Actually, for the death penalty, my theory is much more related to the fact that some people deliberately put themselves so far beyond the pale that they are a threat to others who can only be dealt with by death.

As a deterrent, I’d consider it fairly weak; while some people MAY be scared away from murder by the fact that they would be killed for doing it, it’s a bit like showing teenagers drunk driving accident films….”Well, that’s not going to happen to ME, I’m smarter than that.”

I’m startin’ to like you.

I have to agree with Hank that in any PRE-TRIAL holding situation, since the accused is presumed innocent and NOT to be stripped of his/her rights just yet, his/her rights and person must be protected to the absolute fullest extent possible.

Once (or if) a person has been duly convicted… it’s an interesting question.

Obviously, the whole point of convicting them under due process and sentencing them to prison is to strip them of rights, as punishment for them having violated the rights of others. That’s what prison is (as someone pointed out).

The question is: Which rights are they stripped of, and which do they retain? Is the right to be secure in one’s person (from assault, rape, or murder) among the rights they are to retain? I see voices here on both sides of the question.

I think they do (or should) retain the right to be secure in their persons. It’s their rights to work for themselves, to have freedom of movement and association, to vote, and many other rights, that they are to be stripped of.

Otherwise, why even have prisons? Why not just kill them all? Or starve them all? Or commit them to gulags, where tuberculosis is 70% likely to kill them within 5 years? The fact that we continue to grant prisoners some minimal rights and care is one of the things that sets us apart from Saudi Arabia or the former Soviet Union.

“And also, as William Penn put it, prison is to “terrify the lawbreakers”. If the descriptions of life on the inside makes you think twice before going into questionable situations, that just may be the point. ”

I take that you use this theory to support the death penalty?

You know, Hank, television notwithstanding, that happens a lot less frequently than one might think. The fact that wrongful arrests get a lot more press coverage doesn’t mean there’s a lot of them.

And also, as William Penn put it, prison is to “terrify the lawbreakers”. If the descriptions of life on the inside makes you think twice before going into questionable situations, that just may be the point.

None of the jails or prisons there that I am aware of at the time (early 90′s) had a seperate segregation/protective custody unit for gay inmates. They did all have some form of protective custody, but it was for any inmate that felt threatened by other inmates.

Rape and sex are a reality in prisons and jails-it is mostly about power and control than about sex or sexuality.

I think as long as Rikers maintains a section for inmates who feel threatened, there isn’t much argument for keeping it.

The fact is that prison/jails have some very bad people in them. These people will exploit any weakness, or even perceived weakness. They can smell fear and can recognize weakness in an instant.

The number one group of people who will be assaulted in prisons/jails are mentally ill offenders. When it comes to protecting inmates from harm, all should be protected.

As I mentioned in my example, we couldn’t stop students from making the accusations; however, we can document and detail the exact situation and show that these students were in fact lying through their teeth. The same needs to be done at a prison level.

Doesn’t that just blow a huge hole in the “victims rights” argument? We all know that those who’ve committed crimes are privy to certain entitlements and that they are to be given the benefit of the doubt in any and all circumstances….

(Note sarcasm)

Not really. Having dealt with a public school system, I’ve had situations more than once where students claimed they had been assaulted by a teacher during detention or some other disciplinary action. It was the best way to get irate parents and “community leaders”, especially if the student was a minority, to show up on your doorstep.

Invariably, the students’ stories unraveled after they found out security cameras had recorded the alleged “assault” and made it plain that it was, at best, a pat on the shoulder or back. However, there were several good teachers who were accused and quit because of it.

What you have to remember, Jody, is that inmates are trained and conditioned to exploit the system. SPR, frankly, is one of the most naive organizations I’ve ever seen. For all the accusations they make of guards raping prisoners, I’d like just once for them to have to face the people who deal with that shit on a day to day basis who are spit upon, have crap flung on them, and are regularly accused of raping prisoners just to get them in trouble.

Again, someone above pointed out that these are pre-trial holdings. I think that changes the argument. I’m open to rational arguments either way.

Prisoners known to be gay are at a greater risk for rape. That is not acceptable.

Wrong. What is unacceptable is that they committed crimes. If you don’t want to be raped in prison, obey the law.