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.
Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by mobiusmale
Don't do the crime and you won't find yourself in prison!
Originally posted by Malcher
Originally posted by musselwhite
screw those guards - bunch of low iq people who cannot find a better paying job - supposed to be there to protect the population instead they use and abuse -
Originally posted by NuclearPaul
I don't know how the prison system works (never been there), but I have no doubt some correctional officers will deliberately place people they don't like in harm's way. The trouble is, how do you prove it? If they want to, they can have you raped by proxy.
If I ever end up in prison (for what I type here, in the future), I would be VERY respectful to the guards.
check it out - topdocumentaryfilms.com...
so you would be respectful to someone who has complete control over another human being - most of those prisoners are in prison because of the drug war the u.s. have declared -
this whole picture of prison system in the u.s. is staggering and ugly -
Drugs are illegal in about 98% of the countries on the Earth.
The history of international drug control gives insight into the philosophical and practical underpinnings of the three drug Conventions. Beginning in an era of morally tainted racism and colonial trade wars, prohibition-based drug control grew to international proportions at the insistence of the United States. America and the colonial powers were confronted with the effects of drug addiction and abuse at home, but rather than address both demand – the socio-medical nature of such problems – and supply, they focused uniquely on the latter and attempted to stem the flow of drugs into their territories. In doing so, they earned political capital back home and shifted the cost and burden of drug control to predominantly Asian and Latin American developing countries with no cultural inclination or resources to take on such an intrusive task – and no economic or military power to refuse what was imposed on them
Excerpt from: THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEADING INTERNATIONAL DRUG CONTROL CONVENTIONS
www.parl.gc.ca...
Originally posted by retiredTxn
I cannot fathom the cost to taxpayers if you tried to place 150,000 incarcerated individuals in isolation. Much less the cost to society as a whole from creating monsters who will be released upon that society after 2, 5, or 10 years of isolation. Most of those here advocating this would not last a few months, much less several years.
.
Originally posted by Golden Rule
Yes, drugs may be illegal, as you say, in 98% of the countries on the Earth, but the situation exists due to the U.S. war on drugs.
Originally posted by retiredTxn
Prison rape is no different than rape in society. It's all about power, violence, and dehumanizing the victim. More rapes in prison occur during the first few days of incarceration, in an intake facility prior to inmates being classified.
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is important to understand some points that were not reported in most of the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle. Here's the whole story.
Originally posted by korathin
Originally posted by retiredTxn
Prison rape is no different than rape in society. It's all about power, violence, and dehumanizing the victim. More rapes in prison occur during the first few days of incarceration, in an intake facility prior to inmates being classified.
No. rape is that only according to feminism. Feminism is a hate movement, so the information your presenting is from a hate movement and thus invalid.
Rape is about one person wanting something(sexual in this case) and doing everything they can to get it regardless of who they hurt.
Originally posted by Golden Rule
It is not necessary to consider solitary confinement for every single prisoner. This is simply an exaggerated attempt at a solution in order to bring a response of resignation to the situation of prison rape.
What has to happen is there has to be different correctional facilities to house criminals according to the particular nature of their crime.
Originally posted by Adamanteus
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by muzzleflash
I would say that if the govt caused or knowingly allowed it to happen, yes, it would be a violation of the constitution. As others have said, it would be difficult to prove.
The Government cannot/will not be held accountable for a rape after sending someone to prison anymore than they will/would be held accountable for the death of a US soldier they sent to war (even if he was drafted).
Originally posted by muzzleflash
Yes it is a direct violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
VIII Amendment Wiki - Must Read!!
The Constitution does not apply to You/Me and certainly not prisoners.
"But indeed, no person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breech of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact (contract), but he is not a party to it. The States are a party to it..." (emphasis added). [Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854)]
link
"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests.The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes." [Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243]
If you have been convicted of a felony, you have lost your civil rights
Originally posted by Adamanteus
reply to post by F4guy
If you have been convicted of a felony, you have lost your civil rights
link
You cannot Use 18 U.S.C. 1983 to sue someone for violating something You do not have anymore than You could take someone that stole Your neighbors car to civil court and ask for damages.
The 14th amendment took our inalienable rights away and gave us privileges and immunities(which can be taken away) in their place.