Hick's Tale

[loCAtek]

Gracias, you're agreeing with me AndrewD.

The general stats are for the over-all prison population, and the specific minimum security level of 'rape' incidences have not been isolated.

Therefore: your hypothetical, felony burglar does not indicate a typical serial prison rape victim, according to the available data, as it is too vague.


I do not obfuscate; since the jury is out on the prevalence of 'prison rape', at ALL levels of incarceration.


...and yet, you (AndrewD) refuse to read PrisonTalk, sad.

[oldr_n_wsr]

too many big words so early in the morning

[loCAtek]

FYI what I base my assertions on:

The following are real life convictions, that received minimum level sentencing in CA, in fact less than what AndrewD is claiming his suspect would receive for his charges-

Possession of drugs with intent to sell (marijuana, cocaine, crack)

Possession of drugs with intent to sell (marijuana, cocaine, crack) and weapons possession

Possession and manufacture of drugs with intent to sell (crack); child endangerment and resisting arrest.

Grand theft auto

Domestic violence

Domestic violence and assault (he beat up she and her lover)




...that's what I can recall right now.

[Andrew D]

Gracias, you're agreeing with me AndrewD.

Only in your wildest imaginings.

You said that "in CA, anyone receiving a five year or less sentence will receive a minimum security level classification." That turned out to be false. In truth, California's inmate classification system involves numerous factors other than length of sentence.

So your insistence on statistics about sexual abuse in minimum-security facilities is predicated on nothing. The hypothetical burglar/thief might not be incarcerated in a minimum-security facility.

And yes, I have read what you linked. None of it sheds any light on the matter in question.

No one that I know of has ever disputed that masturbation occurs in prison (Duh) and is more common than is sexual abuse. No one that I know of has ever disputed that consensual sex between inmates occurs (Duh) or that sex between inmates and corrections officers occurs (Duh). (Calling sex between inmates and corrections officers "consensual" is dubious; when the guy who is in control of whether you get protected from other inmates or get victimized by other inmates says "how about you suck my cock," your answer might well not be an instance of free consent.)

The evidence shows, as the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission has stated, that "sexual abuse of prisoners is widespread ...." Nothing in what you have said or what you have linked demonstrates otherwise.

Indeed, had you bothered to follow your own links -- not that anyone around here should expect you actually to have read the sources that you cite -- you would have found this from Just Detention International:

Sexual abuse behind bars is a widespread human rights crisis in prisons and jails across the U.S. According to the best available research, 20 percent of inmates in men’s prisons are sexually abused at some point during their incarceration.

(Footnote omitted.)

You also would have encountered this:

Unfortunately, the data provided by the BJS [in the study I described above, which you have evidently chosen to ignore] still represent only a fraction of the true number of detainees who are victimized, especially of those held in county jails. The number of admissions to local jails over the course of a year is approximately 17 times higher than the nation’s jail population on any given day, so the BJS surveyors were able to cover only a very small proportion of jail detainees over an entire year.

These statistics expose a serious, systemic failure to protect the basic human rights of inmates. Survivors can be abused relentlessly, sometimes for long periods of time, and marked as fair game for attacks by other detainees. In some cases, prisoners are treated like the perpetrators’ property and sold within the facility. In prisons and jails throughout the country, simple preventive measures are rarely taken, and reports of rape are often ignored. In the worst facilities, corrections officials facilitate or participate in sexual violence, respond to inmates’ cries for help with laughter or derision, and grant perpetrators impunity.

(Footnotes omitted.)

Even assuming that sexual abuse is less common in minimum-security than in maximum-security facilities -- and assumption which (as I have said) is reasonable but still lacks empirical support -- the fact remains that small inmates are more likely to be abused than are large inmates. Those less capable of defending themselves are more vulnerable than are those more capable of defending themselves.

Only someone hell-bent on ignoring reality would claim otherwise. It's like denying that schoolyard bullies are more likely to pick on small, nerdy kids than to pick on big, muscly kids. It's ridiculous, and we all know it. The someone hell-bent on ignoring reality is you.

All of the evidence points to one unsurprising conclusion: A small person who is incarcerated faces a substantial likelihood of being sexually abused.

You're the only one denying that, and the "evidence" you cite does not support your position.

You are manifesting an all too common problem: You start with the conclusion that you want, and then you try to retrofit the evidence to support that conclusion. You should consider starting with the evidence and letting it lead you to a conclusion. That way, you might make some sort of sense.

[Andrew D]

In a shocking -- well, no, actually not even slightly surprising -- development, loCAtek has birthed yet another posting that tells us nothing about the likelihood that small guys will be sexually abused while incarcerated. Whoda thunk it?

[loCAtek]

Ugh, I have never denied sexual abuse up to and including rape is prevalent in maximum security prisons: Where violent convicts continue to exact violence, which necessitates the highest levels of containment, monitoring and correctional officer ratio.

However, my point was that: not ALL convicts require maximum security, and not ALL are subjected to such conditions that MIGHT subject them to rape. Be it repeatedly, or in a single isolated incident.
The available facts and data, do not support that conclusion.

Furthermore; the lower the level of inmate containment security necessary: the lower the prevalence of inmate violence against inmate; particularly sexual.

That hypothesis is supported by extensive testimony.

[Your suggested scenario of a non-violent burglar fits logically into the lower minimum security system.]

I await the established scientific data that supports the theory that ALL small, white convicts, regardless of security level and sentencing length, are subject to extensive sexual assault, universally understood as 'rape'.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I await the established scientific data that supports the theory that ALL small, white convicts, regardless of security level and sentencing length, are subject to extensive sexual assault, universally understood as 'rape'.

As someone who has been in jail (never raped) I have been reading this thread with interest. I don't remember anywhere anyone saying the above bolded portion. emphesis on "ALL"

[loCAtek]

OnW My bad, I made a hyperbole. The claim was 'probably' as in;

he'll probably get raped at least a hundred times.

...in a manner that suggested small, white, incarcerated men at any security level were 'probably', meaning more likely than not, going to be sexually violated.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Works for me.
Of course the "weaker" are always going to be "preyed" upon more than the stronger. Be it in nature, on the streets or in prison (high security and/or low security).