Rape in America's Prisons

[HVC]

Pay less and higher more

And that is a traditional issue they have always faced in law enforcement and corrections. If you pay less than you attract mostly ex-military who lack the education or experience required for the social work side of the equation. If you pay more than you get better educated and experienced people but cannot hire as many of them.

Can't you tier it? managers (or equivalent) would make more to ge the educated, but the grunts make less to fill the quota of quantity. But i doubt the union would like that

[Sheilbh]

Thanks for responding.  I'll get into this.

This first part of the article is great for bringing emotion and the sense of injustice to the article. There is nothing wrong so far. Although the article does not give us the gender or ages of these kids. These kids could be from 12-20? I am not sure where the age of majority begins in Texas but in New York it's 21. So, is this teenage girls (17-20) getting horny middle-aged men fired? Or is this pedophiles run amok praying on young boys (12-16)?

This is common in any article like this.  Start with an individual story that demonstrates your general theme before getting into the long grass.  Starting an essay with a statistical overview grabs the reader less.

I also entirely reject the distinction you're drawing between victims who deserve blame (teenage girls 'getting horny middle-aged men fired') and victims deserving of sympathy (young boys).  The only thing that distinction makes is one of ickiness really.  Both are victims; they would be protected in a school and they should be in a prison where the power relationship is so much more extreme and where it is exceptionally difficult for a kid to report what's happening to them.  How do you report that you're being molested when the principal likes kids too?

If you look at the tables provided in the article most of the victims seem to be between 13 and 17.  Inmates prefer them younger (or weaker compared to an older kid) and the guards are often younger than I would have guessed (25-35). 

Our first burst of misinformation from the author. The first part of the article discussed pedophiles out of control in Texas. However, now he attempts to back up that theory with facts and information concerning inmate on inmate sexual acts. The author than throws in another horror story about an Oregon probation officer who was arrested but doesn't provide the penalty that resulted. The author quickly follows up with a story about more inmate on inmate sexual violence insinuating that the Florida Corrections Officers (not even the Department) purposely allowed a 17-year old sex offenders to have his way with a 15-year old disabled child. He provides no information as to why the 15-year old was in prison or if they both were housed in a sex offender unit.

I don't think the article's about paedos running amock so much as it's about an institutional tolerance of rape.

More information given in a grandiose fashion. The author claims that the list of stories go on and on but has only given is the example of two pedophiles in Texas and one in Oregon. I can speak for New York state, and know that between DOCS (prison system), Parole, and Probation there are roughly 36,000+ employees. Multiply that by 50 states and a few stories about pedophiles doesn't seem like an epidemic.

He doesn't say it's an epidemic, but he does say 12.1% of minors asked in this survey report sexual misconduct.

However, at no point does the author explain if this is guard on inmate or inmate on inmate sexual misconduct. That makes any of this information totally useless.

This is no more than ten sentences below in the argument:

Fully 80 percent of the sexual abuse reported in the study was committed not by other inmates but by staff.

The first part of this is more fluff. Of course most aren't violent. As the author points out, violent kids tend to get tried as adults. Violating probation and "status offenses" are serious because a majority of the kids were given 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and so on, chances with the promise that they would successfully complete probation. Is the author trying to say that we should tell these kids to behave or else than do nothing when they don't follow their conditions?

I think he's trying to avoid the knee-jerk reaction you suffered earlier that inmates aren't nice people and that it's okay to turn a blind eye to that.

Ok, some meat and bones. The author begins with some minor misinformation because it isn't clear any longer what study is being discussed. I'll assume it's the one concerning the Texas Youth place.

I haven't read anything about a Texas study.  The only study I've read of in this article is the report issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

So, now the author states that 80% of the abuse is by staff but that 95% of the incidents were involving female staff with male inmates. So, forcible rape is now out the window despite the beginning of the article making it sound like male pedophiles run amok raping young children (inferring males). The author further admits that 64% of the encounters involved no force or coercion. Since it's almost impossible for a woman to forcible rape a man (without using an object anally) I am guessing that the other 31% involving coercion was something along the lines of if inmate does X for staff than he won't get in trouble or get a benefit. It is doubtful that a woman staff member is strong enough to be forcing a male teenager to do anything without help. So, once again, the author doesn't release ages of the inmates involved. The author is more honest with the facts but buries them at the end of the article when people are already sold on the pedophile run amok theory and their eyes glaze over looking at numbers at this point.

Forcible rape isn't the problem.  Rape is the problem.  I reject the idea that it's almost impossible for a woman to rape a man, but I'd also note that members of staff are able to trade privileges and punishments for sex.  The ages of the inmates is, again, not terribly relevant (though they're in the tables if you want them).  And as I say the idea that consent is possible in a prison or that it makes it acceptable is preposterous - these are minors in a position of absolutely no power dealing with people who have an immense amount of power over their day-to-day life.

The reasons are many. First, and foremost, most of the sex is consensual but illegal by statute. It is easier for the facility to fire the employee and keep from being investigated by a higher authority (and keep it out of the news) than it is to prosecute. Second, it comes down to usually he said, she said, so it's easier to terminate or separate the employee from employment than a costly legal battle. The author makes it sound like little or no punishment occurs but 75% of employees lose their jobs. I am sure the other 25% lose chance of promotion or are reassigned to less favorable positions. As the author noted in the Oregon probation situation, a small percentage are prosecuted but the author never gives us that percentage which implies shoddy research or intentional misinformation.

I don't think that losing your job or being reassigned is sufficient, personally.  The authors provide a footnote which link to a BOJS report that have the statistics.  I think we'd be far less sanguine about the sex being consensual but illegal if these were good kids at school being serially abused by people in positions of power.

As to the he said-she said, that's true of all rape cases which is why it's terribly difficult to prove and has one of the lowest conviction rates.

Once again the misinformation train is flowing. This section starts out discussing rape by other inmates but than suddenly changes into information about staff again. If a reader isn't paying close attention than they associate the rapes repeatedly occurring in the first part with repeated sexual encounters in the second part by staff.

I think by 'paying close attention' you mean 'reading'.  I don't see how ''sexually abused by other inmates...Of those victimized by staff' could be confused really.

It's clear from the TYC study that the female staff is having sex often with male inmates. It's not usual for these things to be one time encounters so of course the abuse is repeated. It is very dishonest on the authors part to attempt to link these two things together.

This is abuse, not abuse.  The two things are thematically linked, they're to do with the frequency of the abuse.  I don't see what's dishonest about having them together, but clearly writing that one is to do with inmates and one with guards.

Once again, the author attempts to link the more serious rape among inmates that occurs in adult facilities with that of consensual sex occurring in between staff and inmates at the TYC.

You're missing a step, he's linking the TYC to the BJS report on sexual abuse in youth facilities to the wider context - this is clear from the article:

Just as the BJS report on sexual abuse in juvenile detention facilities shows that problems like the ones at Pyote aren't limited to Texas, two previous BJS reports, on the incidence of sexual abuse in adult prisons and jails, show that abuses in juvenile detention are only a small part of a much larger human rights problem in this country.

I think a dishonest attempt at artificial linking of these things would be less step-by-step and show considerably more sleight of hand.

[Sheilbh]

More eye glazing information without providing any real stats or facts. And, once again, the author mixes and merges the info about inmate on inmate and staff on inmate encounters.

There are plenty of stats and a discussion of how reliable or not they are and the methodological difficulties - again that's rare in an intellectually dishonest hatchet job.  I don't think there's mixing and merging, except within paragraphs and even then the inmate-inmate/staff-inmate distinction is always acknowledged and the paragraphs are thematically tied.

Here is some interesting information. It shows that the author should have created an article discussing that WOMEN are a more major concern than pedophile run amok.

This was never about paedos gone wild.  It's title 'The Rape of American Prisoners' not 'PAEDOGEDDON'.  That's for a reason.  I think, though, that you're right that there's an interesting study waiting to be done on the sex aspect because it surprised me.

Now the author begins to confuse everyone. Is the issue now jails and not pedophiles? Does the author consider youth facilities to be jails and not prisons? And if the author is discussing rape in jails are we no longer talking about staff? Is it just inmate to inmate? The author is trying to make a statement here that has nothing to do with the article.

I think the issue has never been solely about paedos.  The jail study is entirely I don't think there's any confusion they're talking about a study on jails.  The writers aren't talking about the actual study but the potential size of the problem and methodological problems.

Ok, so it appears the author has totally gone off topic and we are now just discussing inmate on inmate rape.

How is that off-topic in an article called 'The Rape of American Prisoners'?

[Sheilbh]

Desire is not the same as consent. I think we all agree that minors or sufficiently mentally disabled people cannot give consent even if they may have a "desire" to engage in a sexual activity.

I believe Sheilbh's point is that a similar situation exist when there is a sufficiently deep power difference - so arguing with it from a position of "desire" is really a strawman.

Exactly.

[DontSayBanana]

Also, Yi, I hate to break it to you, but the law is on the side of Marti and Sheilbh here; the rationale of "by nature of the relationship, the lesser party could never be assumed to consent" is why pedophilia is criminalized in all 50 states.  In fact, some states have expanded on that to include family structure, so it's the basis for some anti-incest laws as well.

[Admiral Yi]

Also, Yi, I hate to break it to you, but the law is on the side of Marti and Sheilbh here; the rationale of "by nature of the relationship, the lesser party could never be assumed to consent" is why pedophilia is criminalized in all 50 states.  In fact, some states have expanded on that to include family structure, so it's the basis for some anti-incest laws as well.

No need to break that to me, I already get it.  Because of the nature of the guard inmate relationship, not only can we not assume consent is given, it's virtually impossible to determine when it is.  But that is not the same thing as categorically ruling out the possibility.

[Strix]

Can't you tier it? managers (or equivalent) would make more to ge the educated, but the grunts make less to fill the quota of quantity. But i doubt the union would like that

They try but it doesn't work well. If the "managers" don't hold the lower positions than they can't always understand the nature of the jobs and goals. If the grunts get promoted than they get above their abilities.

It's something hard to work out which is why state government is always filled with A) people who can't do their job or B) people who don't know how to do their job. Everyone rises to their level of incompetence e.g. the Peter Principle.

[Razgovory]

Strix is at least right about one thing, most people in the US are well aware of the problem of rape in prisons.  The thing is, most don't care.  Kids in a juvenile facility, yes they'll care then.  That's probably why the author chose to start his story with that and segue into the adult facilities.  I suspect alot of people in the US feel that the rape victims deserved what they got in the adult facilities though.

[Ed Anger]

Strix is at least right about one thing, most people in the US are well aware of the problem of rape in prisons.  The thing is, most don't care.  Kids in a juvenile facility, yes they'll care then.  That's probably why the author chose to start his story with that and segue into the adult facilities.  I suspect alot of people in the US feel that the rape victims deserved what they got in the adult facilities though.

I remember when CountMoveOn.org got all pissy when I made a prison rape joke a few years ago. Dude needed some surprise buttsecks to relax or something.

[HVC]

Can't you tier it? managers (or equivalent) would make more to ge the educated, but the grunts make less to fill the quota of quantity. But i doubt the union would like that

They try but it doesn't work well. If the "managers" don't hold the lower positions than they can't always understand the nature of the jobs and goals. If the grunts get promoted than they get above their abilities.

It's something hard to work out which is why state government is always filled with A) people who can't do their job or B) people who don't know how to do their job. Everyone rises to their level of incompetence e.g. the Peter Principle.

Then there is only one answer. old school style. You stay in the same cell for the whole duration of your incarciration. No lunch room, you eat in your cell. no library, you read in your cell. no tv, you're in fucking jail. No excersise or sports, becasue once again you're in fucking jail.

Plus gruel. good old fashion low protein gruel to crush the spirit

[dps]

So it's rape, but not rape-rape, Whoopi?

It's a legally prohibited act that is consensual and not coerced.  It's not that difficult a concept.

Statutory rape is NOT consensual, because a minor can't give consent. Necrophilia is not consensual either. Neither is sex with someone who is in a coma.

I just can't believe someone can be arguing a statutory rape is "consensual". It's simply mindboggling.

SOmething can be consentual in fact, but not in law. 

Yeah, which is why statutory rape is statutory rape and not just plain rape.

Or, put another way, if you're 25 and force a 14-year old girl to have sex with you at gunpoint, you're going to get charged with rape, not statutory rape. because you actually used violence or the threat of violence in order to get sex.  But shower her with presents in order to get her to have sex with you, and you're going to be charged with staturoy rape in most jurisdictions, because the law doesn't consider a 14 year-old to be legally capable of granting consent (again, in most jurisdictions---there are a few places that  set the age of consent that low or even lower).

[Martinus]

I'm going to write this off as an obnoxious troll and not otherwise respond.

That's what I do with all grumbler's posts a priori. Saves me time I would otherwise need to read them.

[Martinus]

Or is this pedophiles run amok praying on young boys (12-16)?

I think it is dishonest to imply that all pedophiles are religious.

[Martinus]

So it's rape, but not rape-rape, Whoopi?

It's a legally prohibited act that is consensual and not coerced.  It's not that difficult a concept.

Statutory rape is NOT consensual, because a minor can't give consent. Necrophilia is not consensual either. Neither is sex with someone who is in a coma.

I just can't believe someone can be arguing a statutory rape is "consensual". It's simply mindboggling.

SOmething can be consentual in fact, but not in law. 

Yeah, which is why statutory rape is statutory rape and not just plain rape.

Or, put another way, if you're 25 and force a 14-year old girl to have sex with you at gunpoint, you're going to get charged with rape, not statutory rape. because you actually used violence or the threat of violence in order to get sex.  But shower her with presents in order to get her to have sex with you, and you're going to be charged with staturoy rape in most jurisdictions, because the law doesn't consider a 14 year-old to be legally capable of granting consent (again, in most jurisdictions---there are a few places that  set the age of consent that low or even lower).

Again, I get it, but absence of direct coercion does not equal consent.

Polish law also criminalizes differently a situation when unlawful sexual conduct results from the use of force, psychological coercion, blackmail, a hierarchical dependency or inability of one party to give informed consent (and again, criminalizes more strongly a situation where a minor is coerced to sexual conduct, in a strict sense, and a "non-coercive" sex with a minor. Nb, it avoids referring to any of these situations as "rape" (and just describes them like I did, by a narrative), because it just encourages retarded distinctions between rape, rape-rape and rape-rape-rape etc. (which can be seen as a back-door - no pun intended - way of legitimizing or softening the odium surrounding child abuse, for example).

[katmai]

Or is this pedophiles run amok praying on young boys (12-16)?

I think it is dishonest to imply that all pedophiles are religious.