officer walked away with stitches in his head.

You assume the man was innocent, you assume that the police are going to beat him into submission and that they will be parties to watching a prisoner get raped and abused. Your assumptions make you look like an ass. The world is not divided into black and white. Not everyone who goes to jail is guilty just like not everyone who works in law enforcement is corrupt and brutal. You do a disservice to those who voluntarily risk their lives on a daily basis to enforce the laws.

I didnot and don't assume any of these things you say.

I'm making a point which says that tough laws and tough behavior most of the time don't have the right results. And the normal people have to suffer from this. And so to e.g. the law enforcers you rightfully mention.

[Tal]

I didnot and don't assume any of these things you say.

Your words betray you:

But here is what came before;
Jake a normal hardworking american smokes some mariuana.
Police start bothering him and while getting beat up Jake uses some swear words.
Jake gets sentenced to 5 years in prison.
In prison Jake gets raped, beaten up, and starts doing the same things to other people as well after 4 years of mental abuse by both wardens and fellow inmates.
Jake get released but of course cannot go back to his reasonably paid job he had before.
Jake, mentally completely messed up after 5 years of prison decides to rob a bank.
and this is where your story started.
Harsh punishments are OK, but at least make sure prisons are fair and do not make thinsg worse.

I'm making a point which says that tough laws and tough behavior most of the time don't have the right results. And the normal people have to suffer from this. And so to e.g. the law enforcers you rightfully mention.

I personally, after seeing the prison system, don't feel the punishments are tough enough. A lot of those guys live better in prison than their peers do outside.

[Doc]

I personally, after seeing the prison system, don't feel the punishments are tough enough. A lot of those guys live better in prison than their peers do outside.

Hey, what gives here?

I say this exact same thing, and have people telling me both publicly and privately what kind of horrible totalitarian monster I am, how brutal and terrible I am as a human being for saying that prisons should in fact, be hell holes that nobody wants to go to, and just how good inmates have it... And I get these long winded bits of total bull#$%& telling me about how these prisoners have all these rights to all these things like cable tv and air conditioning and what not...

UGH.

And yet when somebody else lets slip the same blurb, nary a peep.

And I agree with what was said earlier in thread. If inmates have the energy for a bit of consentual nookie, something is WRONG. Damnit, bring back the 16 hours a day chain gangs. Hard enforced labour with a bull screw on a horse with a shotgun hot sun burning, the whole bit.

One of the local prisons is getting a bunch of hot tubs and saunas and what not for prisoners with bad backs and arthritis. WTF... I guess they are going to be needing some condoms too. After lazing about watching HBO and Skinimax all day, they get to retire to the hot steamy hot tubs for a bit of romantic prison sex.

Still miffed that one of the prisons got tennis courts and a mini golf course.

[Alram]

Anything funny that goes on in a prison is an inside joke.

[Occhidiangela]

So, what, are you going to claim there is no consentual homosexual sex or sexual activity in prisons? I don't think this has anything to do with rape in prisons. I think this has to do with people who can and will take an interest in their partner's well-being. Rapists generally don't fit that mould.

Though I didn't think this should be neccessary, for the record, I'm against rape. I simply don't think rape and sexual activity in prisons are inherently linked or equal. So when I condone passing out condoms in prisons, I'm not making any judgement call whatsoever about rape.

I think that many things are made illegal that shouldn't be, or needn't be, or are simply not properly understood when laws are made. I also think that the punishment for many crimes are far disproportionate to their crimes. But that's neither here nor here in this discussion.

I think that consentual homosexual sex can and does happen in prisons, and that condom use in such situations can help prevent the spread of diseases. That's all. Rape and other forms of sexual assault are a completely different matter. And as I've said several times, I don't see how they are applicable in this case anyways, since a criminal busy raping someone isn't likely to care if he/she uses a condom. But a concerned sexual partner should and should have the option.

gekko

I find the permission to engage in consensual, homosexual or heterosexual, sex in prison to be inconsistent with the concept of punishment. Given the segregation by gender that is encoded by law, providing condoms means condoning sex in prison, and infers chronically unfair treatment of heterosexual prisoners: no sex for them, unless they submit to being ass raped.

Your argument is that you would discriminate in favor of homosexual prisoners? Nice. Why not ask institutional discrimination, condoned by the state, in more ways, eh? Drop all pretense, and advocate separate but equal, back of the bus, and Jim Crow laws while you are at it.

Occhi

[Delc]

I find the permission to engage in consensual, homosexual or heterosexual, sex in prison to be inconsistent with the concept of punishment. Given the segregation by gender that is encoded by law, providing condoms means condoning sex in prison, and infers chronically unfair treatment of heterosexual prisoners: no sex for them, unless they submit to being ass raped.

Your argument is that you would discriminate in favor of homosexual prisoners? Nice. Why not ask institutional discrimination, condoned by the state, in more ways, eh? Drop all pretense, and advocate separate but equal, back of the bus, and Jim Crow laws while you are at it.

Occhi

Discrimination is OK as long as the person being discriminated against is a white heterosexual male.

[eppie]

Your words betray you:
I personally, after seeing the prison system, don't feel the punishments are tough enough. A lot of those guys live better in prison than their peers do outside.

My story was an exagerated example....one which sadly very probably happens often anyway.

Of course I'm not saying it will always be like that.

The whole idea of e.g. you finding that punishments are not hard enough is what bothers me.

Well bothers, it is more a different way of thinking. I agree with you that (theoretically) there are a lot of people that deserve very tough punishment. The question is just, what do you want your government to do?
Just without thinking to much keep punishing heavily, don't think about circumstances in prison, and give you a nice feeling of revenge and 'he is punished because he did wrong'. With all the consequenses....more violence in prison..and because of that the moral wrong of releasing these 'trained criminals' in society. With as only result they commit more crimes, and you can start punishing even more this time.
Society is not getting safer....it will get much more dangerous.



I know, it is a choice between what gives you a good feeling and what would be better for society.
Fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that making punsishments worse will lessen the amount of crime.

[Tal]

My story was an exagerated example....one which sadly very probably happens often anyway.

What a funny dichotomy you're creating - are you even reading what you type before you post it? I was exaggerating...but it happens often!

Of course I'm not saying it will always be like that.

Are you getting winded backpedaling so much? I know I need to take a breather when I read this drivel.

The whole idea of e.g. you finding that punishments are not hard enough is what bothers me.

Well bothers, it is more a different way of thinking. I agree with you that (theoretically) there are a lot of people that deserve very tough punishment. The question is just, what do you want your government to do?
Just without thinking to much keep punishing heavily, don't think about circumstances in prison, and give you a nice feeling of revenge and 'he is punished because he did wrong'. With all the consequenses....more violence in prison..and because of that the moral wrong of releasing these 'trained criminals' in society. With as only result they commit more crimes, and you can start punishing even more this time.

Once again you jump to the assumption that punishment not tough enough = violence.

Society is not getting safer....it will get much more dangerous.
I know, it is a choice between what gives you a good feeling and what would be better for society.
Fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that making punsishments worse will lessen the amount of crime.

I can play the random fact game too! Fact is that there is no evidence that lessening punishments for crimes will lessen the amount of crime either! You'll also notice that I never - at any point - made the claim that prison time was to prevent crime or lessen the crime rate.

[LemmingofGlory]

I find the permission to engage in consensual, homosexual or heterosexual, sex in prison to be inconsistent with the concept of punishment. Given the segregation by gender that is encoded by law, providing condoms means condoning sex in prison, and infers chronically unfair treatment of heterosexual prisoners: no sex for them, unless they submit to being ass raped.

Your argument is that you would discriminate in favor of homosexual prisoners? Nice. Why not ask institutional discrimination, condoned by the state, in more ways, eh? Drop all pretense, and advocate separate but equal, back of the bus, and Jim Crow laws while you are at it.

I think most of us here are annoyed (or at least mystified) that CA is dealing with the side effects of prison sex (and drug use) instead of dealing with the problems themselves. Folks bringing in matters like "state sanctioned ass rape" and "discrimination against heterosexual prisoners", quite frankly, gets away from the fact that this is really, really #$%&ty problem-solving. That's really the main issue here, and by getting riled about prison sex and "discrimination", you're doing the same thing CA is doing: you're not looking the problem in the face.

In sum: if you'd just cut out the machismo "OMFG PRISON ASSRAPE!" bull#$%&, you'd see the situation isn't nearly as complicated as some of you are making it. That doesn't mean there's a simple or easy solution, but the problem itself is trivial to identify.

-Lem

[eppie]

What a funny dichotomy you're creating - are you even reading what you type before you post it? I was exaggerating...but it happens often!
Are you getting winded backpedaling so much? I know I need to take a breather when I read this drivel.
Once again you jump to the assumption that punishment not tough enough = violence.
I can play the random fact game too! Fact is that there is no evidence that lessening punishments for crimes will lessen the amount of crime either! You'll also notice that I never - at any point - made the claim that prison time was to prevent crime or lessen the crime rate.

The thread started with a situation, apparantly widespread, of systematic abuse in prisons. I can understand a tough punishment (decided by a judge) but the government that uses these punishments should make sure, that is it. Being raped may never be seen as just an extra punishment fo 'those who deserve it'. As a lot of crime is committed by people that have been to prison already, you can feel that there is something not right.


I know you never claimed that prison time was to prevent crime or lessen the crime rate, but I do. Because it should.

About that exaggerating I guess I used the wrong word. I merely reacted on Occhi's lines which I found a bit of a populist way to explain things...and that is exactly the way I reacted. You should have taken that breather 3 reactions earlier.:D

[Occhidiangela]

I think most of us here are annoyed (or at least mystified) that CA is dealing with the side effects of prison sex (and drug use) instead of dealing with the problems themselves. Folks bringing in matters like "state sanctioned ass rape" and "discrimination against heterosexual prisoners", quite frankly, gets away from the fact that this is really, really #$%&ty problem-solving. That's really the main issue here, and by getting riled about prison sex and "discrimination", you're doing the same thing CA is doing: you're not looking the problem in the face.

In sum: if you'd just cut out the machismo "OMFG PRISON ASSRAPE!" bull#$%&, you'd see the situation isn't nearly as complicated as some of you are making it. That doesn't mean there's a simple or easy solution, but the problem itself is trivial to identify.

-Lem

Prison = punishment.

No sex for you.

Incentive idea? Stay the eff out of prison, or you get no sex. (It may still be a tough matter outside of prison, but at least there is hope.)

What a concept.

Occhi

[Taem]

Prison = punishment.

No sex for you.

Incentive idea? Stay the eff out of prison, or you get no sex. (It may still be a tough matter outside of prison, but at least there is hope.)

What a concept.

Occhi

Dosen't work if you've been set-up or framed. To be fair, I can't say I know of anyone who is in this boat, but I have heard stories - haven't we all?

Also, I believe drug infractions should be citation-only crimes, thus only the violent offenders remain behind bars.

IMO, the perfect prision model would be single-prisioner cells, but apparently the costs of a system like this would be too high.

[gekko]

I find the permission to engage in consensual, homosexual or heterosexual, sex in prison to be inconsistent with the concept of punishment. Given the segregation by gender that is encoded by law, providing condoms means condoning sex in prison, and infers chronically unfair treatment of heterosexual prisoners: no sex for them, unless they submit to being ass raped.

Your argument is that you would discriminate in favor of homosexual prisoners? Nice. Why not ask institutional discrimination, condoned by the state, in more ways, eh? Drop all pretense, and advocate separate but equal, back of the bus, and Jim Crow laws while you are at it.

Occhi

I don't mind punishing prisoners, and I don't have a problem with restricting the liberties of prisoners. You've been sent to prison for a reason. Being sent to prison means separation from society, and that includes separation from sexual partners. If that means no sex for you, tough.

However, I also think that people locked up for long periods of time without contact with sexual partners may choose to engage in sexual activity with whoever is around. And I think that condoms should be available to anyone who wants them, because preventing the spread of STD's is inherently a good thing.

If someone can offer a realistic alternative to prevent people in prisons (or elsewhere for that matter) from spreading STD's, I'm all ears. If someone can offer a realistic alternative to stop sexual assaults from occuring in prisons, please pass it on. But I don't understand why giving prisoners the option of using condoms is such a bad thing. Witholding their use is not going to make sexual activity disappear from prisons. Condoning their use can restrict the spread of STD's.

gekko

[LemmingofGlory]

Prison = punishment.

No sex for you.

Incentive idea? Stay the eff out of prison, or you get no sex. (It may still be a tough matter outside of prison, but at least there is hope.)

What a concept.

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

[Doc]

Well, being the horrible totalitarian monster that I am, I am going to go out on a limb and say, not less AIDS, but more AIDS, and make sure that all of the right people get it. A slow suffering lingering death, a sure fire bullet in the back of the skull, so to speak, a death sentence for the deserving. Infect them, and then watch them die. Making these degenerates in to unpersons is doubleplusgood. Who needs the Ministry of Love when we have extermination and labour camps?

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Infection is the Cure

Don't mind me, I am just lurking off again in public. :whistling:

[Munkay]

Infect them, and then watch them die. Making these degenerates in to unpersons is doubleplusgood. Who needs the Ministry of Love when we have extermination and labour camps?

Thanks, Doc Mengele.

[eppie]

Don't mind me, I am just lurking off again in public. :whistling:

looks more like you are running for president as the republican candidate.:D

My compliments for turning this in a death penalty thread again.:D

[Doc]

Thanks, Doc Mengele.

You are most welcome.

Have you seen the eleventh edition of the newspeak dictionary... Quite thin, very lovely. One of the words destroyed is sarcasm. Interesting concept that was, glad to be rid of all that doublespeak.

[kandrathe]

looks more like you are running for president as the republican candidate.:D

My compliments for turning this in a death penalty thread again.:D

Ouch! You know how to hit a guy in the soft spot!

[Doc]

Ouch! You know how to hit a guy in the soft spot!

Yeah, calling me a republican is just down right dirty.

You take that back. :angry:

:lol: