Hick's Tale

[Gob]

I awoke on a concrete slab with the sun in my face. I looked around and saw that I was in a cage made out of cyclone fencing, the same as the boundary fence around my old primary school. Internal fences divided the cage into ten enclosures, and I was in one of the corner-end cells. Around me, I saw five other concrete slabs with what looked like bird cages constructed on top. A fence covered in green shadecloth and topped with rolls of razor wire was wrapped around these six concrete slabs, able to house sixty unfortunate human beings. Hanging on the inside of this fence were signs saying, ''If you attempt escape, you will be shot'', complete with a featureless person with a target for a head.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/a-haze-o ... 16nil.html

[Andrew D]

Salutary as this reminder is of how the US has treated people whom it has imprisoned -- the unclouded eye is better, no matter what it sees -- it seems to me rather to miss the point.

It's not so much that Americans don't know what their government has been doing in their name (although not a great many Americans keep up with that sort of thing), it's that most Americans just don't care.

Set aside people alleged (largely on the basis of secret "evidence" which the public is not allowed to see; we're just supposed to take the government's word for it; sit down and shut up!) to be terrorists. Consider garden-variety criminals. (Every society has them.)

Consider a guy who is convicted of burglary and theft. He broke into some people's house in the middle of the night and stole some stuff. He waited until there was no one there (and he was correct; no one was there), because he didn't want to get busted, but he got busted anyway. He never intended to do anyone any harm, and he didn't harm or even threaten to harm anyone.

He's not too bright, so now he's doing, say three to five in the State penitentiary. Nothing particularly unusual about that.

But he's a skinny little guy. That's why he gravitated toward stealing stuff from people's houses when they're not home: He's not a big, muscly guy; he's the kind of guy who can fit through pet doors and small windows and such.

Now he's in prison. If he does three years -- more than thousand days and nights -- he'll probably get raped at least a hundred times. And he'll probably be subjected to what the law calls "forcible oral copulation" -- in plain English, he'll be forced to suck cock -- more times than that.

Very few Americans would say that that is what he deserves. Yes, he's a criminal. Yes, he deserves to be punished. But forced to suck cock three days a week and ass-raped once a week (and that's if he's relatively lucky)?*

You won't find many Americans who will come right out and say that that is what he deserves. And you won't find many Americans disputing that that is what he has to look forward to for his three years.

But you will find hundreds of millions of Americans who just don't care. Not that they don't care what happens to him, when what happens to him is brought to their attention. On the contrary, bring the facts to light, and you will see a lot of outrage.

It's their attention that is the crucial factor: Most Americans don't know what goes on in ordinary prisons, because they don't want to know. It's much easier to stop thinking about someone as soon as he is sent to prison than it is to bother oneself about what happens to him in prison.

Out of sight, out of mind.

We've had a lot of discussions here about juries' being told the truth. Complaints about the exclusionary rule, about records' being sealed, about the inadmissibility of evidence of alleged but unproved other crimes, and so forth.

How about juries' being told the truth about prison? How about juries' being told "If you vote to convict this guy of this crime, he will be raped a hundred times"?

All of you who complain about how the "truth" is being kept from juries, think about that truth.

-------------------------

* And people wonder why there's so much gang activity in prison. When the only options are (1) join some sort of gang or (2) be everybody's bitch, isn't the answer a no-brainer?

[loCAtek]

...Except that for that conviction, he'd probably be in a minimum security prison or jail for non-violent offenders, and not a life-time maximum security prison where the majority of 'rapes' take place.

[Andrew D]

You really think that inmates in "minimum security" facilities are not raped?

Or are you just here on a periodic orbit?

Or both?

[rubato]

You really think that inmates in "minimum security" facilities are not raped?

Or are you just here on a periodic orbit?

Or both?

I don't see the statement "inmates in "minimum security" facilities are not raped?" anywhere in this post:


"...Except that for that conviction, he'd probably be in a minimum security prison or jail for non-violent offenders, and not a life-time maximum security prison where the majority of 'rapes' take place. "

Can you show us where you found it?

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

Perhaps out in the electronic fermament [sic] there is some brave soul who will undertake to underline the obvious for you.

[loCAtek]

Well, speaking to a few folks who've been there, on average, the conditions are no where near as harsh as Hollywierd suggests. (At least in CA and NM)
The largest complaint is that it's so boring.


Prison rape is practically non-existent in minimum security federal prisons.

However, consensual sex does exist, most interesting- check out page 43.

[Andrew D]

Before citing something as authority for some proposition, one might do well to ascertain whether the authority actually stands for that proposition.

Fleisher and Krienert? Some people have been fooled into thinking that they tell us something about how much rape goes on in prisons.

But they don't even claim to be telling us how much rape goes on in prisons. In fact, they forthrightly say exactly the opposite:

You may read our book dozens of times and examine each table and figure and you won't find estimates of the prevalence of prison rape.

(Page xv; emphasis added.)

They do admit that they "can share first-person tales about prison rape that would make the hair on your neck stand up." (Page 2.) But they are also quite candid in telling us that

You may read our book dozens of times and examine each table and figure and you won't find estimates of the prevalence of prison rape. ... Our job was to make cultural and symbolic sense of what inmates said, using their words.

(Page xv.)

Making "cultural and symbolic sense" of what inmates say may well be a useful endeavor. But it doesn't address how much rape happens in prisons. And the authors flat-out say that they don't even make "estimates of the prevalence of prison rape."

So if we're going to get into a dispute about the prevalence of prison rape, how about we start by not purporting to rely on articles by people who tell us straight up that those articles don't even claim to estimate how prevalent prison rape might be?

(P.S.: "check out page 43"? I'd love to. But the provided link takes me to excerpts of the article that skip from page 34 to page 72. Maybe page 43 is somewhere near aphelion ....)

[loCAtek]

This may be a better link;

http://books.google.com/books?id=RAThyD ... &q&f=false

I was trying to provide statistics rather than rely on anecdotal evidence, but there are definitely degrees of imprisonment in this country. One size does not fit all.

The prison types; http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/

When you see inmates in orange jumpsuits on the side of the road, picking up trash; they are incarcerated in the 'minimum security' system. The Supermaxed don't get to do such service. (chain gangs aside)
Some 'Campers' even get internet access.

[loCAtek]

Now, this is turning out to be a tough research project (thX )

The problem is with isolating the statistics for sexual violence, only within the minimum security camps. The figures are all general for the prison population as a whole.

However, I am finding more anecdotal evidence of specific prison experiences at PrisonTalk.com from convicts and their families. The opinion that minimum security prison camps are much less violent, is widely held. The negative accounts are all at Max security facilities. The levels of 'rape' can vary from Supermax prison to prison as well,

Prison Talk Research Assistant 'Seattle118' posts;

Seattle118

I just read "Newjack" written in 2000 by a well respected journalist (pulitzer prize finalist Ted Conover) who went undercover and served as a CO at Sing Sing in NY for a year.

Here are the types of prison sex based on his experience, research and talking to inmates about it, in order of occurance:

Autoeroticism (mastrubation)
Consensual between inmates
Consensual sex between female COs and inmates
Consensual sex (mostly oral of inmate on CO) between male COs and inmates. The author personally got the offer in the first year of work)
Rape

He stated that the incidence of consensual sex was more common in prison than rape. He made a good "argument" that although forcible rape happens in NY prisons, the "white guys get raped in prison " is a rare occurance that is prepetuated by Hollywood.... I can't cite all his stats, but check out the book on page 262 - 263.

To sum up. He spoke to longtime inmates who think the whole punk-protector system is a thing of the past and that forcible rape is on the decline mostly because in the 1970's the court began to show willingness of the courts to hear inmates' lawsuits against the states. that forced states to have to make the protection of the vulnerable prisoners a high priority. Protective custody is now a big deal. Inmates who ask for protection but fail to get it can make expensive claims.

Prison rape is down also because of the decline of the "con code of ethics"...under that code, a victim would never speak up, because that would in essence be ratting out a fellow inmate. Now, with recourse available, victims are more likely to speak up, so prepetrators more likely to be punished.

An EXCELLENT read. My pp shares so much of his prison experience with me from gangs to SHU to Psyche ward, etc. (I can confirm Conovers's description of what happens in the visiting rooms based on my VR experience and what you all tell me here on PTO *smile* ) In addition to national acclaim for his book, my limited ablility to check the reality he presents... everything rings true... plus he writes from the CO perspective - the effect of being the person who imprisons others and the other stresses COs experience... I highly recommend the whole book.
__________________

[rubato]

You really think that inmates in "minimum security" facilities are not raped?

Or are you just here on a periodic orbit?

Or both?

I don't see the statement "inmates in "minimum security" facilities are not raped?" anywhere in this post:


"...Except that for that conviction, he'd probably be in a minimum security prison or jail for non-violent offenders, and not a life-time maximum security prison where the majority of 'rapes' take place. "

Can you show us where you found it?

yrs,
rubato

still waiting. But are we waiting for you to prove that you care about the truth? Time will tell.



yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

I don't have a lot of time to spend in "Oh, Lord, let's try to bring the dullard up to speed mode," so I'll make this short.

I pointed out what everyone knows: small guys in prison get raped a lot.

loCAtek said that a guy convicted of burglary would "probably be in a minimum security prison or jail for non-violent offenders, and not a life-time maximum security prison where the majority of 'rapes' take place".

She did not adduce any evidence to show that people convicted of burglary end up only in minimum-security facilities. Even if that is true of some of them, we have seen no evidence showing that it is true of all of them. Burglary is generally classified as an "inherently dangerous felony". The recent trend among courts is to take a more fact-specific approach, but that remains the general rule. And juries are not told what facilities the convicted will end up in.

I assumed that she intended to make a substantive point. (That's probably where I lost rubato.)

If all she meant was that rape in minimum-security facilities is less common than is rape in maximum-security facilities, so what?

Change "a hundred times" to "a dozen times". Change "once a week" to "once a month". So what?

The fact remains that whenever the prosecuting authorities ask a jury to sentence a small guy to prison, they are asking the jury to sentence him to repeated rape.

If loCAtek had a substantive point to make, it could only have been that being sentenced to incarceration in a minimum-security facility -- and again, juries do not decide, nor are they even told, what facilities the convicted will end up in -- means not being raped. That is false.

Everyone here except rubato readily grasped that the point is that being sentenced to prison means, unless one is either big and strong and dangerous or associated with some group that can provide protection, being raped.

Actually, rubato also easily grasped that fact. He is just more interested in mental masturbation than in what matters. And no one is surprised. His "we" is exactly that -- his.

Get a clue, rubato: Stick to the simple sciences. Complex realities are way out of your league.

[loCAtek]

You didn't read any of the Prison Talk links did you?

[loCAtek]

I pointed out what everyone knows: small guys in prison get raped a lot.

"We" know this how? Show your work. Watching Oz on HBO doesn't count.

loCAtek said that a guy convicted of burglary would "probably be in a minimum security prison or jail for non-violent offenders, and not a life-time maximum security prison where the majority of 'rapes' take place".

She did not adduce any evidence to show that people convicted of burglary end up only in minimum-security facilities.

Hmmm, you stipulated he received a three to five year sentence. I assumed you knew that in CA, anyone receiving a five year or less sentence will receive a minimum security level classification. I'll assume you're ignorant of the penal system from here on out.

[rubato]

I don't have a lot of time to spend in "Oh, Lord, let's try to bring the dullard up to speed mode," so I'll make this short.

I pointed out what everyone knows: small guys in prison get raped a lot.

loCAtek said that a guy convicted of burglary would "probably be in a minimum security prison or jail for non-violent offenders, and not a life-time maximum security prison where the majority of 'rapes' take place".

She did not adduce any evidence to show that people convicted of burglary end up only in minimum-security facilities. Even if that is true of some of them, we have seen no evidence showing that it is true of all of them. Burglary is generally classified as an "inherently dangerous felony". The recent trend among courts is to take a more fact-specific approach, but that remains the general rule. And juries are not told what facilities the convicted will end up in.

I assumed that she intended to make a substantive point. (That's probably where I lost rubato.)

If all she meant was that rape in minimum-security facilities is less common than is rape in maximum-security facilities, so what?

Change "a hundred times" to "a dozen times". Change "once a week" to "once a month". So what?

The fact remains that whenever the prosecuting authorities ask a jury to sentence a small guy to prison, they are asking the jury to sentence him to repeated rape.

If loCAtek had a substantive point to make, it could only have been that being sentenced to incarceration in a minimum-security facility -- and again, juries do not decide, nor are they even told, what facilities the convicted will end up in -- means not being raped. That is false.

Everyone here except rubato readily grasped that the point is that being sentenced to prison means, unless one is either big and strong and dangerous or associated with some group that can provide protection, being raped.

Actually, rubato also easily grasped that fact. He is just more interested in mental masturbation than in what matters. And no one is surprised. His "we" is exactly that -- his.

Get a clue, rubato: Stick to the simple sciences. Complex realities are way out of your league.

A long-winded lie.

Locatek did not say what you charged her with. You have a chronic problem with lying about other's posts so you can respond with hatred and spew.

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

loCAtek said that a guy convicted of burglary would "probably be in a minimum security prison or jail for non-violent offenders, and not a life-time maximum security prison where the majority of 'rapes' take place".

She did not adduce any evidence to show that people convicted of burglary end up only in minimum-security facilities.

Hmmm, you stipulated he received a three to five year sentence. I assumed you knew that in CA, anyone receiving a five year or less sentence will receive a minimum security level classification. I'll assume you're ignorant of the penal system from here on out.

Actually, California's inmate classification system involves numerous factors besides length of sentence. I assume that, once again, you have barfed up a tidbit of misinformation from some source that you didn't even bother to read.

[Andrew D]

Unsurprisingly, rubato is full of shit.

I asked loCAtek whether she "really think that inmates in 'minimum security' facilities are not raped". The point of that rhetorical question, which she evidently understood, even though rubato evidently did not, was that even if rape is more likely in maximum-security prisons than in minimum-security prisons, rape in the latter still does occur.

Unlike rubato, loCAtek evidently grasped that point, because she responded by citing an article which, she claimed, showed that "Prison rape is practically non-existent in minimum security federal prisons". (The article actually showed no such thing; indeed, its authors explicitly disavowed making any showing at all about the prevalence of prison rape.)

Notably, loCAtek did not accuse me of saying that she had claimed that inmates in minimum-security facilities are not raped. She knew perfectly well that I was not saying that she had made that claim: Unlike rubato, I was perfectly capable of grasping that when she referred to a "a maximum security prison where the majority of 'rapes' take place" -- why she chose to place "rapes" in quotation marks is not clear; does she think that those assaults are not rapes? -- she was acknowledging that some rapes do occur in minimum-security prisons.

Again, the point of my rhetorical question -- a point which appears to have eluded only rubato -- was that when prosecutors ask jurors to send people to prison, the prosecutors do not tell the jurors (and they object like mad if the defense attempts to tell the jurors) what they jurors are actually sentencing people to.

That point stands unrefuted.

And rubato stands ... well, no, he doesn't stand at all.

[loCAtek]

Actually, California's inmate classification system involves numerous factors besides length of sentence.

Granted, however you also stipulated it was a non-violent crime of burglary. Felony burglary can be determined by the monetary value stolen, not necessarily the degree of violence (or lack of) in the execution of the crime, therefore what you described is still a minimum security classification. This is why you have CE0 extortionists in 'Country Club' prisons.
The convict is non-violent, and being the vast majority of 'Campers' are compliant, non-violent, inmates, you can logically assume they are much less likely to sexually assault each other. Which is in fact the case.

However, you claimed;

I pointed out what everyone knows: small guys in prison get raped a lot.

I politely repeat: "We" know this how? Show your work. Watching Oz on HBO doesn't count.

Please show you read the Prison Talk links provided, and that you're trying to remedy your ignorance of the penal system.

[Andrew D]

My ignorance of the penal system? You can't even make up your own mind about how you think inmate classification works.

First it was (your words) "anyone receiving a five year or less sentence will receive a minimum security level classification." Then it was "Granted" (your word) that "California's inmate classification system involves numerous factors besides length of sentence" (my words). But somehow, without any discussion of those numerous factors, it was (your words) "still a minimum security classification."

Inmate classification also takes into account age, criminal history, physical size, and other things. I suppose that you'll find some way to claim that our hypothetical burglar/thief will end up a minimum-security facility, because that's the conclusion you want. And whether cogent reasoning actually leads to the conclusion, well, who cares? You certainly don't.

-------------------------

As to rape, estimates of prevalence vary considerably, just as do estimates of the frequency of rape in the non-incarcerated population. Human Rights Watch has pointed out:

Indeed, the most recent academic studies of the issue have found shockingly high rates of sexual abuse, including forced oral and anal intercourse. In December 2000, the Prison Journal published a study based on a survey of inmates in seven men's prison facilities in four states. The results showed that 21 percent of the inmates had experienced at least one episode of pressured or forced sexual contact since being incarcerated, and at least 7 percent had been raped in their facility. A 1996 study of the Nebraska prison system produced similar findings, with 22 percent of male inmates reporting that they had been pressured or forced to have sexual contact against their will while incarcerated. Of these, over 50 percent had submitted to forced anal sex at least once. Extrapolating these findings to the national level gives a total of at least 140,000 inmates who have been raped.

insideprison.com has reported:

A study of four Midwestern states in 2000 found that about 1 in 5 inmates experiences some form of pressured or coerced sexual conduct while incarcerated (Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 2000). According to Stephen Donaldson, the president of the organization Stop Prisoner Rape and previous inmate victim of prison rape, roughly 300,000 inmates are sexually abused each year (Donaldson 1995).

The National Prison Rape Elimination Commission has observed that "sexual abuse of prisoners is widespread ...." It has also noted:

The first study specifically of prevalence -- examining abuse in the Philadelphia jail system -- was published in 1968. The most rigorous research produced since then -- mainly of sexual abuse among incarcerated men -- has yielded prevalence rates in the mid-to-high teens, but none of these are national studies.

Pursuant to the Prison Rape Elimination Act, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has conducted a national study of the prevalence of sexual abuse in prisons and jails. The NPREC candidly acknowledges that that study "may not capture the full extent of the problem ...."

As reported by the NPREC, that study concludes that "Four-and-a-half percent of [63,817] prisoners surveyed reported experiencing sexual abuse one or more times during the twelve months preceding the survey or over their term of incarceration if they had been confined in that facility for less than twelve months. Extrapolated to the national prison population, an estimated 60,500 State and Federal prisoners were sexually abused during that 12-month period."

It further concludes that "The rate of sexual abuse in jails appears to be slightly lower: 3.2% of inmates surveyed reported that they had been sexually abused at least once during the prior six months or since they had been confined in that facility."

Notice the phrases "one or more times" and "at least once". The study concludes that 60,500 prisoners were sexually abused, but it does not conclude that only 60,500 incidences of abuse occurred. On the contrary, if a prisoner was raped once, that counts as 1 out of the 60,500; and if a prisoner was raped many, many times, that also counts as 1 out of the 60,500.

Notice also the 12-month period in the portion of the study pertaining to prisons and the 6-month period in the portion pertaining to jails. A person who is incarcerated for longer than 12 or 6 months, respectively, has (unless something really bizarre is going on with the numbers) an even higher chance of being sexually abused while incarcerated.

And there is another significant pair of findings: In prisons, "More prisoners reported abuse by staff than abuse by other prisoners: 2.9 percent of respondents compared with about 2 percent." And in jails, "Again, reports of abuse by staff were more common than reports of abuse by other incarcerated persons: 2 percent of respondents compared with 1.6 percent."

How fucked up is that? You're more likely to be sexually abused by the people who are supposed to be protecting you from the other inmates than you are to be sexually abused by the other inmates.

As to my point that small guys are more likely to be sexually abused than are big, strong guys, well, it should be immediately obvious that those less capable of defending themselves are more vulnerable than are those more capable of defending themselves. How can anyone even dispute that, except as a way of hiding from the self-evident truth?

Even so, the NPREC confirms it: The small are more likely than the prison population as a whole to be sexually abused. (See Section I.3. "Unequal Risk: Vulnerability and Victimization" (pp. 68-81), esp. the subsection "Young, Small, and Naive (pp. 70-71).)

And insideprison.com agrees:

According to Daniel Lockwood (1978), there are "aggressors" for prison sexual assault, and there are "targets," otherwise known as "Fags" (natural homosexuals), "Queens" (flaunting transsexual), "Kids" (submissive, young sex-slaves), or "Punks" (resistant males that put up a fight at first but who eventually submits). Target-prisoners are "physically slight, young, white," .... ... Physical appearance is essential in determining the target of a rape, as it is often used as a yardstick for assessing how "successful" a rape attempt will be. In all cases, the younger, smaller-built inmates are targeted more easily, or those appearing most feminine.

(Emphases added.)

-------------------------

Facts are facts, and evidence is evidence. The evidence varies on the numbers. That should not be surprising, because the numbers are all estimates, and rape is one of the most -- perhaps the most -- difficult crime to get accurate numbers about.

But the evidence does not vary on the central points. Whether the number of prisoners sexually abused is "an estimated 60,500" or "at least 140,000" or "roughly 300,000" -- the average of which is about 167,000 -- it is a disgustingly and disgracefully high number. And juries ought to be informed of it; juries ought to know what they are doing when they decide that someone should be incarcerated.

Whether the percentage of prisoners sexually abused is "Four-and-a-half percent" or "in the mid-to-high teens" or "about 1 in 5" or "21 percent" or "22 percent," it is a disgustingly and disgracefully high percentage. And juries ought to be informed of it; juries ought to know what they are doing when they decide that someone should be incarcerated.

And just as I said, "Target-prisoners are 'physically slight,'" and "smaller-built inmates are targeted more easily". That means that whatever the true percentage of the entire population of prisoners sexually abused actually is, the percentage of small prisoners who are sexually abused is greater than that.

The bottom line remains unchanged:

Most Americans don't know what goes on in ordinary prisons, because they don't want to know. It's much easier to stop thinking about someone as soon as he is sent to prison than it is to bother oneself about what happens to him in prison.

Out of sight, out of mind.

No amount of obnubiliation will change that.

[Gob]

Andrew!

"Obnubilation", please.