Should Inmates Lose the Right to Sexual Relations?

[steve319]

OK, here’s a new issue to discuss. Should inmates lose any right to sexual relations once incarcerated?

Currently, only six U.S. states allow conjugal/overnight visits with spouses, and in most cases, of course, an application process must be followed and conditions must be met (legal marriage, good behavior, participation in rehabilitative programs, etc.). I should also mention that these visits aren’t necessarily limited to time with spouses but are also utilized for time with kids or immediate family members.

Some argue that allowing such visits helps keep the inmate connected with society at large, increasing the likelihood of successful reintegration upon release and, at least theoretically, reducing the likelihood of committing further crimes against society at large. In addition, it can be argued that allowing for the release of sexual tension helps reduce the incidence of rape in prison (an enormous problem) and improve inmate morale overall, thereby making the prison setting safer for everyone.

On the flipside, many feel that the privilege of sexual contact is one of the rights that should be lost once a person is imprisoned—that felons sacrifice this right once they choose to commit the crime. Additionally, the threat of complete loss of sexual contact might create another incentive to stay out of prison in the first place.

Let’s complicate things just a tiny bit more, shall we?

If allowed, should these visits be limited only to legally married couples?

The occurrence of inmate rape, besides being morally reprehensible, is serving to make HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis B virtual epidemics “on the inside.” And before we’re too quick to write that off, remember that many of these infected men eventually come home to spouses.

Finally, we get to the news story that brought this up. I saw on CNN a week or so back that South Africa’s Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons has recommended that allowing consensual sex among inmates would reduce prisoner rape and that providing condoms would slow the spread of disease (South Africa has the second-highest rate of HIV infection in the world). Needless to say, this has become a very controversial notion. Proponents have also suggested that this policy would make it easier to distinguish between situations of consensual and coercive sex, which is prevalent behind bars.

Having spent a number of years teaching incarcerated felons, I have an interest in prison reform and inmate rehabilitation. You guys are a highly intelligent, diverse, compassionate, and open-minded group, and I have really enjoyed reading and learning from everyone’s posts and opinions. I would love to gauge the LPSG’s reaction to these issues.

Thanks, guys!

(why can't I write a short post for once?)

 

[Altairion]

For those of you that have seen Shawshank Redemption (excellent movie), I believe that this movie supports giving prisoners positive reinforcement. If prisoners can show progress in prison and exhibit good behavior, they should be rewarded and keeping up social contact with the outside world should be considered to be a priority. Sometimes there can be prisoners that have been in prison so long, they don't even know how to lead lives in the outside world and can't adjust to it when they get out.

Conjugal visits is a more touchy subject, but I can see it being a good thing. If a male prisoner has a wife outside, and they choose to have kids it not only allows them to do so, but then the prisoner has something to look forward to once he gets out. Also, the release of sexual tension would certainly be a good aspect of it. I don't think it is completely right to revoke a person's right to sexual freedom if they commit a crime. A prison shouldn't go far out of its way to make sexual relations possible, but the concept should be kept in mind.

 

[surferboy]

This is a sketchy subject. On one hand, I don't believe anyone should have the right to butt into anyone's sex life. On the other hand, I believe sex offenders...They should be locked up forever. Once a pedo, always a pedo. Well, depends onthe crime. I don't think being 18 and fucking a 17 year old should br a crime. However, pedos are fuckin nasty, and should be killed.

 

[madame_zora]

I agree with you, Nixxy, it depends on the crime. I have a different opinion for violent offenders than for non-violent ones. If someone's in prison for rape or molestation, I WANT him to experience being raped, and as often as possible. That's one of the joys of having a rapist sent away. He'll come out more fucked up than he went in, but the recovery rate is abhorrently low anyway- it's not like he's ever going to recover! Same with pedophiles, they just don't get well.

For non-violent felons who may have a chance at successful reintegration into society, yes I would support both conjugal visits and condoms in prison for practical and psychological reasons. There shouldn't be a difference between married men or single men, their rights should be seen as equal. If there's a chance he can come back out and not be a monster, I think society would be well served.

Prison rape is an atrocity, and usually it is the youngest and weakest who are most likely to fall victim. Our prisons are colleges for "How to become a monster", and that's just can't be good for society as a whole. I don't think a car theif should be raped as part of his punishment, but that's where it stands right now. I think violent and non-violent felons should be kept separate.

Steve, as one who has counselled felons, I'd like to hear your opinion of the "recovery rate" for sex offenders. The very idea of child molesters makes me violently ill, but have you ever heard of one who has gone on to have a productive life and never molested again?

 

[Dr Rock]

yeah why not, since the penal system is already designed to comprehensively dehumanize inmates we might as well force them to rape each other too. after all, they're only criminals, not real human beings like the "rest" of "us."

uke:

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by surferboy@Apr 10 2005, 05:49 AM
I don't think being 18 and fucking a 17 year old should br a crime.

To be honest, that would be considered a crime in only five states: Arizona, California, North Dakota, Virginia and Wisconsin. (The fact you used the word 'fucking' is significant, and I am interpreting it to mean heterosexual vaginal intercourse. in many states, oral and/or anal sex is considered to be a deviate sex act and is considered criminal behaviour.) In Oregon and Tennessee, the age of consent is eighteen as well, but in Oregon, the actor of the intercourse must be at least three years older than the receiver if the receiver is at least sixteen; in Tennessee, sex with a sixteen year old is legal as long as the actor is under four years older than the receiver. In your state, Florida, the age of consent is also eighteen, but the age spread is much more lenient: Sexual intercourse with a sixteen year-old is legal for some twenty-four years old or younger. The age of consent for homosexual acts is different in many states and is a lot more complicated.

 

[jonb]

@Nixxy:
Once a pedo, always a pedo. Unless . . . :brandishes scalpel: So, should I give the patient a lobotomy or an orchidectomy?

@Jacinto:
Wasn't sodomy legalized a couple years ago?

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by jonb@Apr 10 2005, 11:31 PM
@Jacinto:
Wasn't sodomy legalized a couple years ago?

Yes and no. Though it's condidered 'invalidated', a law forbidding 'sodomy', 'buggery', 'crimes against nature', or whatever term (it varies from state to state) still exists on the books in many states. There are stories in the news from time to time of how state supreme courts manage to circumvent the US Supreme Court's ruling on a technicality and enforce an invalid law.

 

[GottaBigOne]

I'm a little confused over these few discussions we've had about "rights."
I'm not being sarcastic but would someone please explain to me what exactly we mean by "rights." I know of them in the whole "endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights" thing, but as some of you know I am atheist, so the whole argument that we obtain our rights from a creator and that those rights should not be tampered with doesn't hold water with me. I know its annoying because to a lot of you, the existence of god is pretty much obvious and a given. I don't want to turn this discussion toward another theological debate, but can someone come up with argument for the extistence of "rights" without a god?

It seems to me that without a god, there aren't any rights. As social animals we make up our own rules, and although there might be objective, universal standards which shouldn't be trampled over, there certainly aren't any limitations on personal freedom (the ability to do anything that is in one's power) so any member of society can, if they want, violate another's "rights."

I guess my point is this: Do humans have a "right" to have sexual relations? Or is it a priviledge? Obviosly humans don't have a "right" to freedom, because we routinely lock people up and limit their actions, so why would sex be different? Sex, and freedom are priviledges not to be taken lightly, thats why they have to be protected in some cases, because they are too easily taken away. If it would serve a good purpose i believe that inmates should be ALLOWED to have sexual relations, but not because they are somehow entitled to it. It should be a reward.

Damn I sound preachy lately....

 

[madame_zora]

Our whole government was set up by Christian white men, so God is either spoken or implied in many areas. Then along we come and claim to have a separation of church and state, we don't. Yes, I am sure that rights being bestowed by God was the original intention, but barring that, I would think it's safe to assume that rights are participation in the collective agreement we call "government" and choose to use as our center of societal structure.

For myself, I don't care about rights as much as I am curious about the possibility for rehabilitation. I'd be more apt to want a man who showed more ability to reintegrate to have more opportunity to feel "normal" so he wouldn't be completely disassociative when he gets out.

Anyone being raped (other than a rapist) in prison or out should be punished the same, IMHO.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by madame_zora@Apr 10 2005, 06:57 AM
If someone's in prison for rape or molestation, I WANT him to experience being raped, and as often as possible. That's one of the joys of having a rapist sent away....

....Prison rape is an atrocity, and usually it is the youngest and weakest who are most likely to fall victim.

[post=299140]Quoted post[/post]​

Ummm....isn't that a contradictory position, Jana?

Rape is rape, I think, regardless of the identity of the victim. It's always a crime, never a punishment.

Over the course of my years teaching incarcerated felons, I met lots of men who had done appalling things and who needed to be removed from society for everyone's protection. There have certainly been students I've had to work really hard to be objective and compassionate about teaching--men guilty of terrible crimes and who had such nauseatingly sociopathic behaviors and attitudes that it was a real challenge to treat them with any respect at all. But during that time I also saw lots of horrifying things done to these very same men as well, from humiliation to assault to rape to murder, even. I’ve seen the devastation that rape victims suffer in the aftermath of the crime, and it is just unjustifiable. I’ve seen young men weep uncontrollably over their experiences. I’ve seen them become withdrawn, self-destructive, guilt-ridden, and violent. I’ve seen them attempt suicide.

While some selfish impulse in us might take some delight in the idea of having sex offenders be given some of “their own medicine,” the reality of it is hardly satisfying. It’s unspeakable. It makes me ashamed to be a human being, particularly when I consider that correctional officers sometimes turn a blind eye to these events (mind you, this is hardly the norm, but it happens).

And yeah, before someone asks me, “What if it were your sister he raped?” or whatever, let me say that, of course, if the situation were personal, I couldn’t be objective about it. That’s why we aren’t allowed to serve on the jury when we or our loved ones are the victims. We’re all only human, right?

There's a great advocacy group called Stop Prisoner Rape that has some online articles and information about this subject. The group was instrumental in getting the "Prison Rape Elimination Act" passed a couple of years ago (can you believe our president signed off on that one?). It’s worth checking out.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Apr 10 2005, 10:26 PM
It seems to me that without a god, there aren't any rights. As social animals we make up our own rules, and although there might be objective, universal standards which shouldn't be trampled over, there certainly aren't any limitations on personal freedom (the ability to do anything that is in one's power) so any member of society can, if they want, violate another's "rights."

[post=299422]Quoted post[/post]​

I'm not sure that the existance of a god has anything to do with the concept of rights, at least for the concept of "human rights." Sure, the decision that we all have a set of rights that are assumed because we are human beings is a social construct. Wouldn't it be one of the necessary elements of having a society in the first place?

(Would this be time to get political and plug Anmensty International's Universal Declaration of Human Rights?)

Yeah, I should probably have titled the topic with "privileges" instead of "rights." Oopsie. :mellow:

 

[madame_zora]

Well, I completely agree that my statements are two-faced, but I do believe in an eye for an eye, to some extent. I can't work up any sympathy for a rapist who gets raped, and theif who gets robbed, etc. I don't think it should be assigned as punishment, but if it happens, I don't care at all. Maybe that makes me a lousy human being, but I think that those kinds of crimes cross a line that should eliminate the doer's human rights. Once again, what if it were YOUR mother or sister?

Then again, I dropped out in my last year of college because I have no objectivity or detatchment. To me, when a man commits rape or pedophilia, he is deciding that his rights superceed the rights of his victim. The victim's world is changed forever, and they had no choice in the matter. I am completely unable to muster any sorrow it a rapist gets a taste of his own medicine- he was the one who could have prevented the whole thing.

Now, I know that my vindictive attitude is inappropriate for law, and like you said, some guards turn a blind eye- I doubt that they bother to figure out what the victim is in for.
I am far more in favor of protecting the masses of men who will experience this horror than punishing the few (I feel) who have it coming. If a guy sells weed, steals a tv, or slices someone open and eats their brain, he has a good chance of being raped.

Steve, I'd like to ask you again, do you know for sure of ANY cases of rehabilitated rapists or molestors?

 

[BobLeeSwagger]

Should we assume that this prisoner is free of all STDs? Because a conjugal visit would just spread it to more people outside the prison. It's believed that part of the reason that latinos and blacks have higher HIV rates is because it's spreading in prison. Then he passes it to a partner after he gets out, usually an unsuspecting wife, girlfriend, one-night stand, etc.

I don't know what the procedures are or how much they vary. Do all prisoners get regularly tested for HIV? Probably not. How about when they're released? I'm guessing they usually aren't. In a prison situation, I think it's reasonable to regulate those things. If it's between a disease-free prisoner (if there even is such a thing) and a non-incarcerated partner, then I think it should be allowed on a semi-regular basis, good behavior permitting.

I kind of doubt that more conjugal visits would reduce prison rape because most of the rapists are doing it for the power, not for the sex. But someone can correct me if I'm wrong about that.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by steve319@Apr 11 2005, 03:30 AM
Sure, the decision that we all have a set of rights that are assumed because we are human beings is a social construct. Wouldn't it be one of the necessary elements of having a society in the first place?

[post=299438]Quoted post[/post]​

not at all. all it takes to create a society is a person or persons with the will and power to get everybody else to do as they say, by whatever means. in terms of the history of human societies, the concept of rights endowed freely is a very recent one, and until the last century or so extremely rare. traditionally the idea of inalienable rights has been strictly limited by systems of relative degree, based on caste or accomplishment. e.g. people born into x caste automatically have x rights and responsibilities from birth, or people who attain rank of y assume y rights and responsibilities conditional on whatever, and so on.

and there have always been underclasses with no rights whatsoever - there still are in most societies. ultimately it comes down to power. even in our supposed western "democratic" states, the idea of rights remains a farce - the people with the power can choose whether to grant or withdraw your rights as it suits them; at the end of the day they're literally nothing more than words on a piece of paper.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by madame_zora+Apr 10 2005, 11:44 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(madame_zora &#064; Apr 10 2005, 11:44 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>I am completely unable to muster any sorrow it a rapist gets a taste of his own medicine- he was the one who could have prevented the whole thing.[/b]

I think it&#39;s a slippery slope to discount a crime victim&#39;s status as a victim based on that person&#39;s qualities or actions. That sort of approach leads to trouble, I think. What about those infuriating claims that a woman "deserved" to be raped based on what she was wearing or what she did? That&#39;s the kind of thing that lawyers tried when defending the men who killed Matthew Sheppard, claiming that the murderers had experienced a “sexual panic,” while really just counting on the jury to excuse the crime based on a dislike of Sheppard’s homosexuality. Double standards like that scare me.

Originally posted by madame_zora@Apr 10 2005, 11:44 PM
Now, I know that my vindictive attitude is inappropriate for law, and like you said, some guards turn a blind eye- I doubt that they bother to figure out what the victim is in for..

Oh, they know. Everyone does, especially if the inmate is a sex offender. Rapists often move their predatory sexual practices into the system and continue their assaults with new victims. Pedophiles are often big victims of inmate-on-inmate assault within the system based on outrage at the nature of their crimes. They are often moved from facility to facility to try to keep them ahead of the revelations about the nature of their crimes. As soon as they are "found out," they are victimized. I&#39;ve seen officers let those bits of information out just to teach someone a lesson.

<!--QuoteBegin-madame_zora@Apr 10 2005, 11:44 PM
Steve, I&#39;d like to ask you again, do you know for sure of ANY cases of rehabilitated rapists or molestors?

[post=299449]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

I didn&#39;t mean to ignore your question earlier. I just didn&#39;t want my post to be any longer than it already was&#33; I planned to answer eventually.

While there are a lot of factors that cloud the data, just about any recidivism study will tell us that the rate of criminal recurrence for sex offenders is higher than that of most other categories of felons. Within the category of sex offenders, rapists of adult victims are most likely to commit another offense, followed by same sex child molesters, then opposite sex child molesters, and finally incest offenders. But recidivism stats generally include the commission of any new offense, including any crime of a non-sexual nature, including larceny, drug-related crimes, or a violation of parole or probation. So the numbers might be misleading a bit. Particularly when we consider that a lot of prisoners pick up bad habits while incarcerated that often lead to further crime upon release. The fact that a sex offender ends up back in the system is frequently due to committing robbery or possession of drugs or some other crime rather than due to a new sexual offense. The statistics don&#39;t usually make the distinction, so some of this recidivism might be a result of having been incarcerated in the first place.

More importantly, though, we have to consider the fact that, in many cases, sexual crimes go unreported, so the rate of recurrence of actual sexual crime is probably even higher than we know. So these factors might cancel one another out. We just don&#39;t know.

The numbers, although unreliable on both sides of the coin, are pretty clear about the fact that this category of criminal is more likely to end up incarcerated again than other categories.

Having said that, though, I should mention that there is some evidence that treatment programs have some success. There are all sorts of different things being tried, from behavior modification techniques to medical intervention with different degrees (and different definitions) of "success." Arguments are made about how treatment would be more successful if these offenders were separated from the general population, and I think that might be a good idea. I found a good quote awhile back relating to the unpredictable nature of treatment success and any of the studies of recidivism:

Mixing an antisocial rapist with a socially skilled fixated pedophile with a developmentally disabled exhibitionist may indeed produce a hodgepodge of results.

And I think this speaks also to the affect that inmates might have on one another in our current throw-them-all-together system. North Carolina used to separate its youthful/first-time offenders from the general population as a (successful) rehabilitative measure, but cost cutting in the state has led to the dissolution of these facilities in favor of warehousing everyone together in more economical facilities, youth and adults alike. So my 18 year old neighbor who is serving six months for possession is being housed with long-term violent offenders. But I won&#39;t get into that.

Finally, to get to your question , recidivism studies are, by necessity, long-term projects. Just because someone has stayed "clean" for one or two or five years doesn&#39;t mean that he will be in six or ten. I know sex offenders who are back in society, and, to be honest, that scares the shit out of me. Releasing them is a bit of a "too little, too late" thing for me.

In my current position, I no longer teach a regular course in the correctional setting. I haven&#39;t since becoming the coordinator of the main campus program and, at the time of the transition, I was ready to get out. Correctional education has a high burnout rate, as you might imagine. I felt like I had given all I had left. I was running on empty and was losing my faith in humanity. I lasted longer than I probably would have since, throughout those years, I was still teaching on campus as well. I think if I hadn&#39;t had that touchstone with "regular" people (and a great circle of friends), I&#39;d have gone off the deep end. :wacko:

Part of my current job duties are to monitor the state&#39;s sex offender database to keep tabs on any living in the local community who might enroll on campus. We have a child development center on our main campus and, thankfully, we can refuse to enroll registered sex offenders for classes on this campus site (they can only be served at other sites).

I&#39;m not sure if sex offenders can be successfully rehabilitated. It&#39;s certainly not happening at this point. Perhaps it can if our society tackles it differently; I don&#39;t know.

But I want to believe that people can change. I believe that with the right treatment, resources, and support, people can alter their behaviors and change for the better. As someone who has changed his own life after time spent abusing alcohol, I think it&#39;s possible. I don&#39;t, however, think it&#39;s easy or that we can change anyone else--we have to do the work ourselves.

And, really, as an adult educator, I have to believe in a person&#39;s ability to grow and change and become a better person. I think that anyone in education, counseling, social work, medicine, or most any other public service field would feel that way.

Otherwise, why go on, you know?

(JEEZ, my posts just get longer and longer, don&#39;t they? I really apologize, guys. I&#39;ll try to be more succinct in the future.)

 

[13788]

hung_big: I think you are like rivaling Freddie there with long-windedness. Good points though. Very good points.

 

[madame_zora]

Steve, thanks for the in-depth reply to my question, it was pretty much what I was expecting based on statistics, but it&#39;s good to hear from someone with first-hand knowledge. Earlier you said:


"I think it&#39;s a slippery slope to discount a crime victim&#39;s status as a victim based on that person&#39;s qualities or actions. That sort of approach leads to trouble, I think. What about those infuriating claims that a woman "deserved" to be raped based on what she was wearing or what she did? That&#39;s the kind of thing that lawyers tried when defending the men who killed Matthew Sheppard, claiming that the murderers had experienced a “sexual panic,” while really just counting on the jury to excuse the crime based on a dislike of Sheppard’s homosexuality. Double standards like that scare me."


I just wanted to reiterate, it&#39;s ONLY in eye-for-an-eye cases that I have so little sympathy. When someone commits a crime against another, I PERSONALLY feel they have it coming if someone does the same thing to them. I don&#39;t think it should be part of law, but I also don&#39;t care to spend a great deal of money protecting rapists and molesters from assault. Chances are, they&#39;ll do it again as soon as they get out anyway. This is just not a segment of the population I can make myself care about. If a woman raped a man, then she got raped, I&#39;d feel the same way. Getting raped for her style of dress has nothing to do with what I&#39;m saying, nor does the Matthew Sheppard case- although if those boys got raped, I"D look the other way. Eye for an eye means same crime, no broader application.

 

[steve319]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+Apr 10 2005, 10:07 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; Apr 10 2005, 10:07 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>yeah why not, since the penal system is already designed to comprehensively dehumanize inmates we might as well force them to rape each other too. after all, they&#39;re only criminals, not real human beings like the "rest" of "us."

[post=299162]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b]

The more of your posts I read, Dr Rock, the more you remind me of a good friend of mine. Yours is another voice, pointed and incisive, that I&#39;m happy to have in my life. Thanks for cutting to the chase.

Originally posted by madame_zora@Apr 11 2005, 04:21 AM
Getting raped for her style of dress has nothing to do with what I&#39;m saying, nor does the Matthew Sheppard case- although if those boys got raped, I"D look the other way. Eye for an eye means same crime, no broader application.

[post=299521]Quoted post[/post]​

I&#39;m certainly not trying the equate the situations by any means. I do, however, think that it would be a dangerous precedent to look for some way to lessen the seriousness or consequences of a crime based on the identity of the victim. As I said, a slippery slope once we start that sort of thinking--but again maybe that&#39;s just me.

I can see the distinction you&#39;re making based on the eye-for-an-eye qualification, but I&#39;m not sure that would be a productive rehabilitative treatment, do you? And if it has no rehabilitative purpose, all that&#39;s left is the sick thrill of vengeance or poetic justice--neither of which seems that good a justification for looking the other way.

How can I have faith in the necessity of the prison system if they make no effort to protect my (hypothetical) son or daughter from being a victim of crime while incarcerated, regardless of why they are there.

We incarcerate felons as punishment, not for punishment.

Originally posted by madame_zora@Apr 10 2005, 11:44 PM
Maybe that makes me a lousy human being,...

[post=299449]Quoted post[/post]​

Nonsense&#33; Everyone here knows you&#39;re an intelligent, compassionate, and generous person&#33; You just happen to be WRONG about this (kidding&#33.

I completely respect your feelings, not just for your evident intelligence and wisdom but also the fact that you are a woman. Believe me, I&#39;ve struggled with negative personal attitudes toward students who have committed heinous acts.

And I&#39;m glad you mentioned the gender converse of the situation. I had wanted to talk about that earlier but my post was too long anyway. The statistics for female prisoners being raped (usually by male officers&#33 is even higher than that of males. So sad, but again, something that is sometimes covered up by administration for fear of sullying the good name of the institutional system.

Originally posted by aloofman@Apr 10 2005, 11:55 PM
Should we assume that this prisoner is free of all STDs? Because a conjugal visit would just spread it to more people outside the prison.

[post=299456]Quoted post[/post]​

Good point, aloofman&#33; I would hope that a "clean bill of health" would be one of the requirements, but I&#39;m not sure.

<!--QuoteBegin-aloofman@Apr 10 2005, 11:55 PM
I kind of doubt that more conjugal visits would reduce prison rape because most of the rapists are doing it for the power, not for the sex. But someone can correct me if I&#39;m wrong about that.

[post=299456]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]

It&#39;s a weird phenomenon. Sexual predators are sexual predators, I think, inside or out, but sometimes the experience of incarceration seems to create these tendencies too. That&#39;s another thing that I wonder about with the conjugal visit idea--lots of these men have a history of spousal abuse, and I would think that this should rule them out as candidates for such a program too. Some of these guys are really sick fucks who don&#39;t need to be exposed to anyone, family or otherwise, but the system might not be that good at screening, you know?

I don&#39;t want to see our court systems (or the correctional system) jammed with lawsuits relating to prisoner rape. I do, however, advocate large-scale prison reform. Consensual sex between inmates is often investigated and punished to a greater degree and with more fervency than allegations of rape. The administration often sees inmate rape as a means of control, of keeping them further "beaten down."

That&#39;s one reason I wanted to get everyone&#39;s reaction to the South African proposal. I&#39;m not sure how I feel about that. Within the institutional setting, sexual favors are continually being traded for everything from cigarettes to protection--I&#39;m not sure how one would begin to distinguish consent from silent coercion.

What are the group&#39;s feelings about that? I&#39;m sure the wise folks at LPSG can help me come to a better understanding.

(I promise to shut up now and let your collective insight wash over me.)

 

[madame_zora]

Well, I&#39;m sorry to say this Steve, but if your son committed rape, I wouldn&#39;t care about his rights either. If my daughter did it, she&#39;d deserve whatever she got too. I&#39;ve said three times now that this is specifically for rapists and molestors. Period. But it is my strong and steadfast opinion. I don&#39;t give a fuck about the rights of abusers, they can get raped and dehumanised all day and all night, and I feel it&#39;s justice. They put themselves there by choice, so I flat out don&#39;t care. That&#39;s the one type of crime that (for me) causes a person to lose their humanity. Fuck them, and I do mean it. Punitive? You bet&#33; Maybe if it were made more public how gruesome this fact was, it could act as a deterrant to those who commit these crimes in the first place. Mostly, I think these people are disaccociative and lack the cognitive skills to put two and two together, but as a woman (very few men will ever have this experience at the hands of a woman) I feel my blood boiling at the very suggestion that a man is due ANY sympathy for ANYTHING after committing such an act. You get held down and raped against your will, them we&#39;ll trade insights and sypathy for rapists. I wish they&#39;s just get the death penalty so we wouldn&#39;t have to warehouse them for so long, the recovery rate is less than 1% as you well know. The rate at which they come out and rape again is extraoridnarily high, as you also well know. I think these men are garbage and should be flushed accordingly. I&#39;m completely willing to admit I&#39;m an asshole here, but I&#39;ve been there, done that, and no one who hasn&#39;t been can understand.

FWIW, I&#39;ve also been to prisons with AA and heard some of the horror stories, so I can understand where you&#39;re coming from, having spent so much more time there than me. I can only say that I never heard even one story as gruesome as the act they committed to get there, so you&#39;ll excuse me if I put the victim FAR ahead of the assailant. See, I&#39;ve also worked in a rape crisis center (which is why I dropped out of college in my fourth year). I counselled a 12 year old girl who was pregnant by her father, and didn&#39;t understand at all why she was pregnant, how babies were conceived or born, that incest was wrong. She became suicidal at the thought of being taken away from her father, her life is fucked forever. Now, should I worry about HIS rights in prison or HERS in real life? He can fuck off and die, for all I care.