Atheist Discussion

A bipartisan US Senate report confirms what many civil rights advocates and feminists already strongly suspected if not outright knew. Sexual abuse of prisoners by guards in federal women's prisons are far more common than a simple review of cases and there are many instances of not only lax discipline, but also outright coverups by the administration of said prisons. When officers are found culpable of misconduct there is also a widespread pattern of not holding them accountable and punished. The system is also incapable of dealing with the quantity of complains and investigate them with a backlog in the thousands. I would also like to note that this scathing report only concerns federal women's prisons and many civil rights advocates and feminists are even more worried by ICE detention facilities which had already been accused by Amnesty International and the ACLU of a long, long list of human rights violation including over 30 000 cases of sexual assault (including over 5000 against minors) from 2010 to 2017. The Senate should probably turn its attention towards these next.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/d...risons.pdf

That's what happens when you let cops police cops. It's another form of the blue wall. What prison guard wants to stick his or her neck out reporting abuses when they know that that might mean they get no support in their next confrontation with inmates?

I won't be defending neanderthal prison guards abusing their power or their enablers if thats what you think.

How to make a thread about a horrific situation about me (because we haven't talked about me in, I don't know, half an hour or so and my ego is literally starving).
Signed: a misogynistic rape apologist.

But no, it's still not trolling and it's still saving us from becoming an echo chamber.



ETA: Because besides slimy and hateful, our pet misogynist is a lying coward:

Quote:I won't be defending neanderthal prison guards abusing their power or their enablers if thats what you think.

.....So says the frigid old maid who wants to use this discussion forum as her personal bulletin board where she do her laughably bad impression of an NPR reporter unworthy of an SNL parody.

From outsider view situation is bad when it comes to police treatment of people who aren't imprisoned, so things being even worse in prisons aren't something unsurprising.

(12-15-2022, 01:17 AM)Vera Wrote: [ -> ]How to make a thread about a horrific situation about me (because we haven't talked about me in, I don't know, half an hour or so and my ego is literally starving).
Signed: a misogynistic rape apologist.

But no, it's still not trolling and it's still saving us from becoming an echo chamber.



ETA: Because besides slimy and hateful, our pet misogynist is a lying coward:

Quote:I won't be defending neanderthal prison guards abusing their power or their enablers if thats what you think.

Deserves the starvation diet so far as I'm concerned, and that's what he's getting from me henceforth. I'm done trying to converse with this liar.

@epronovost

It seems to me that we should acknowledge that men would be more sexually opportunistic in this setting so we should give into stereotype and exclude them from positions in the prison that involve direct interface with the inmates. They can guard the perimeter and be on call for de-escalation. Female guards can handle all the tasks involving direct interaction. This seems practical and simple.  Do you see any problems with this solution?

(12-15-2022, 05:04 AM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]@epronovost

It seems to me that we should acknowledge that men would be more sexually opportunistic in this setting so we should give into stereotype and exclude them from positions in the prison that involve direct interface with the inmates. They can guard the perimeter and be on call for de-escalation. Female guards can handle all the tasks involving direct interaction. This seems practical and simple.  Do you see any problems with this solution?

Yes, quite a bit. First while the report focuses mostly on male prison personnel, data does show that female prison guards are also involved in sexual abuse in women's prison. Second, the problem isn't just prison guards who abuses of prisoners, but a complacent, permissive and sometime even sympathetic oversight and leadership. In fact, the crisis is so large at this level it doesn't even try to consider sexual abuse as a problem that needs addressing. Third, there is no fix to structural issues surrounding the capacity to deal with complains and investigate potentially wrongful acts. Four, there are more than just prison guards as personnel in prisons too and some of these members have also been involved in misconducts. Fifth, your solution doesn't take into account available prison guard workforce nor does it seem to understand how prison actually work all that much either. Sixth, your solution isn't what has been recommended by experts on the subject and might be prone to throw the baby with the bathwater; while sexual abuse is rampant most prison guards don't actively participate in it and with poor and unscrupulous leadership, any workforce will degrade both in discipline and scrupulosity.

You did come up with the issue I hoped you might identify, among others, the first part of your fifth point. Would enough woman be interested in being guards?  Another trend to consider is gender differences in temperament and interest.  I haven't looked to confirm  yet but I believe males appreciate or tolerate the authoritarian role moreso. 

The workforce also is overall less willing to take on work that is unpleasant and under compensated. That might be more of what you were referring to.

Isn't discussion on a forum an exercise in armchair philosophizing. I have no problem questioning data and disagreeing with conclusions. Nothing is at stake. Nothing is binding. What is wrong with sharpening our understandings, exploring, and taking some risks? Do we have to be experts to form tentative positions? You have resorted to "I don't know" a bit heavily recently. Your impressions are welcome. Why wouldn't they be?

(12-15-2022, 12:28 PM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]You did come up with the issue I hoped you might identify, among others, the first part of your fifth point. Would enough woman be interested in being guards?

It depends on several factors. Currently, about 30% of all correctional facilities officers are women which is pretty darn good considering women themselves represent about 20% of all prison population. While most of these women do work in juvenile and women's facilities a substantial amount of them do work in men's prisons. Where the prison are, what equipment they have access to, how they are built, how they are administered, how violent or dangerous the prisonners are and what roles correctional officers are supposed to hold precisely can all affect the need for guards. Geography can also be impactful as some prisons struggle to find employees while others not at all due to characteristics in the employment market of the region, demography and size of the population itself.

Nominally, there is probably well enough women in that field to occupy all guard position in women's prison and then some, but there is more to this issue than simply counting them.

Quote:Isn't discussion on a forum an exercise in armchair philosophizing. I have no problem questioning data and disagreeing with conclusions. Nothing is at stake. Nothing is binding. What is wrong with sharpening our understandings, exploring, and taking some risks? Do we have to be experts to form tentative positions?

You don't learn nor sharpen your reasonning skills nor explore any given subject by playing armchair philosopher with other armchair philosophers. You do that by reading, questionning and debating with actual philosophers or experts on the subject. There is nothing specifically wrong with playing armchair [insert what you will] as entertainment, but let's not pretend that it's something that it is not. I personally find it more interesting to discuss these issues after members of the forum, curious about an issue read a bit on it prior to commenting or discussing or even use their personal experience of the prison system should they have any.

(12-15-2022, 03:41 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2022, 01:17 AM)Vera Wrote: [ -> ]How to make a thread about a horrific situation about me (because we haven't talked about me in, I don't know, half an hour or so and my ego is literally starving).
Signed: a misogynistic rape apologist.

But no, it's still not trolling and it's still saving us from becoming an echo chamber.



ETA: Because besides slimy and hateful, our pet misogynist is a lying coward:

Deserves the starvation diet so far as I'm concerned, and that's what he's getting from me henceforth. I'm done trying to converse with this liar.

Oh, I've mostly stopped engaging with it after the ear-flicking females and long before the gay nephew birthday bash. I guess that was a bit too much "different perspective" and "good intentions" for such a simple female as me.

Just thought this is was such patently obvious trolling it needed to be highlighted for the few willingly blind among us who continue to stop their ears. Of course, admitting you're wrong is much harder than stubbornly wise-monkeying it

(12-15-2022, 11:41 AM)epronovost Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2022, 05:04 AM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]@epronovost

It seems to me that we should acknowledge that men would be more sexually opportunistic in this setting so we should give into stereotype and exclude them from positions in the prison that involve direct interface with the inmates. They can guard the perimeter and be on call for de-escalation. Female guards can handle all the tasks involving direct interaction. This seems practical and simple.  Do you see any problems with this solution?

Yes, quite a bit. First while the report focuses mostly on male prison personnel, data does show that female prison guards are also involved in sexual abuse in women's prison. 

A solution can be good even though it does not absolutely resolve an issue.  Males are much more often attracted to women than females. Males are also more likely to be aggressive.  Reducing male guards and employees with direct contact with female prisoners would resolve a lion's share of the problem.

Quote:Second, the problem isn't just prison guards who abuses of prisoners, but a complacent, permissive and sometime even sympathetic oversight and leadership. In fact, the crisis is so large at this level it doesn't even try to consider sexual abuse as a problem that needs addressing.

Yes. Adding additional changes will help. But, eliminating the abuse itself means there is less for administrators to be incompetent or corrupt about.

Culture change within prison administration is needed with accountability becoming more important than loyalty. 

Quote: Sixth, your solution isn't what has been recommended by experts on the subject and might be prone to throw the baby with the bathwater; while sexual abuse is rampant most prison guards don't actively participate in it and with poor and unscrupulous leadership, any workforce will degrade both in discipline and scrupulosity.

What damage would be done by gradually reducing male guards?  Will their feelings be hurt? Where is the baby?

(12-15-2022, 04:01 PM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]Males are much more often attracted to women than females.

This has very little to do with sexual abuse or even abuse in general. Plus, once again, you make the error of thinking that a generality about a population is applicable to a precise subset of that population, a classic monolithic fallacy. 

Quote:What damage would be done by gradually reducing male guards?  Will their feelings be hurt? Where is the baby?

Well for one it could very well come under fire as an breach of anti-discrimination laws and statutes about discrimination based on gender. Plus, if a male guard complains about being removed without cause his superior might actually back him despite the fact he did commit severe misconduct.

(12-15-2022, 05:01 PM)epronovost Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2022, 04:01 PM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]Males are much more often attracted to women than females.

This has very little to do with sexual abuse or even abuse in general. Plus, once again, you make the error of thinking that a generality about a population is applicable to a precise subset of that population, a classic monolithic fallacy. 

No, it's not. It's the wise application of trend information.  You really want to ignore the fact that sexual assault will more likely be perpetrated on victims that the perpetrator is actually attracted to? Just because it is not always true does not mean we should ignore that it is usually true.

You also need to consider the "non abusive" intrusions that occur when males do cavity searches. Even though they limit this to emergency situations, it happens regularly. It would not happen with female guards in abundance.

The situation of being in the role of a guard can overwhelm usual personality constraints and corrosion of morality can shift over time.  This can result in good people doing bad things.

(12-15-2022, 05:32 PM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]The situation of being in the role of a guard can overwhelm usual personality constraints and corrosion of morality can shift over time.  This can result in good people doing bad things.

That's the produce of poor leadership and largely a myth perpetuated by the Stanford Prison experiment which was a scammy piece of pseudoscience made by a publicity hungry researcher.

PS: general trend commonality only apply when samples are representatives of the population. You need to crack open a book on stats or logic.

(12-15-2022, 05:40 PM)epronovost Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2022, 05:32 PM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]The situation of being in the role of a guard can overwhelm usual personality constraints and corrosion of morality can shift over time.  This can result in good people doing bad things.

That's the produce of poor leadership and largely a myth perpetuated by the Stanford Prison experiment which was a scammy piece of pseudoscience made by a publicity hungry researcher.

PS: general trend commonality only apply when samples are representatives of the population. You need to crack open a book on stats or logic.

When you are generalizing from a sample to describe the population it needs to be a representative sample.  When you are trying to understand a subset of the population based on population trends you can safely make assumptions about the sample unless an element of nonrandomness formed the sample and that element is relevant.  Prison guards are not more frequently homosexual. What is the relevant level of nonrandomness that you think voids the applicability of the obvious population trend?  Snap closed your crack pipe.

(12-15-2022, 05:58 PM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]Prison guards are not more frequently homosexual.

And that has absolutely no relevence to sexual abuse. Sexual orientation and attraction isn't a major factor in sexual assault in prison (or anywhere else). Yes, straight people do rape people of the same sex and they do it quite often especially in monogender environments like prison, the military, remote minning exploitations or the merchant navy. Sexual assaults are also acts of power and humiliation. People with sexual frustration or who are celibate are not more likely to commit rapes or sexual abuse either. Male prison guards don't assault female prisoners because they are attracted to them (though they might be). They do it because they can, they find it pleasant, dehumanized their victims, have a sense of superiority to them and fear no repercussion for it. Note that relationship between inmates and guards are also a big issue, but not one studied by that report. It's another, though related, issue which is also largely caused by poor oversight and complacency.

Also, and I wonder why I have to say it, it's not because Jack rapes women that you can punish Bill. That's against the law, basic morality, logic and common sense. At that rate you could decide to put all men in prison because, on average, they commit 4 times more violent and/serious crimes than women. It's an absurd idea.

Your idea is not only stupid because it would not solve a toxic work structure and environment, be difficult to implement, but also be illegal. Why do you keep defending such ridiculous notions?

(12-15-2022, 07:11 PM)epronovost Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2022, 05:58 PM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]Prison guards are not more frequently homosexual.

And that has absolutely no relevence to sexual abuse. Sexual orientation and attraction isn't a major factor in sexual assault in prison (or anywhere else). Yes, straight people do rape people of the same sex and they do it quite often especially in monogender environments like prison, the military, remote minning exploitations or the merchant navy. Sexual assaults are acts of power and humiliation. People with sexual frustration or who are celibate are not more likely to commit rapes or sexual abuse either. Male prison guards don't assault female prisoners because they are attracted to them (though they might be). Note that relationship between inmates and guards are also a big issue, but not one studied by that report. It's another, though related, issue which is also largely caused by poor oversight.

I would suggest you realize that sexual assault occurs consistent with sexual orientation 90-99 % of the time. This might be confusing because it is claimed that 95% of male victims have male heterosexual perpetrators. 98% of perps are male and 90% of victims are female. To complicate matters further prison is a unique setting.

There is a reason why you made a thread about the plight of female prisoners and not prisoners in general.  Women are assaulted per Capita by guards more than male prisoners.

It is probably a small percentage of guards who enter the field because they are predators.  A large amount of the sexual assault occurs because of the unique setting where a guard has inordinate control of an inmate. The potential for manipulation in both directions is great.

Oversight can help prevent the occurrence of assault. To call it the cause is odd. The primary cause is the poor decisions of men in a power situation.  People turning a blind eye are culpable too but on another tier. 

Quote:Also, and I wonder why I have to say it, it's not because Jack rapes women that you can punish Bill. That's against the law, basic morality, logic and common sense. At that rate you could decide to put all men in prison because, on average, they commit 4 times more violent and/serious crimes than women. It's an absurd idea.

All rights of the Constitution can be curtailed under particular circumstances.  There must be compelling reasons and dire stakes. Even Segregation by race in prison was held Constitutional because of the dynamics of prison gangs.  Safety can trump all if less intrusive measures are not identified. I am suggesting that it might be well worth it to reduce the number of male guards in female prisons. There has been a decades long debate about cross gender prison supervision.  I think no potential guard is actually punished because they have access to the position of guard regardless of gender but they may be placed at different proximities from the inmates.

(12-15-2022, 08:20 PM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]Oversight can help prevent the occurrence of assault. To call it the cause is odd. The primary cause is the poor decisions of men in a power situation.  People turning a blind eye are culpable too but on another tier. 

Risk assesment, feeling of impunity, misogyny, sense of self superiority are all part of the decision making and those are fostered by poor or complicit leadership. It's in such a manner that poor oversight causes sexual abuse, it fosters and reinforce bad decisions instead of suppressing them. Incidence of sexual abuse is almost impossible if not downright impossible to completely erradicate, but good leadership can reduce it to a minimum that would be in line with what can be observed in civil society if not even better.

(12-15-2022, 09:29 PM)epronovost Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-15-2022, 08:20 PM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]Oversight can help prevent the occurrence of assault. To call it the cause is odd. The primary cause is the poor decisions of men in a power situation.  People turning a blind eye are culpable too but on another tier. 

Risk assesment, feeling of impunity, misogyny, sense of self superiority are all part of the decision making and those are fostered by poor or complicit leadership. It's in such a manner that poor oversight causes sexual abuse, it fosters and reinforce bad decisions instead of suppressing them. Incidence of sexual abuse is almost impossible if not downright impossible to completely erradicate, but good leadership can reduce it to a minimum that would be in line with what can be observed in civil society if not even better.

In a similar fashion fewer checkpoints and patrols "cause" drunk driving fatalities. It is a mistake to focus solely on inferior prevention measures that may embolden bad judgments of actual perpetrators.  The conduct of perps have a vastly higher loading.  Why you want to overemphasize peripheral matters is a mystery to me.

(12-16-2022, 08:04 PM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]It is a mistake to focus solely on inferior prevention measures that may embolden bad judgments of actual perpetrators. 

And effective leadership and system of accountability with good oversight actually prevent bad judgement by not only teaching good judgement to employees but also making bad judgement costly and recidivism, a big problem if you read the report, significantly lower. Most prison guards, no matter their gender are not abusers, but abusers get to repeat offense often because of poor leadership and impose a law of silence to others by showing them that such behavior is tolerable even though it it's immoral and illegal..  

Quote:Why you want to overemphasize peripheral matters is a mystery to me.

Why you want to ban men from women's prison outright despite the impossibility of it is a mystery to me. I focus on this because that's what's likely to be implemented and is likely to produce good results. I'm a feminist activist and educator. I'm actually interested in improving women's conditions in real life not just waxing about impossible measures that have no chance in hell of ever be implemented and viewing the actual real abuse this report exposes like just another puzzle.

28 republiKKKunt fuckheads just voted against bll to protect child abuse victims.

The list is given in the story.  I'm sure you can guess plenty of them without even looking.


https://www.rawstory.com/28-republicans-...e-victims/

Quote:The bipartisan Respect for Child Survivors Act, a law that would aid victims of child sex abuse and their families, just passed the House in a 385-28 vote.

All 28 votes against the bill came from Republicans.

The bill would require the FBI to form multi-disciplinary teams to aid sex abuse victims and their families in order to prevent re-traumatization from investigation and any cases from being dropped. These teams would include "investigative personnel, mental health professionals, medical personnel, family advocacy workers, child advocacy workers, and prosecutors," Newsweek reported.

U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX), Chris Coons (D-DE), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) introduced the legislation.

And when a useless little fuck like Graham is an originator of a good idea and 28 morons in own party voted against it it tells you all you need to know about these cocksuckers.

(12-16-2022, 10:21 PM)epronovost Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2022, 08:04 PM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]It is a mistake to focus solely on inferior prevention measures that may embolden bad judgments of actual perpetrators. 

And effective leadership and system of accountability with good oversight actually prevent bad judgement by not only teaching good judgement to employees but also making bad judgement costly and recidivism, a big problem if you read the report, significantly lower. Most prison guards, no matter their gender are not abusers, but abusers get to repeat offense often because of poor leadership and impose a law of silence to others by showing them that such behavior is tolerable even though it it's immoral and illegal.

Improving leadership and training are worthy goals.  Teaching judgment is an ephemeral task.  Many people have skills but do not have the will to consistently use them.  A system of accountability would be great but the type of personality that might find security a pleasing career includes authoritarian sensibilities and an antisocial style.  Being "ratted" on 
will not be tolerated well.

Quote:Why you want to ban men from women's prison outright despite the impossibility of it is a mystery to me. I focus on this because that's what's likely to be implemented and is likely to produce good results. I'm a feminist activist and educator. I'm actually interested in improving women's conditions in real life not just waxing about impossible measures that have no chance in hell of ever be implemented and viewing the actual real abuse this report exposes like just another puzzle.

I don't want to ban men outright. I want to reduce nonpublic actions between male guards and female prisoners.  I also aim to reduce puerile nature of routine acts of hygiene and security that absolutely will occur when heterosexual men process woman in an even by the book interaction.  Any man can be tempted over time in that setting. We are not just looking at outright assault, but a whole range of boundary violations. "Consensual" conduct between guards and prisoners is an eggregious boundary violation.

It has little chance of being put into place because of political correctness run amok not because it wouldn't actually improve the conditions of women.

(12-23-2022, 04:32 PM)Vorpal Wrote: [ -> ]Improving leadership and training are worthy goals.  Teaching judgment is an ephemeral task.  Many people have skills but do not have the will to consistently use them.  A system of accountability would be great but the type of personality that might find security a pleasing career includes authoritarian sensibilities and an antisocial style.  Being "ratted" on 
will not be tolerated well.

Hence its quality the goal of any competent organization that makes use of force is to basically weed out those who are there "for the power trip". Sure, jobs that involve the use of force or the display of its trapping (AKA carrying a weapon and wearing a uniform) and amongst those people there is certainly a minority that has little scrupulosity and they might not appreciate being ratted out indeed and see it as a betrayal. That a good thing. With a good leadership, those people will either reform or quit the job for another one and thus sexual violence will diminish.

PS: I don't see how a job that involves working with people and operating constantly in teams within a well structured hierarchy would appeal to antisocial people though. Antisocial people usually prefer to be working alone and with little contact with others like in your stereotypical white collars office jobs in cubes.

Quote:I don't want to ban men outright. I want to reduce nonpublic actions between male guards and female prisoners.

Guards all have to interact with prisoners. That's the job of guards. If you have a guard that is never or almost never called to interact with a prisoner, that guard is basically useless and most likely doesn't exist, especially considering budgets for prisons being rather thin since it's not very politically popular to "invest" in prisoners and the growing number of private or semi-private prisons. Though, this last one is less of an issue since the study in the OP talks about federal prisons. 

Quote:I also aim to reduce puerile nature of routine acts of hygiene and security that absolutely will occur when heterosexual men process woman in an even by the book interaction.  Any man can be tempted over time in that setting.

As can anybody who has an adversarial relationship with someone, a sense of superiority and authority over them irrespective of gender or sexual orientation. Prisons are not like civilian society. Most rapists attack people of the gender they are attracted to in civilian society, but rapes are even more common in mono or almost mono gender environments like prisons (male or female) or the army despite the fact the overwhelming majority of people in such environment are not homosexual or bisexual. Youth is actually a big factor in both cases. Rapes are not acts or lust, desire or sexual frustration as much as acts of power and contempt. Without improving leadership and without granting more rights to prisoners, you will not reach your desired outcome by removing heterosexual men from prison jobs. Note that the study above also point out that senior and administration personnel have directly been involved and culpable of sexual assault too despite the fact these people are not interacting on a daily basis with prisoners.  

Quote:We are not just looking at outright assault, but a whole range of boundary violations. "Consensual" conduct between guards and prisoners is an eggregious boundary violation.

Actually yes. The research above only talks about sexual assault by male guards on female prisoners in federal prisons. It doesn't talk about all forms of sexual violence like female guards on female prisoners or prisoners against prisoners (an also important issue) or guards against other guards. It doesn't also talk about sexual misconducts. While all of these are problematic they are not within the purview of this study. Then again, most of these issues can be solved by improving leadership and granting more rights to prisoners. 

Quote:It has little chance of being put into place because of political correctness run amok not because it wouldn't actually improve the conditions of women.

If by "political correctness" you mean anti-discrimination laws that bans discrimination based on gender, than yes. I don't see how ignoring those would be of any help to women. In fact, they have tremendously improved women's lives and wellbeing. Since you are basically using a stereotype of "men are at high risk of raping women if you give them a chance for it without getting punished" to basically demand most men working in prison, irrespective of their own personal quality, to lose their job on the basis of "safety", you would create a dangerous precedent. 

For example, you could basically use the stereotype of "women are weaker, less aggressive and tough" and thus represent a safety risk in an environment filled with violent and dangerous people and where force and threat of force is of paramount importance to public safety; thus women should not be allowed to be prison guards irrespective of their personal quality. Now, neither men and women can guard prisoners ain't that a bitch.

Wholesale judgement on an entire population based on stereotypes or dubious statistical inferences are not a good idea. They never were and that's why we started to get rid of them over a century ago and keep on doing it now. They might be practical for armchair administrators who have no idea of what they are doing, but like to appeal or scientism, but they have produced extremely bad outcome in the past. Stereotypes and blanket judgement are only ever useful in completely unimportant endeavor, they are terrible as political tools or as moral insights.