Danny comments on the sad state of prisoner concern in America.
So I just had the pleasure of reading a report from the American Action Forum that the Department of Justices plan to do something about rape and other sex crimes in prison is too costly. I went and read some of the plan from the Dept. of Justice. Here are some of the things that are being deemed too costly.
On Transgender and Intersex Imates:
In deciding whether to assign a transgender or intersex inmate to a facility for male or female inmates, and in making other housing and programming assignments, an agency may not simply assign the inmate to a facility based on genital status. Rather, the agency must consider on a case-by-case basis whether a placement would ensure the inmate’s health and safety, and whether the placement would present management or security problems, giving serious consideration to the inmate’s own views regarding his or her own safety. In addition, transgender and intersex inmates must be given the opportunity to shower separately from other inmates.
On The Definition of Abuse By Staff:
With regard to abuse by staff, the proposed rule included contact between the penis and the vulva or anus; contact between the mouth and the penis, vulva, or anus; penetration of the anal or genital opening; and “[a]ny other intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or the buttocks of any person with the intent to abuse, arouse, or gratify sexual desire.”
On Female Staff/Male Inmate Pat Downs:
In general, agency commenters supported the proposed standard as written regarding cross-gender searches. Several State correctional agencies remarked that prohibiting cross-gender pat-down searches of female inmates was feasible, but that it would be difficult to extend a cross-gender ban to male inmates. Other agency commenters stated that the training requirement would address any problems with cross-gender searches.
Now I can understand being mindful of costs when implementing something, especially when its millions of dollars on the line. But considering that millions of dollars get tossed to other things like that whole War on Drugs, the War Against Terror, and all sorts of gadgets and weapons used in these wars, is it really that hard to consider helping out sex abuse victims in prison?
A part of me wonder is this is stemming from the idea that prison rape is funny or that it is something that inmates deserve to suffer (and of course most of those condemnations are against male inmates).
Have we gotten to the point where people care so little about inmates that we put a price tag on their safety?
Photo by: Tim Pearce, Los Gatos
About Danny
My husband is in a federal facility and there is one female officer that pats him down every time she sees him. He has even had other inmates breaking rules in front of her and she chooses him to pat down. He is very uncomfortable with it, but doesn’t dare say anything because he will be the one to get in trouble or retribution from the facility. He is one hot babe, and has been taken care of from dental and medical and his “buddies” say it’s because of his looks, but he doesn’t ask for any of it. He just wants to do his time and come home.
This is the third piece on the AAF report that has gone up on this site, and they are all extremely misleading.
Let’s be clear: there are 3 prison systems in the United States. (1)There are federal Prisons paid for by the Federal Gov’t, (2)there are state prisons, paid for by the state government, and then (3)there are a variety of local prisons, usually paid for by various localities (sometimes counties, sometimes towns/cities).
The only system that is paid for out of the federal budget is the federal Prison System. The other prison systems receive ~5% of their budgets from the federal government, but the other 95% is paid for by local taxpayers exclusively.
The Department of Justice, a federal agency, has created a new set of regulations that all prisons must follow, or else risk losing the ~5% of their budget that comes from federal funding. These regulations are not paid for by the federal gov’t, and may cost up to $7 billion. The states and localities will be expected to pay for these regulations, with no additional help from the federal government.
Let’s look at the state of California. California houses 20% of all inmates in the US, so it stands to reason that California may need to pay for as much as 20% of the $7 billion that the DoJ is foisting onto states and localities.
20% of $7 billion is $1.4 billion. So the state of California will need to come up with an additional $1.4 billion at a time when:
The contribution of the state to the University of California (UC) system has dropped to $2.4 billion.
Students at the UCs already face tuition that has DOUBLED since 2005.
The community college system of California had to ELIMINATE all summer classes for lack of funding.
Students at the California State University System (CSU) face tuition that is 50% higher than it was just 3 years ago.
Many students now take 5-6 years to graduate from CSU schools because classes needed to graduate have been cut for lack of funding.
No, but I’m sure an additional $1.4 billion can be found *somewhere*.
This is why the AAF report uses the term “unfunded mandate” 4 times in a single page of text. The problem is NOT that the prison rape is “too expensive” to prevent. The problem is that the federal gov’t is trying to force states to put up money that they do not have, in order to fund experimental programs (the DoJ report admits the new standards are “unproven”), or else face losing federal funding, which would probably also result in deeper cuts to education.
There are easy alternatives which I can come up with off the top of my head.
Example 1: The DoJ could implement these programs ONLY AT FEDERAL PRISONS and see if they are even effective, before forcing states to follow suit. The programs could then be evaluated for efficacy before states are required to spend money that they do not have on these programs (which, btw, is probably synonymous with students spending additional tuition money in order to fund these programs).
Example 2: The DoJ could begin a large-scale experiment involving different sets of standards being implemented at different prisons in the federal system in order to test different policy sets for efficacy. This would be a multi-year program that would yield lots of useful information, and oh year, NOT HAPPEN DURING AN ELECTION YEAR, but rather give the problem the serious thought it deserves. Such a program could then be sure to pass the most cost-effective programs on to states.
This is NOT about “this costs too much.” This IS about “these are unproven and untested strategies that the federal gov’t is trying to force other people, especially indebted college students, to pay for.”
Unfunded mandates are generally a bad idea. Unfunded mandates that will inevitably lead to higher tuition for already over-indebted students are an ESPECIALLY bad idea.
With a government shut-down looming over budget issues, the chances of monies being spent to protect male inmates hovers around 0%. By contrast, if the victims were female, they money would magically appear, with full support of the President and both parties – as should be the case.
However, the victims are:
1. Male.
2. Mostly minorities.
Yeah, ain’t no help comin’. They’re going to be on their own.