All morning my thoughts were consumed by the barbaric acts in Abu Ghraib prison. As I walked down the main hallway at work, discussing the matter with a fellow Marine, a woman mopping the floor caught my attention. Carswell prison camp is located on the base where I’m stationed and the female inmates often perform the janitorial duties in the military facilities.
Suddenly, I recalled reading how seven employees from the prison had been convicted of sexual abuse in the past seven years. The last conviction had come this past February. I had been outraged over a social injustice in Iraq yet had never given a questioned whether women like this one might be undergoing the same forms of sexual torture. In asking, 'Who is my neighbor?" I included Iraqi prisoners but overlooked her.
We are justifiably outraged by the abuses occurring in Abu Ghraib. But what about the atrocities here in our own country? According to a recent article in Legal Affairs, the corrections industry estimates that there are 12,000 rapes per year, which exceeds the annual number of reported rapes in Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York combined.
First-time and non-violent offenders are often targeted by prison gangs for sexual servitude. Once an inmate is forced into sexually submissive role, becomes a 'punk", the gangs treat him as chattel. While prison guards turn a blind eye, the gangs uses these men as sexual slaves.
Although the majority of these inmates are eventually returned back into the general public, their sentence could turn into a 'death penalty." HIV, tuberculosis, and hepatitis C are up to 10 times more prevalent in correctional institutions than in the outside population. The repeated abuse these inmates receive makes it almost inevitable that they will be exposed to one of these fatal diseases.
In contrast, when women are raped or assaulted in prison, it is usually by correctional employees. According to Lara Stemple, executive director of Stop Prisoner Rape, in some prisons up to 27 percent of female inmates are sexually abused. This also leads to a shockingly high rate of prison pregnancy which merely compounds the problems for the prisoners.
A Wisconsin inmate named Jackie Noyes, for example, was impregnated by a prison guard overseeing her and ordered to serve nearly a year of solitary confinement. The only punishment the guard, Matthew Emery, received was the loss of his job. (The Wisconsin legislature was finally able to pass a law last summer making it a felony for prison and jail guards to have sex with inmates. The bill had been stalled for four years by the union that represented the prison guards.)
Progress toward solving this problem came last September when President Bush signed the Prison Rape Elimination Act into law. The law calls for the gathering of national statistics, the development of guidelines for states about how to address prisoner rape, the creation of a review panel to hold annual hearings, and the provision of grants to states to combat the problem. After decades of ignoring sexual torture and abuse, this law will no doubt have a revolutionary impact on the correctional system.
What is needed more than any legislation, though, is a change in attitude by the American public. While jokes about conventional rape are always considered in bad taste, humor about prison rape is common. Not long ago a 7-Up ad, which was eventually pulled from the air, portrayed a spokesman handing out 7-Up in prison. When he accidentally drops a can, he says, "I'm not picking that up." Later in the spot, the spokesman is sitting in a cell, being hugged by an inmate. "When you bring the 7-Up, everyone is your friend," he says nervously. "Okay, that's enough being friends," he adds as the cell door slams. The soda company implies what will happen next and expects us to find it humorous. The trivialization of sexual assault, though, is not a laughing matter.
The fact that so many Americans are appalled and angered by the abuses in an Iraqi prison speaks well of our nation. The funeral knell for the 'death of outrage" appears to be premature; our country still retains its sense of moral indignation. As we cast a light onto the injustices in Iraq, though, we shouldn’t let it blind us to our problems at home. We can’t look away from the sexual torture, assault, slavery, and abuse that is rampant in our own system. For, like the Iraqi prisoners, these too are our neighbors.
Update: Patrick Belton from Oxblog believes that neither mainstream media nor bloggers have given this issue the attention it deserves. I completely agree and am disappointed that the same furor over prison abuse in Iraq hasn't led to more introspection in our own country.
1
I don't know how we expect these people to be rehabilitated and return to society as law abiding citizens when this is what they go through in prison.
I'm certainly NOT for coddling prisoners, but this kind of systemic abuse is not acceptable.
posted on 05.05.2004 6:23 AM2
In fact, rape is so common and well-established in American prisons that the Attorney General of California (Bill Lockyer, Esq.) sneered that it would be a good thing if Ken Lay (of Enron infamy) were raped in prison - to wit: "I would love to personally escort Lay to an 8-by-10 cell that he could share with a tattooed dude who says, 'Hi, my name is Spike, honey.'" - starkly revealing the rehabilitative theories and social conscience of the hard left.
Naturally, he backpedaled from the statement.
posted on 05.05.2004 6:32 AM3
Well, George, it's easy to take one insensitive and ill-advised comment out of context and use it to smear a whole group of Americans. I could as easily use the hate speech of the "God hates fags" crowd to smear evangelicals and conservatives in general, but I love the truth too much to twist it in an attack upon people who I suspect are mostly as sincere and well-meaning as I am. Apparently you don't grant your ideological opponents, including me, the same assumption of good faith.
I don't know of any liberals who advocate homosexual rape as a means of reform, and the "social conscience" of the left is clear from its stand with regard to civil rights. I am astounded by the facility with which some people seize any opportunity to misrepresent the views of those with whom they disagree.
4
Something obviously has to be done. Solitary for -all- prisoners might be necessary. That doesn't mean sensory deprivation, but personal cells.
The Death penalty for rape (as commanded by God) might help, too.
posted on 05.05.2004 9:16 AM5
Great post Joe. The problem of prison rape has bothered me for years. As a Christian I believe the punishment must be commensurate with the crime - neither too harsh nor too lenient. I think it is a sign that something is wrong in our country that those in charge of the prisons choose to look the other way and that there is not a larger outcry about this. .
posted on 05.05.2004 9:25 AM6
when you put people in a situation like prison, which doesn't rehabilitate anyone, you create monsters. you can rea any number of ex-con books to see this is the case.
our system isn't about rehab, it is about the PR of punishment, old testament style. it is what the conservative, largely 'christian' public wants to feel safe at night. they think if someone is getting poked in prison, they aren't going to be doing it to them and theirs. kinda like a self-cleaning oven.
of, course, the end result is more crime and more criminals. but hey, it keeps the public feeling safe, so it must be right, right?
posted on 05.05.2004 11:16 AM7
it is about the PR of punishment, old testament style
I bet that's lots of fun for you to bash conservative Christians (love the scare quotes, btw) and mock the Old Testament all in a single blow. But you're wrong.
The Old Testament had roughly four punishments: death, fines and restitution, banishment, and beatings. There was no imprisonment. And in the case of beatings, they were limited to 39 stripes "so that your brother will not be degraded". The Old Testament, in the penal code, affirms the dignity even of criminals.
Our prison system used to be stricter and there was a very low recidivism rate. We have a more lenient system now, because we seem to be so terribly concerned about prisoners' rights and rehabilitation and all that. But in the process we've created a horrible place and a high recidivism rate.
Tocqueville came to America to study our prisons because they worked well. The things he found that worked well were: solitary confinement (private cells, as someone mentioned above, and not sensory deprivation), silence (the most lenient prison allowed the prisoners quiet conversation at meal time), and hard work. The prisons were generally orderly and _safe_ for the inmates and guards.
All that might seem cruel - denying felons cable tv and all - but which is crueler? A lax system (we could do anything but leave) that leads to violence and rape within the prison, and a high recidivism rate; or a strict system that is safe and effective?
posted on 05.05.2004 12:04 PM8
a strict system with individual cells would cost a lot more taxpayer money. it is already a multi-billion dollar burden on the taxpayer to house mostly non-violent drug offenders. we are winning the war on drug by the way.
we are concerned about prisoner's rights? cuz they get cable? who cares? where do you get this, do you have any evidence? it think is more like out of sight out of mind, out of society.
when tocqueville came to america has nothing to do with now. it is like saying there wasn't as much violent crime then.
posted on 05.05.2004 12:37 PM9
dicknbush:
I agree with your sentiment on the war on drugs.
If you haven't noticed the ever increasing 'rights' of prisoners, then you haven't been paying attention. Try this one: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/West/05/03/prison.tv.ap/
Comparisons to effective prison systems from years ago to completely ineffective prison systems now is very relevant! It demonstrates quite clearly the effect of 'liberalizing' our prison system.
And how come you responded to all of Robert's post except the part about bashing Christians and the Old Testament?
posted on 05.05.2004 12:49 PM10
Prisons can't rehabilitate, their not supposed to. They serve to protect society from criminals. Do we create monsters in the prisons? At worst, prisons can only perpetuate a deprived mind, not create one, since it takes a deprived mind to murder, steel, and rape
posted on 05.05.2004 1:06 PM11
"At worst, prisons can only perpetuate a deprived mind, not create one, since it takes a deprived mind to murder, steel, and rape"
I doan't knoa abote thet. Sum people wit "deprived" minds haff lernt to rite and spel gud in prison skool. If the perrson can rite and spel gud maybee he can fine a job and he woan haff to steel.
posted on 05.05.2004 3:11 PM12
Rob,
First, I'd like to comment on your errors...
If you have read the same Bible I have, you know God doesn't "hate" gays. God loves gays, and, indeed, all sinners. However, sodomy is a sin. It's not the only one, but it is one. Now I note you didn't cite a source for the "God hates fags." quote. Does that mean you don't have one? If not, "I am astounded by the facility with which some people seize any opportunity to misrepresent the views of those with whom they disagree." If you do, I'd personally like to know who said it, because such a statement itself would smear Christians in general, evangelical Christians, and orthodox Jews (as well as Muslims, but Shar'ia is not on-topic).
Second, I said nothing about liberals. If you re-read my post, I was referring to the hard left. As with the right, there are degrees of orthodoxy and extremism on the left. The MoveOn website is brimming with hate speech as are many of the lefty weblogs.
With regard to civil rights, let's not forget the Congressional vote counts for the Civil Rights Act. Do you happen to recall the comparative voting records of the Democrats and Republicans on that Act, or any of the individual votes (e.g., Senator Gore)?
But back on topic... AG Lockyer's comment was not only hate speech, but illustrates his personal view of the conditions within the California penal system. I don't think he's an evangelical Christian. I think he's a Democrat. And I did not "misrepresent" his views.
posted on 05.05.2004 3:55 PM13
George,
I do not want to derail the thread here but are you saying that you have never seen a self-proclaimed Christian (or group of Christians for that matter) carrying a sign that says "God Hates Fags" ??? If so, then ... what planet do you live on? because it would be a nicer place to live than this one.
posted on 05.05.2004 5:34 PM14
Oh, one quick thing,
"AG Lockyer's comment was not only hate speech"
I am not aware of any legal definition of hate speech that would include Lockyer's comment within its scope. How do you figure Lockyer's comment to be hate speech?
posted on 05.05.2004 5:36 PM15
George, I think we can clear this up rather easily. I will attempt to be as methodical as you as I address my error and what you perceive to be errors.
By "the 'God hates fags' crowd" I referred to the operators of godhatesfags.com and their constituents. These folks are conservative Christians, but, like I wrote, I wouldn't characterize them as representing Christians or conservatives in general. I love Christians. My parents are Christians (and conservatives). I won't sully this site with any examples of the aforementioned website's hate speech. You may judge by its name or check the site out yourself. It is reprehensible. Being an atheist myself, I have no opinion about what God thinks about homosexuals or anyone else.
On your second point, I must acknowledge error on my part. The "hard left" doesn't represent liberals in general any more than the "hard right" represents conservatives. I don't always know what people mean by "the hard left". The term dribbles out of Bill O'Reilly's mouth when he criticizes even moderately liberal positions.
As for your final point, I think we both know how the positions of the parties have changed relative to one another since the early 1960's. I'm talking about NOW, not 40 years ago.
But back on the topic... Lockyer's comment was despicable, but I hardly think he meant it anymore than the Senator or Congressman (I forget his name, but a Google search of the quote turned up no fewer than four OTHER public personages who uttered a variant of this faux pas) who remarked some years back that "If rape is inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it." Or the fellow who called Daniel Inouye a "fat Jap." You took an off-the-cuff statement and used it to represent the "rehabilitative theories and social conscience of the hard left." I think that is disingenuous. The quote could have come from an angry man of any political leaning.
I apologize for misrepresenting your post. I hope you will attribute it to carelessness rather than malice.
posted on 05.05.2004 5:49 PM16
Robert said,
"The Old Testament had roughly four punishments: death, fines and restitution, banishment, and beatings. There was no imprisonment. "
So when did they start imprisoning people? John the Baptist was imprisoned, as I recall.
"Our prison system used to be stricter and there was a very low recidivism rate."
Really? Where did you find this information? I've never heard of these low recidivism rates. Did the low rates apply to all crimes? When was "used to be"? The 1920s? The 1820?
"We have a more lenient system now, because we seem to be so terribly concerned about prisoners' rights and rehabilitation and all that."
What do you mean by "all that"? And how can you separate the effect of prisons on recidivism rates over (what period of time? you don't say) from all the other changes that have taken in place in society?
Are recidivism rates significantly lower in the South? I know that until very recently some prisons in the South were run very poorly (temperatures climbing to 100+ degrees, poor ventilation, etc). If your theory is true, I would expect the South to have the lowest recidivism rates in the United States.
posted on 05.05.2004 5:49 PM17
Mark,
The penalties that God gave are the ones that were described. A half-Arab puppet king is who imprisoned John the Baptist.
18
Robert said,
"The Old Testament had roughly four punishments: death, fines and restitution, banishment, and beatings. There was no imprisonment. "
It isn't discussed in the written Torah, but it is discussed in the oral Torah. See the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin for discussions about who is imprisoned, for what crimes, for how long and how they are treated. There are cases where the court would use imprisonment either as a punishment or a behavior modification technique.
posted on 05.06.2004 10:12 AM19
micheal,
over hlaf the prison population since the war and drugs strated are non-vilent drug offenders. hwo is locking these people up, turning them into animals, helping society?
posted on 05.07.2004 10:10 AM20
Two days later and no reply from Robert.
Why am I not suprised?
posted on 05.07.2004 4:02 PM21
Sorry for not replying quickly enough for you, Mark. I didn't realize I owed you one. I don't read this blog as often as I should and I haven't been online much at all this week for personal reasons. Don't hold your breath for future responses either, as my third son will be delivered in less than a week.
The lower recidivism rate that I referred to was when Tocqueville came to study our prisons for precisely that reason. Not all prisons were equally effective; the Auburn model seemed to work well. It included private cells and required silence, but allowed the inmates to eat and work together. The prisons which had strict solitary confinement, where prisoners did not interact at all, were miserable failures. Charles Dickens wrote about this as well. I think this was in the 1820s or 1830s.
It's pretty much impossible to control for multiple variables. I can't prove that one model of prison will always decrease crime or recidivism.
I do not want prisons to be hellish. I want them to be strict, not harsh. Nothing is served by making prisoners miserable (e.g., no air conditioning). Prisoners are made in the image of God and deserve dignity.
I think it's fairly obvious that the system we have now is broken, as prison is a hellish place. It's largely made that way by the prisoners. The system permits the development of gangs, permits violence, permits rape, corruption, etc. If we're going to lock people up we need to keep them safe! We want prison to make criminals better, or at a minimum, not worse. And right now it does the opposite.
over hlaf the prison population since the war and drugs strated are non-vilent drug offenders
Only a fifth of the prison population is there for drug offenses. Half are there for violent crimes.
(Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm)
hwo is locking these people up, turning them into animals, helping society
Locking them up may be helping society. Turning them into animals is most definitely not. Is it really so crazy to suggest that we figure out what turns them into animals (excessive interaction among prisoners) and put a stop to it?
Do we really think that sending criminals to hang out with criminals is the best idea to rehabilitate them?
posted on 05.08.2004 1:23 AM22
Robert,
Unfortunately, you've still not provided any evidence to support your position that the "laxness" of our current prison system (elsewhere described by you as a "hellish" place) leads to increased recidivism.
Nor have you provided any data relating to the "low recidivism rates" which you allege that Tocqueville "observed."
How did Tocqueville make his observations? How were Tocqueville's studies conducted during his "visit"
You also asked,
"Do we really think that sending criminals to hang out with criminals is the best idea to rehabilitate them?"
Does ANYONE believe that hanging out with criminals is the best way to rehabilitate someone? I'm not sure where you're coming from here (or where you are going)?
If you advocate a ban on talking in prison, just say so.
posted on 05.10.2004 1:02 PM23
Puzzled says,
"The Death penalty for rape (as commanded by God) might help, too."
But let's not forget the death penalty for cursing one's parents and for manslaughter by negligent attention to one's animal, also commanded by God. More death sentences = a better world for you and me! It is written.
posted on 05.10.2004 1:38 PM24
Mark V.,
Why do you expect Robert to do your homework for you? Information on Tocqueville's study is readily available on the internet. Try using Google.
Here's a head start for you:
http://www.correctionhistory.org/tocqueville/
It took less than 30 seconds to find and was an interesting read.
Also, you said "I know that until very recently some prisons in the South were run very poorly (temperatures climbing to 100+ degrees, poor ventilation, etc)."
Where is your support for this information that you "know"? How recently? Which prisons? You are just as guilty of not providing sources as he is. Pot, kettle, black...
posted on 05.10.2004 3:18 PM25
Julio,
"But let's not forget the death penalty for cursing one's parents and for manslaughter by negligent attention to one's animal, also commanded by God."
Please provide your references for these penalties.
posted on 05.10.2004 3:20 PM26
David,
Where are the recidivism rates on the web page you linked to? And, if you can actually find them there (which I doubt) let me know how Mr. de Tocqueville calculated the rates.
You also wrote:
"Also, you said "I know that until very recently some prisons in the South were run very poorly (temperatures climbing to 100+ degrees, poor ventilation, etc). Where is your support for this information that you "know"? How recently? Which prisons?"
I had no idea that anyone who can read or watch TV and who has lived in the United States more than five years could possibly doubt the accuracy of my statement. Here's just one cite for you, David. Google search "southern prison temperature" if you need more.
http://search.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/08/31/p1s3.htm
"You are just as guilty of not providing sources as he is. Pot, kettle, black..."
Not really. I'm not relying on uninterpretable and probably meaningless 200 year old data (which may or may not exist) to make my point.
"Please provide your references for these penalties [death penalty for cursing one's parents and for manslaughter by negligent attention to one's animal]"
See Exodus 21:17 and Exodus 21:29.
You can now commence kissing my virtual ass.
Your welcome.
posted on 05.10.2004 4:04 PM