|
I'm not really sure where I heard this, but I'm certain that at some point this has been described as a feature of the United States. That, for example, if you were born and raised in Alabama, and thought that sodomy and weed was totally cool you could just move to Washington. Which sounds fair I guess, although it kind of sucks for the gays and stoners who might not have the means to leave Alabama and get rocks and buckshot thrown at them. But what can be done? I mean your discomfort and disgust is probably like a source of entertainment for some people who support the status quo.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:I'm not really sure where I heard this, but I'm certain that at some point this has been described as a feature of the United States. That, for example, if you were born and raised in Alabama, and thought that sodomy and weed was totally cool you could just move to Washington. Which sounds fair I guess, although it kind of sucks for the gays and stoners who might not have the means to leave Alabama and get rocks and buckshot thrown at them. But what can be done? I mean your discomfort and disgust is probably like a source of entertainment for some people who support the status quo. Laboratories of Democracy There are (supposed to be) federal constitutional minimums that have to be upheld everywhere, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:How weird. I wonder how they come up with that huge implementation figure. Because from the enforcement side, it just seems to be an annual exhortation during training that was taking place anyway to recognize signs of sexual abuse and to treat it professionally and how to behave when it's brought to your attention, and I guess there's an 800 number that's posted in all the housing units that inmates can call to report it. But that, and the odd rape kit and psych visit can't possibly be that expensive. I know we've implemented the PREA stuff in our phone systems regardless of what the jail/prison wants because it's a federal requirement. Now if their staff ignore the reports from the inmates, that's on them, but they can't tell us to turn it off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
duz posted:I know we've implemented the PREA stuff in our phone systems regardless of what the jail/prison wants because it's a federal requirement. Now if their staff ignore the reports from the inmates, that's on them, but they can't tell us to turn it off. While that's definitely a good thing, it isn't nearly enough. There's only so much that the people on the other end of the hotline can do. I mean it's not like the victim advocates or whatever are going to pull an inmate who is being abused out of his cell and put him in protective custody and ensure that the situation is handled with the necessary level of discretion. I'd be interested in a breakdown on the real costs of implementing PREA. Because I have a hard time understanding how it could possibly be such an onerous burden on the state that they'd flat out refuse it. Although I guess this is Rick "I don't give a gently caress if we don't have to pay for it medicare is totally sweet as is" Perry we're talking about. I guess it would be inconsistent for him to give a poo poo about raped inmates when he'd happily let hundreds of thousands languish with insufficient health care just to give a middle finger to the feds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
Their justification is that inmates deserve to get raped. It's not what they're going to say but it's what they believe.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 01:29
|
|
|
SALT CURES HAM posted:Their justification is that inmates deserve to get raped. While that may be in their hearts man it's way too simple an explanation for their behavior. Nobody has sentence long justifications for their actions, and pretending that's the case does nothing but cripple your ability to understand the motivations of your fellow human beings.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:While that may be in their hearts man it's way too simple an explanation for their behavior. Nobody has sentence long justifications for their actions, and pretending that's the case does nothing but cripple your ability to understand the motivations of your fellow human beings. I dunno, I've certainly met some guards who don't just believe it, but shout it. The rest don't think it is worth the effort to prevent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
nm posted:I dunno, I've certainly met some guards who don't just believe it, but shout it. It hurts my feelings when you say stuff like this, man. It's true that there are lots of people who for some reason think that prison rape is naturally part of the deal for felons, and there's not much you can do about that. It's extremely false that "the rest" don't think it's worth the effort, because I for one totally do. I think that's one of the reasons that poo poo like PREA is so necessary. Because even the dipshits who think prison rape is hilarious will be pushed into doing the right thing to keep their nice state job and their overtime check. I mean, hopefully some of them will be.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 11:02
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:It's extremely false that "the rest" don't think it's worth the effort, because I for one totally do. You know the whole rotten apples analogy? Unfortunately, the widespread incidence of prison rape would suggest that even if some people do care, they are at best ineffective at dealing with - and at worst just turn a blind eye to - the problem. The barrel is so thoroughly rotten that digging through to maybe find a good one is an exercise in futility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 11:58
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:You know the whole rotten apples analogy? Unfortunately, the widespread incidence of prison rape would suggest that even if some people do care, they are at best ineffective at dealing with - and at worst just turn a blind eye to - the problem. The barrel is so thoroughly rotten that digging through to maybe find a good one is an exercise in futility. A lot of things seem futile at first glance, man, you're thinking like a super disillusioned and lazy person. That's one of the reasons society pays people to do poo poo jobs like prison guard or land mine custodian. There's no way in hell you're going to convince educated people to put on a uniform and work in a maximum security prison because it sucks and why would they? Which is why poo poo like PREA is necessary and a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 13:18
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:A lot of things seem futile at first glance, man, you're thinking like a super disillusioned and lazy person. Aren't you the CO who would totally complain about abuses if only you could be bothered? "Ah well, SERT carries knives and the warden knows about it. But I'm just one man, a man with a pension plan." e: Oh apologies, you're not the guy who talked about screws carrying knives, you're the guy who can't be bothered to read studies about solitary and keeps saying "it's a necessary evil" to keep from falling into a depression at the inhumanity of your job. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Jun 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:It hurts my feelings when you say stuff like this, man. It's true that there are lots of people who for some reason think that prison rape is naturally part of the deal for felons, and there's not much you can do about that. It's extremely false that "the rest" don't think it's worth the effort, because I for one totally do. I think that's one of the reasons that poo poo like PREA is so necessary. Because even the dipshits who think prison rape is hilarious will be pushed into doing the right thing to keep their nice state job and their overtime check. I mean, hopefully some of them will be. No, really, the right believes that the proper thing to do with criminals is to chuck them in a hole full of brutality, rape, and misery. That's all there is to it, really. They want to make prison conditions worse so anything that might make prison suck less is A Bad Thing. This is the party that constantly complains that prisoners actually get three hot meals every day and a warm bed, as if it were too good for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:No, really, the right believes that the proper thing to do with criminals is to chuck them in a hole full of brutality, rape, and misery. That's all there is to it, really. They want to make prison conditions worse so anything that might make prison suck less is A Bad Thing. This is the party that constantly complains that prisoners actually get three hot meals every day and a warm bed, as if it were too good for them. Yeah, i'm not really comfortable with making broad statements or assumptions about people based solely on their political affiliation, but that does sort of seem to be the case in general. Like i've known people who where aghast at the fact that inmates are allowed to own television sets. And a lot of people just seem to generally resent that any public funds are used to even marginally improve the quality of life for prisoners. So I guess it isn't really a mystery how Rick Perry could find the will to refuse to implement PREA, the stupid sadistic piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:Yeah, i'm not really comfortable with making broad statements or assumptions about people based solely on their political affiliation, but that does sort of seem to be the case in general. Like i've known people who where aghast at the fact that inmates are allowed to own television sets. And a lot of people just seem to generally resent that any public funds are used to even marginally improve the quality of life for prisoners. So I guess it isn't really a mystery how Rick Perry could find the will to refuse to implement PREA, the stupid sadistic piece of poo poo. Do a lot of people just straight up not understand that taking away stuff like TV and basic dignities leads to violence and riots and so on?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:Do a lot of people just straight up not understand that taking away stuff like TV and basic dignities leads to violence and riots and so on? I think a lot of people don't really even think it out that far. Either because they don't give a poo poo or the reality makes them too uncomfortable. I mean, I can't think of much that would be worse than being locked in an 8 x 6 box with a dude who is capable of and willing to rape you. And if there are people that lack the empathy or are just too lazy to give a poo poo about that, I wouldn't think they'd bother puzzling out the consequences of extreme boredom in a given prison population.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:No, really, the right believes that the proper thing to do with criminals is to chuck them in a hole full of brutality, rape, and misery. That's all there is to it, really. They want to make prison conditions worse so anything that might make prison suck less is A Bad Thing. This is the party that constantly complains that prisoners actually get three hot meals every day and a warm bed, as if it were too good for them. Not just the right! When someone is accused of a vile enough crime, even many self-proclaimed liberals will start crying for blood and vengeance. Pope Guilty posted:Do a lot of people just straight up not understand that taking away stuff like TV and basic dignities leads to violence and riots and so on? A lot of people, when thinking up consequences, never put themselves in the place of the people being hit with those consequences because of a combination of "well, I would never break those rules, so I don't have to worry about the consequences, and I can't even understand the people who would break those rules" and "heh, if they hate those consequences so much, they won't break the rules in the first place; if they do anyway, those consequences will teach them not to break rules again". They don't understand why people break the rules (mostly because they don't care to put themselves in those people's shoes, or can't do so effectively enough), and so they can't and often won't even try to address why people actually break those rules. In addition, they don't really think deeply about the effectiveness of punishment - it's "common sense" that people won't break rules if it leads to punishment, and if that doesn't hold up in reality, they decide it's because prisoners are violent subhuman savages, rather than because they and their "common sense" don't make half as much sense as they appear to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Most people don't realize that you can go to prison (and therefore be subject to beatings, starvation, rape, and murder) even if you haven't done anything wrong. Cognitive dissonance kicks in because thinking too much about innocent people in American's nightmarish prisons will drive you crazy. Better get back to them bread and circuses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Not just the right! When someone is accused of a vile enough crime, even many self-proclaimed liberals will start crying for blood and vengeance. This is true. I knew real live people who cheered over Abu Ghraib. They absolutely want to make jails "Hell on Earth", because Heavenly Judgement doesn't come soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Cold and Ugly posted:I mean, I can't think of much that would be worse than being locked in an 8 x 6 box with a dude who is capable of and willing to rape you. It's nuts that they apparently take addicts and let them withdraw in prison. Being in the situation you describe while going through withdrawal would be hell on earth. It's no wonder they have to actively prevent people from committing suicide. Main Paineframe posted:Not just the right! When someone is accused of a vile enough crime, even many self-proclaimed liberals will start crying for blood and vengeance. My dad is like this (and I think many other people are too). They don't really hold consistent political views; what they believe can wildly vary depending upon whether they were just listening to a persuasive speaker or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Not just the right! When someone is accused of a vile enough crime, even many self-proclaimed liberals will start crying for blood and vengeance. I'm well aware. However, the right cries for harsher punishments for all crimes. Remember that Rush Limbaugh, one of their figureheads, has numerous times over the years declared that all drug users, every single one of them, should go to jail for life even after one use. This, of course, coming from an addict himself. I'm looking at what policy I hear being suggested from the right as well as what their figureheads are saying rather than what individuals seem to believe. The typical thing coming from the right is "make people we do not like suffer more because gently caress them." This is the party of making our already deplorable conditions worse, making being poor more awful, and ratcheting up sentences. While individual conservatives may disagree with these things that is what the party believes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I'm well aware. However, the right cries for harsher punishments for all crimes. Remember that Rush Limbaugh, one of their figureheads, has numerous times over the years declared that all drug users, every single one of them, should go to jail for life even after one use. This, of course, coming from an addict himself. In any case, the statistics show that there's not much of a difference in actual incarceration rates from both sides of the aisle. There's no point turning this into a partisan thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
MechPlasma posted:And when the Obama administration sent out the Dear Colleague letter that banned the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof in college court rape cases? The Left's equivalent to pointlessly harsh punishments is to pointlessly punish more people. MechPlasma posted:In any case, the statistics show that there's not much of a difference in actual incarceration rates from both sides of the aisle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
MechPlasma posted:Remember when where was a huge outrage from the Left when Zimmerman wasn't found guilty despite practically no evidence against him? Do you not know how evidence works or something? There was a ton of evidence. That evidence was even, stay with me here, presented at the trial. Whether the jury found that evidence compelling enough is a completely different thing. Your choice of words reveals that you basically have no idea what you are talking about. There's also a difference between outrage about systematic failure and actually trying to make things worse for the guy himself. This idea that "both sides do it so you can't criticize the right" is utterly bullshit. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:Rape: A silly pet issue of "the left" It's funny to see someone railing against due process in the prison thread of all places.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
MechPlasma posted:Zimmerman wasn't found guilty despite practically no evidence against him? Uh, what? Zimmerman didn't shoot a kid?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh, what? Zimmerman didn't shoot a kid? Silly leftist, I guess you forgot what the trial was actually about (hint it wasn't racism).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:It's funny to see someone railing against due process in the prison thread of all places.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:What? College courts aren't part of the justice system and don't send people to prison. That doesn't mean the people hauled in front of them don't deserve due process before getting hosed out of their tens of thousands of dollars of tuition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:That doesn't mean the people hauled in front of them don't deserve due process before getting hosed out of their tens of thousands of dollars of tuition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Oh man. I was really trying to keep this topic free from partisan political drama and focus on the actual problems themselves... but I've accidentally started three completely different dramas in the process! So now I'm going to try get all this back in the box before it gets even more out of hand.Lyapunov Unstable posted:Rape: A silly pet issue of "the left" Lyapunov Unstable posted:Yeah you just made that up, those aren't event he kind of stats that exist or make sense. Nevvy Z posted:Do you not know how evidence works or something? There was a ton of evidence. That evidence was even, stay with me here, presented at the trial. Whether the jury found that evidence compelling enough is a completely different thing. Your choice of words reveals that you basically have no idea what you are talking about. Nevvy Z posted:There's also a difference between outrage about systematic failure and actually trying to make things worse for the guy himself. Incidentally, yes, I am trying to avoid a debate on whether or not he was guilty. This just isn't the place for it. VitalSigns posted:Uh, what? Zimmerman didn't shoot a kid?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
For the right v. left issue: I do trials in a very large county. We have a bunch of courthouses that pull jurors from the local areas. We have a courthouse in a fairly leftist area and one in a place that thinks Cliven Bundy is their hero. We have two courthouses in what I'd call center-right suburbs. The leftist place gets the most acquittals, the crazy right wing place gets nearly as many (hope you're white or a local though!). It is the centrists who vote everyone guilty. It can be hard to figure out what a person's view is, but I'll take the extreme libertarian on a jury every day over a suburbanite who claims to be a democrat any day (if I just know that). Generally, thinking the police are good, jail works, and FYGM doesn't really seem to have much of a political party. edit: I should point out that I'm only talking about the libertarian, government hating wing of the right. The more socially conservative ones (which is most of them) suck as jurors. ------- Also, if you're angry at a jury for an acquittal, you better have made sure that it wasn't really the prosecution (Casey Anthony, OJ), lovely laws (Zimmerman), or lovely police work (OJ) first. Acquitting as a juror takes a tremendous amount of courage and work and generally (though not always) should be celebrated. I'm loath to criticize a jury for it unless I know first exactly the instructions they were given (Important in both Anthony and Zimmerman) and the evidence they were given (The evidence we've all gotten in OJ was not seen by the jury because of police and prosecution issues). nm fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
MechPlasma posted:Oh man. I was really trying to keep this topic free from partisan political drama MechPlasma posted:Remember when where was a huge outrage from the Left when Zimmerman wasn't found guilty despite practically no evidence against him? MechPlasma posted:the Obama administration sent out the Dear Colleague letter that banned the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden of proof in college court rape cases? MechPlasma posted:I've met more than my fair share of Democrats who think people should be imprisoned for racial slurs. On topic: Daedalus did a whole issue on hyperincarceration a few years ago, I don't think I've seen it mentioned in this thread. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/toc/daed/139/3 http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00019 Lyapunov Unstable fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
MechPlasma posted:The court case was about whether or not he could be proven to not be acting in self defense. That's what he was found not guilty of. Well, part of the outrage was that police looked at the situation, were like "dead black kid, no big deal" and it wouldn't have even gone to trial without that terrible, awful, scary partisan outrage from the left.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
nm posted:For the right v. left issue: This is, in a sense, a gross oversimplification. The libertarian vs. authoritarian spectrum is distinct from the economic right/left spectrum, which is itself different from the social right/left spectrum. There are correlations, but just because someone is an economic leftist does not mean they can't be an authoritarian, and just because someone believes that (for example) marijuana should be legal, doesn't mean they will respect personal liberty in general. I support legalization and regulation for all drugs, but I've heard many pro-weed people say that other substances (both illegal and currently legal) should be illegal and/or more restricted. Fake edit: I just noticed your edit, so, uh, I guess we agree. quote:Also, if you're angry at a jury for an acquittal, you better have made sure that it wasn't really the prosecution (Casey Anthony, OJ), lovely laws (Zimmerman), or lovely police work (OJ) first. Acquitting as a juror takes a tremendous amount of courage and work and generally (though not always) should be celebrated. I'm loath to criticize a jury for it unless I know first exactly the instructions they were given (Important in both Anthony and Zimmerman) and the evidence they were given (The evidence we've all gotten in OJ was not seen by the jury because of police and prosecution issues). The Zimmerman case is so, so difficult, because I don't think it was necessarily a matter of lovely laws. The truth is that I, personally, think he should be in jail, because I believe he was at least an equal aggressor and didn't actually have cause to fear for his life when he shot; however, as a hypothetical juror, I'm not at all certain I would have voted for conviction. There is, I would say, no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the things I believe are true, so regardless of the intricacies of the law, I'm not sure I'd want to live in a place where a court system would have convicted him. A really strong feeling, combined with circumstantial evidence, should never result in conviction. It's a terrible, lovely situation but there's no way to make a "perfect" system where people get what they deserve all the time. Which brings me to the rape discussion, which I will address only briefly. Victim blaming is loathsome, and what rape victims have to go through in court is, I assume, quite traumatic. That being said, to remove avenues for a vigorous defence of those accused of rape (note: not rapists, those accused of rape. If we knew every accused rapist was an actual rapist, we wouldn't trials in the first place) is going to end with a greater fraction of innocent people going to jail. Again, there's no way to make the system perfect, and as heinous an act as rape is, I don't believe increasing conviction rates for actual rapists is a great idea if the accepted cost is sending more innocent people to prison, any more than with any other crime. We need to create a balance, where people accused of any crime receive a fair trial, and, yes, that means guilty people will go free. I don't think it's worth compromising that ideal -- we must work to perfect the system by starting with the system itself, not by modifying the system to gain the results we think are correct.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Which brings me to the rape discussion, which I will address only briefly. Victim blaming is loathsome, and what rape victims have to go through in court is, I assume, quite traumatic. That being said, to remove avenues for a vigorous defence of those accused of rape (note: not rapists, those accused of rape. If we knew every accused rapist was an actual rapist, we wouldn't trials in the first place) is going to end with a greater fraction of innocent people going to jail. We're not talking about jail or prison. We're talking about expulsion from an institution. This is a far lighter sanction than prison. It's something that can be done to a person for plenty of non-criminal offenses and has absolutely no need for a "reasonable doubt" standard of proof.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:We're not talking about jail or prison. We're talking about expulsion from an institution. This is a far lighter sanction than prison. It's something that can be done to a person for plenty of non-criminal offenses and has absolutely no need for a "reasonable doubt" standard of proof. I agree, but we shouldn't let the standard go too far down. Being expelled from a college certainly does have pretty serious consequences. Some schools, apparently are applying a "preponderance of evidence" standard where one used to have a "clear and convincing evidence" standard. Preponderance is just 50.1% of the evidence, which I think is too low. We use it in probation hearings and, gently caress, it is impossible to win one of those things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Wouldn't expulsion be a civil action (since the issue is basically whether they can toss out your contractual agreement to give the school money for education), making preponderance of evidence the appropriate standard?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 12:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well, part of the outrage was that police looked at the situation, were like "dead black kid, no big deal" and it wouldn't have even gone to trial without that terrible, awful, scary partisan outrage from the left. Ultimately, Zimmerman illustrated one of the key issues in self-defense claims: if someone commits a murder and claims it was in self-defense, and there were no witnesses, no recordings, and no solid evidence, what do you do? That's why cops can openly murder anyone and get away with it as long as they don't do it in front of a camera or a rich white guy (and even then it's a toss-up).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Ultimately, Zimmerman illustrated one of the key issues in self-defense claims: if someone commits a murder and claims it was in self-defense, and there were no witnesses, no recordings, and no solid evidence, what do you do? That's why cops can openly murder anyone and get away with it as long as they don't do it in front of a camera or a rich white guy (and even then it's a toss-up). Usually, one of the key findings in murder investigations is evidence that the accused attempted to hide evidence of the killing. Not having this evidence removes one of the major tools that prosecutors use to convince juries of guilt. It seems that if you kill somebody for any reason with no witnesses, calling the cops immediately and claiming self defense is the safest course of action. All you have to figure out is a plausible story that is consistent with you fearing immediate death or GBH at the hands of the dead person. Conversely, the worst thing you can do if you accidentally or intentionally kill somebody is to cover up the crime. Personally, I don't think that this area of law can be improved very well after the fact. However, law and public policy can and should discourage people from seeking out situations where self defense can be claimed after actual reckless homicide or manslaughter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:39 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Wouldn't expulsion be a civil action (since the issue is basically whether they can toss out your contractual agreement to give the school money for education), making preponderance of evidence the appropriate standard? Lyapunov Unstable fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Jun 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2014 21:59
|
|