On that article Sophia posted

[mintymint]

Gender roles in prison

This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (March 2008)

Gender roles in male prisons go further than the "Don't drop the soap"-joke. The truth is that some prisoners, either by choice or by force, take on strict 'female roles' according to prison set guidelines. For instance, a 'female' in prison is seen as timid, submissive, passive, and a means of sexual pleasure. When entering the prison environment some inmates "turn out" on their own free will, meaning they actively pursue the 'female role' in prison to gain some form of social power and/or prestige. Other, unlucky inmates, are forced to partake in 'female role' activities through coercion; the most common means being physical abuse. The inmates that are forced to "turn out" are commonly referred to as "punks". Other terms used to describe 'female' inmates are "girls", "kids", and "gumps". Some of the labels may be used as a means of describing one's ascribed status. For example, a "kid" is one that is usually dominated by their owner, or "daddy". The "daddy" is usually one with a high social status and prestige within the prison (E.g. gang leader). The "female" gender role is constructed through the mirror image of what the inmates perceive as a male. For instance, inmates view men as having strength, power, prestige, and an unyielding personality. However, the inmates don't refer to the female guards, who have power and prestige over the inmates, as males. The female guards are commonly referred to as "*****", "ditch lickers", and lesbians. These roles are also assumed in female prisons.[14]

Women who enter prison society often voluntarily enter into lesbianism, as a means of protection from gangs or stronger females. In doing so, they will take on the submissive role to a dominant female in exchange for that dominating female keeping them safe. Those who do not enter voluntarily into lesbianism might at one time or another be group raped, to introduce them into that circle, and sometimes they will be referred to as sheep, meaning anyone can have them. It is to avoid that status that most female inmates choose a mate, or allow themselves to be chosen as a mate, which can make them available to only a minimal number of partners during their incarceration, as opposed to a large number. So, in a sense, an inmate undergoes a "female role" in the prison system either by choice or by yielding to excessive coercion, and it is that yielding that terms the once male inmates as "females", and which identifies the stronger females in a female prison system as "males".

I don't care if this crap isn't actually written on people's prison sentences, it's obviously become a de facto part of incarceration in this country's prison system. That means if you send someone to prison, it's known that this is what's waiting for them. Anybody ever hear of a little thing called the 8th amendment? I believe part of it sounded like "...nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." I'm sorry but that $hi7 above sounds pretty cruel and unusual to me. I'm sure there are a lot of people in the joint that certainly don't deserve that kind of life. No wonder prisoner rehabilitation is such a bitch. I propose that either we do something to fix this awful reality, or alternatively we stop living in denial and add a line at the end of people's prison sentences that reads: One Way Ticket to Gangrapeville, Enjoy The Ride!

 

[SophiaGrace]

Here's an Entire Article about the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_rape

 

[Just_Some_Dude]

I agree with mintymint that the environment itself, rape to be specific, is cruel and unusual punishment. I've thought this for years.

 

[Badjedidude]

Yeah...but that cruel and unusual punishment isn't coming from the GOVERNMENT itself, which is the point. The 8th Amendment assures that prisoners aren't treated cruelly by THE GOVERNMENT and LAW ENFORCEMENT. If other inmates decided to be cruel or treat the prisoner badly, then that's their own business...the 8th Amendment does NOT protect us against that.

The 8th Am. only protects inmates from the government itself.

----Steve

 

[mintymint]

Yeah...but that cruel and unusual punishment isn't coming from the GOVERNMENT itself, which is the point. The 8th Amendment assures that prisoners aren't treated cruelly by THE GOVERNMENT and LAW ENFORCEMENT. If other inmates decided to be cruel or treat the prisoner badly, then that's their own business...the 8th Amendment does NOT protect us against that.

The 8th Am. only protects inmates from the government itself.

----Steve

So if the government put you in a pen with rottweilers and they mauled you, it really has nothing to do with the government then. I really can see how they have no responsibility.

 

[Badjedidude]

So if the government put you in a pen with rottweilers and they mauled you, it really has nothing to do with the government then. I really can see how they have no responsibility.

That's quite different then putting a woman into population with other women. What's a better solution? Keep every woman separate and never allow them all out at once? The pure logistics of that is impossible. Even having single cells would be too costly for an already overpopulated prison system.

I'm sure that prisons take steps to try and prevent the abuses listed above...but really, they can't solve EVERYTHING. Those women are there for a reason, and some of them are BAD, BAD women. And bad women will always find a way to make life hard for others.

I'm not saying that those abuses are OK...just that the government is already doing all that it's expected to do about the situation...that the 8th Amendment doesn't apply here. I think it is sad and very unfortunate that women have to put up with that...but really, what's a better solution?

----Steve

 

[mintymint]

I still believe that there is a degree of culpability on the government's part that is not being addressed.

Here's an idea: Don't imprison the highest percentage of your population of any country in the world.

Result: Better prison systems, less nastiness.

 

[Badjedidude]

I still believe that there is a degree of culpability on the government's part that is not being addressed.

You're probably right. My main point was that the Constitution doesn't necessarily REQUIRE any more action by the government to fix things.

And yeah....there is a HUGE problem with the U.S. prison system. I don't know what the answer is, but something definitely needs to be done to solve some of the problems.

----Steve

 

[Estreen]

I still believe that there is a degree of culpability on the government's part that is not being addressed.

You're probably right. My main point was that the Constitution doesn't necessarily REQUIRE any more action by the government to fix things.

And yeah....there is a HUGE problem with the U.S. prison system. I don't know what the answer is, but something definitely needs to be done to solve some of the problems.

----Steve

There's a lot of holes in the prison system. I'm taking a course in Crime and Deviance this quarter and we just had a discussion the other day about how some of the criminals get off too easily. Yes, there's a percentage of prisoners in there who are either in there for something minor or have done something on accident, so they don't deserve any worse than what they got; there are a lot of ironies and imbalances within the system, although I suppose it's a bit better than some countries' prisons.

 

[cheaptrickfan]

Yeah...but that cruel and unusual punishment isn't coming from the GOVERNMENT itself, which is the point. The 8th Amendment assures that prisoners aren't treated cruelly by THE GOVERNMENT and LAW ENFORCEMENT. If other inmates decided to be cruel or treat the prisoner badly, then that's their own business...the 8th Amendment does NOT protect us against that.

The 8th Am. only protects inmates from the government itself.

----Steve

Don't be ridiculous. The penal system is part of the government, whether state or federal. Do you think that they are privately funded by individuals? No. Not yet, although there has been increasing call for privatization of the prison system.

Besides, there is legal precedence for using the 8th Amendment in considering the use of force and capital punishment. In one case, Hudson v McMillian, the US Supreme Court considered whether the beating by prison guards of a handcuffed inmate at Louisiana's Angola prison violated the inmate's Eighth Amendment rights.

By a vote of 7 to 2, the Court found that it was indeed a violation of the 8th Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause even though the inmate suffered no permanent injuries or injuries that required hospitalization.

The two dissenters were (of course, those ******* *******s also known as) Justices Thomas and Scalia who argued that the Eighth Amendment was not meant for protection from random beatings by guards, but rather only from cruel and unusually harsh judicially-imposed sentences. So by their reasoning, those two would see gang rape in prisons as not covered by the 8th amendment because that was not a part of the judge's sentences.

That is absolutely the most ridiculous ******* thing I have ever heard. All it is doing is passing the buck onto someone else. They acknowledge that there is a problem with the system the way it is, but no one dares step forward to make a change.

But anyway, we need wide-sweeping penal reform. The first thing that needs to go is mandatory, punitive sentencing for minor drug offenses.

---

My main point was that the Constitution doesn't necessarily REQUIRE any more action by the government to fix things.

It would require it if a case successfully came to the USSC and the justices found that such an arrangement were in violation of the 8th amendment.

 

[mintymint]

The problem I see is that you effectively have the government assuming legal control over an individual, while abdicating it's responsibility to oversee their well being. And no I don't think they should be pampered or anything, but a basic human right should be the right to not get raped. I think it's careless and unethical to dismiss the harsher realities of prison life as not being the government's responsibility just because they aren't an explicit part of an inmate's sentence. You say it's too big a task to stop people raping each other? Really? I would hope that we could figure out a way.

 

[Badjedidude]

I would hope that we could figure out a way.

We probably could...but at taxpayer's expense and with a lot of hard work...and that just won't happen until enough people actually care enough to do something about it, because the government won't do it unless it's forced to. Government is a business...it will always take the cheaper option, despite the unfortunate consequences to those who are in no power to stand up for themselves. It's just how government works.

I think that for most civilians this issue is better swept under the rug and forgotten. After all, they're criminals...most people may think they deserve what they get in prison for their crimes. I'm not saying that I follow this view or that it's good...but from what I see, that's how most people feel about it.

----Steve

 

[mintymint]

I think that for most civilians this issue is better swept under the rug and forgotten. After all, they're criminals...most people may think they deserve what they get in prison for their crimes. I'm not saying that I follow this view or that it's good...but from what I see, that's how most people feel about it.

I couldn't agree more. I personally don't know anyone in the penal system and I admit the only reason I got worked up about this stuff was because I read Sophia's article Too bad it's so politically advantageous to antagonize and dehumanize criminals. Eveyone needs a voice, especially those with few rights left. A lot of bad people are getting what they had coming to them, but I hate to think of the ones that are getting much more than they deserve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

lol, too much?

 

[Badjedidude]

Blackstone's Formulation...hmmm never heard of it before (though I'm familiar with the Abraham story). Thanks for the info, minty!

----Steve

 

[Just_Some_Dude]

well, for starters, we could save some serious money if we quit locking people up for drug abuse and offered them treatment instead. Wtf? Why are my tax dollars paying to incarcerate people for toking on a doob?

---

(of course, those ******* *******s also known as) Justices Thomas and Scalia

hey. take it easy. with the name calling. besides, some of us might lean a little to the right!

 

[cheaptrickfan]

(of course, those ******* *******s also known as) Justices Thomas and Scalia

hey. take it easy. with the name calling. besides, some of us might lean a little to the right!

You can lean all the way over to the right, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. It also doesn't change my opinion of Scalia and Thomas.

My opinion of them doesn't color my opinion of anyone else. How I view people isn't as simple as how they voted in the last election. I know some people are like that, but I am not.

---

The problem I see is that you effectively have the government assuming legal control over an individual, while abdicating it's responsibility oversee their well being.

I agree with you. It's absurd to argue that the government's role is over once it has imposed judgment. If that were so, why not just give all convicted criminals a sharpened stick and a book of matches and drop them off on a penal island for however long their sentence is and then pick them up when they're through.

But no. In prisons, inmates have access to health-care and exercise, which implies some interest in their well-being. Also, there are libraires, opportunitues to further their education and rehabilitation --> whether rehabilitation programs are effective is another topic of debate, but the point is, to have these systems in place assumes that the government sees that is has at least a legal, if not moral, responsibility after the sentence has been imposed.