It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: California is considering allowing prison inmates to receive condoms .

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by quango
Yeah - I mean, I'm not against this, but I don't see how helpful it will really be. Like someone said, how many prison inmates are concerned about grabbing a condom beforehand.Still - saving money and slowing AIDS are good things. It's just a strange message. Like a parent to a kid - "Don't go in the cookie jar. There are napkins on the table." Or some similiar analogy.



I actually made mention of this. And the economic incentives are huge. Even if one HIV case is prevented, the savings to the taxpayers in California would be huge. Its not like we are breaking ground here. As the intial article said several states already do this as do most of the nations in Europe.




posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
The "stop gap" is fine, but I'd prefer solitary confinement myself.

There should be better ways to protect inmates. The US Prison stigma of rape is an atrocity.

That we laugh about it so easily and crime dramas play it up on TV as routine and detectives threaten people with it as part of interrogations is criminal.

It's not impossible to prevent prison rape. We just don't want to prevent it.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   
This is a complete joke. Of course it's pointless to fight it because wether or not this gets approved it's not going to change a damn thing.

First off, your talking about prison sex. You dont house females and males in the same prison sharing cells, so this is man on man sex. Now, factoring that in, if your having prison sex, no doubt only one of you is willing. Prison rape would be more fitting. So what makes you people think some guy is going to put on a condom before he goes and rapes some other guy in the butt. If you think thats going to happen...well I dont know what to say really, besides yeah right. Thats one of the few things on this website I've actually found laughable.

And there's PLENTY of ways to kill yourself in the pen without swallowing a damn condom, so thats not an issue whatsoever. I dont think very many people really know whats going on inside our prisons, its a pretty horrible thing. My good buddy just got out from an eight year sentence about 5 months ago, and I've heard alllll about it. Lets just say if I ever ended up in one, Id kill myself before I landed there. A lot of bad things can happen to a person while their inside, getting raped is actually pretty mild compared to some of the other things I've heard about that go on.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I actually made mention of this. And the economic incentives are huge. Even if one HIV case is prevented, the savings to the taxpayers in California would be huge. Its not like we are breaking ground here. As the intial article said several states already do this as do most of the nations in Europe.


Any idea if other places with this policy have any quantifiable results?

Are they saving money? Do inmates use the condoms? Does it increase sexual activity? No effect?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Food delivery in the front. Condom delivery in the rear.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
I just read that a convicted killer in Turkey had managed to bit by bit scrape a hole in the 9 cm thick concrete wall of his cell that was neigbouring a cell of the womans cellblock , the resulting sex eventually brought a child on this world an thus exposed their relationship....

Just imagine the deprived state he must been in to dig a hole with a sharp teaspoon through the wall Kudos!


But back on topic, less people in one cell seems to work better at preventing this stuff from happening. In Holland we are moving from one man/cell to 2 or 3, but only for those who are serving for relatively mild charges such as theft and fraude, they are not put in some cage with violent killers and sexual predators...


[edit on 1-3-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   
I just thought of a new aspect to this. The condoms are going to prevent prison rape. You see a guy putting a condom on in the shower, SHOWERS OVER, I'M LEAVING!



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   
How can any of you possibly believe that government approval of rape is a good idea?
Make no mistake the bulk of sex is prison is not consensual, it is rape, by handing out condoms the government would be endorsing the rape of unwilling victims. Is that what you consider a just government?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Well... Let's see. We could tell them no more sex! We could castrate them! We could throw them into solitary cells (rebuilding prisons and costing lots of money)... Or ....

We could simply add a drug to the food. Can anyone say, Saltpeter?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   
FredT you actually sound like a level headed liberal!!



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This is utterly stupid. It's illegal to have sex, but here's your monthly supply of rubbers.

That thinking is utterly ridiculous "It's illegal to have sex" They are in there for doing illegal things, ya think they are going to honor that little rule!?
They will have sex regardless, with or with out condoms....better to at least protect those that need/want the protection....my god use your brain!



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   
So then lady V, do you think we should give condoms to suspected rapists who are outside of prison as well? I mean afterall since they are going to rape a woman anyway might as well make sure they practice "safer raping" right?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
I think that it is better to think of it this way...

Considering the fact that our prison system is broken...

Considering the fact that guards or prison officials are not going to do anything to stop prison rapes...

Considering the fact that prison rape is quite common and in some prison populations, the HIV/AIDS infection rate is almost 1 in 10 prisoners...

If you were in prison and were going to be raped (or gang raped), would you prefer to be raped by a guy wearing a condom or not wearing a condom?

I think that the condoms would be used if they were available. There is consensual sex going on as well as rape and even criminals are afraid of HIV/AIDS. Even the target of a rape may be infected, which is why a rapist may use a condom. It's not as if these people will be prosecuted later...

From a cost standpoint, treating prisoners with HIV/AIDS is expensive. It seems like isolating prisoners so they can't have sex--whether it is consensual or rape--is too difficult, expensive or not a priority--so if by turning a blind eye, prison officials are allowing sex to occur, they would save some money on future medical bills by providing condoms.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Furthermore if this does happen and an inmate is raped by an nmate using one of these condoms couldn't the government be sued for it. I mean it seems to me that if ths initative passes then the government would be "providing material assistance to someone performing an llegal acton." Lets face it if even one imate commits a rape with a condom on, and even hints that he would not have done so before due to his fear of contracting the ads virus, then there would be legal ground for charging the government of california with being an accessory wouldn't there?



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
Furthermore if this does happen and an inmate is raped by an nmate using one of these condoms couldn't the government be sued for it. I mean it seems to me that if ths initative passes then the government would be "providing material assistance to someone performing an llegal acton." Lets face it if even one imate commits a rape with a condom on, and even hints that he would not have done so before due to his fear of contracting the ads virus, then there would be legal ground for charging the government of california with being an accessory wouldn't there?


If both the victim and the attacker are in denial about the rape even taking place, how is a lawsuit even going to happen?

Prison rape among men is rarely reported, mainly because of the stigma associated with it. Victims typically won't come forward because they don't want to create a public record of what happened to them--and especially in a prison situation when there is actually legal statutes that make it very difficult to incriminate prison guards or the prison system in rape cases.

Rapists would never admit to rape either for the same reasons--and they have a "what happens in prison, stays in prison" mentality. Most don't even consider themselves homosexual because typically sexual predators in prisons were heterosexuals on the "outside."

According to the ACLU & Human Rights Watch, 1 in 5 prisoners are raped, but out of the few that report the rape (rates range from 4.8% to 29%), less than 1% resulted in a conviction (and that was out of those that were actually investigated--which doesn't include all that were reported.) Correction staff frequently turns a blind eye to rape--and sometimes assists or arranges for rape of problem inmates.

There was a bill passed in 2003 to eliminate prison rape by improving statistics and creating national standards designed to prevent and prosecute rapes. This plan will take several years to begin reaping benefits as it relies on accurate statistics being compiled. Even then, I am not sure that rapes will stop as victims may still not participate in the study for fear of being "outed."

But I also think that not all sex going on in prison is rape--it is estimated that 30% of all federal inmates engage in homosexual activity. That is a lot of unprotected sex going on.

Apparently, San Francisco and Los Angeles counties have been distributing condoms in its' prisons for years and the program is working. If it was a disaster, I am sure that they wouldn't have extended it to the entire state.

www.shns.com...
www.legalaffairs.org...
www.pfm.org...



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
lmgnyc - then awnser my earlier question, should the Government hand out condoms to suspected rapists outside of prison?
Or are you implying that becuase the victims don't report it we should support it?



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
So then lady V, do you think we should give condoms to suspected rapists who are outside of prison as well? I mean afterall since they are going to rape a woman anyway might as well make sure they practice "safer raping" right?


No where in the article does it say it is to be given to people so they can rape people safer. They are saying that consensual sex happens and cannot be stopped, this sex should be safe sex. Not to sure why you have gone off on a tangent.

Agreed sex in prison is not allowed and should not happen, but it does and like others have said without single cells and no contact it is going to happen.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   
One of the supporters of this plan stated a statistic that 30% of sex in prison is consensual. Think about it, that means an overwhelming majority, 70% is rape.
Handing out condoms to prisoners means that 70% of them statistically will be used to make the rapist safer.
Not to prevent him from victimising another, not to protect his victims, it will be used to make the rapist safer.
It is a perfect nalogy as less than 70% of suspected rapists are convicted.
If the US government were to hand out condoms to suspected rapists some would be used to make consensual sex safer, Most would be used to protect the rapst from contracting AIDS and other VD's, just as what they are proposing.
So considering that from cali's own statistics we know that about 70% of prison sex is rape, how can you possibly support an intiative that would for the most part only protect the rapist?



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Well it means that the 30% can have safe sex. Again rape obviously does happen and is obviously not being stopped.

I doubt a rapist would choose to use a condom so maybe that is a moot point. However if the rape is going to happen and the rapist uses a condom, is the VICTIM not going to be safer?

I fail to see how you equate it to supporting rape or to make rapists safer.



posted on Mar, 2 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Well it means that the 30% can have safe sex. Again rape obviously does happen and is obviously not being stopped.

I doubt a rapist would choose to use a condom so maybe that is a moot point. However if the rape is going to happen and the rapist uses a condom, is the VICTIM not going to be safer?

I fail to see how you equate it to supporting rape or to make rapists safer.

Then maybe instead of handing out condoms they should be enfocing the rules. Nahh that would require an actual effort, whereas handing out condoms is an easy way to let people like you think you are actually supporting something decent.
Hell why not hand out Guns to ganbangers while we are at it, I mean they are most at risk for being shot, so what if they might use it to make comission of a crime safer, you would be helping them defend themselves right?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join