“You can’t rape someone who’s gay."
May 14, 2015 7:22 AM   Subscribe

The New York Times and Jezebel profile Texas' refusal to comply with the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act. (trigger warning: sexual assault, violence)
posted by roomthreeseventeen (59 comments total) 24 users marked this as a favorite


 
Well, fuck. The headline suggests someone doesn't understand consent at all. What a crappy attitude.l Well worth discussing and countering.
posted by puddledork at 7:27 AM on May 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


God, I read this the other day and had a crazed dragon hissing rage fit. Believe me, the pullquote is not even in the top 10 of horrible things said by horrible people in this article. Passion's strength in the face of this unbefuckinglievable adversity is beyond admirable and borders on miraculous.
posted by poffin boffin at 7:32 AM on May 14, 2015 [8 favorites]


Once the invasion of Texas is complete this bullshit will be stopped.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:32 AM on May 14, 2015 [45 favorites]


That regulation, which is the primary rule to which Perry objects, would prohibit female officers from working in areas where they would see male inmates in private settings, such as the shower. About 40 percent of TDCJ correctional officers at units that house males are female, Perry wrote. PREA standards would force TDCJ to deny female officers jobs and promotion opportunities at those units.

So Rick Perry is saying that the primary reason Texas can't comply is that it would deny women equal pay and jobs. LOL?
posted by Huck500 at 7:34 AM on May 14, 2015 [5 favorites]


On the "bright" side, as per the third link, it seems even the prisons disagree with the governor. So there's that, at least.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:36 AM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


I read this the other day and it is, as been said, incredibly angering. I hope good things come from the exposure.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:39 AM on May 14, 2015


That regulation, which is the primary rule to which Perry objects, would prohibit female officers from working in areas where they would see male inmates in private settings, such as the shower.

This sounds like a bait-and-switch by Perry. He's claiming he won't certify that Texas prisons comply with PREA standards, and cites this regulation as the primary objection. But Passion Star's testimony suggests that many Texas facilities fail grossly in compliance, and for issues far more fundamental than this relatively minor standard.

It sounds like Perry just doesn't really care if Texas inmates are raped but wants to justify the failure of prisons to keep inmates safe on grounds other than pervasive negligence.
posted by layceepee at 7:43 AM on May 14, 2015 [8 favorites]


Next time I see or hear someone talking shit about Jezebel, including on Metafilter, I'm going to link them to the Jezebel article.
posted by joyceanmachine at 7:45 AM on May 14, 2015 [7 favorites]


FWIW, Greg Abbott is the new governor of Texas, and has until tomorrow to declare what he's going to do.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:49 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


The other states: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana and Utah.

Not terribly surprised, somehow.
posted by theorique at 7:51 AM on May 14, 2015


So far, Abbott has given no indication that he knows better than Perry in any area.
posted by kmz at 7:53 AM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


Next time I see or hear someone talking shit about Jezebel, including on Metafilter, I'm going to link them to the Jezebel article.

It's kind of a weird Internet thing that there are some sites that do both great and awful stuff regularly because you kind of need the clickbait to stay alive. HuffPo has had some stand out moments too.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:53 AM on May 14, 2015 [8 favorites]


I have spent much of the last two years dealing with Maryland's efforts to come into compliance with PREA.

It is a law aimed at an incredibly important goal, but as far as I can tell it has been largely watered down by the bureaucratic process.

Early on, I was told by one PREA trainer that the purpose of the law was to protect corrections officers from false charges of sexual assult (in the same prison system where female officers have had children with their prisoners.) The training then consisted of a long diatribe about visiting female students and their alleged inability to dress modestly enough for the environment. None of the training actually focused on preventing the rapes of prisoners.

It also raises important questions that I don't know how to answer: by asserting that consent is impossible under conditions of incarceration, it effectively treats all sex between prisoners as rape. In a way that seems sort of right, and perhaps the best reaction to the market for sex that develops in prisons, as well as a recognition that consent is difficult to establish even outside of prisons. But I've heard that when prisoners are discovered engaged in consensual homosexual encounters, one of them will immediately accuse the other of assault because otherwise they are both held guilty, like teenagers who are both charged with statutory rape.

Sexual assault in our prisons is one more reason to decarcerate as fast as we can. I'm not sure PREA has helped except to gather the data that shows us how bad it has gotten.
posted by anotherpanacea at 7:55 AM on May 14, 2015 [20 favorites]


At times like this, I normally suggest we let Mexico have Texas back, but I kind of doubt they'd want it anymore.
posted by Thorzdad at 8:04 AM on May 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


It's kind of a weird Internet thing that there are some sites that do both great and awful stuff regularly because you kind of need the clickbait to stay alive

agreed, but jezebel openly exploited an anonymous mefite's "i think i might have been raped" askme for pageviews and were 100% unapologetic about it. they don't get a pass on anything from me after that.
posted by poffin boffin at 8:15 AM on May 14, 2015 [6 favorites]


"At times like this, I normally suggest we let Mexico have Texas back"
Noooooooo....... there are innocent people trapped here! I have kids I can't legally move out of this state and I'm not leaving without them.
posted by xarnop at 8:32 AM on May 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


That regulation, which is the primary rule to which Perry objects, would prohibit female officers from working in areas where they would see male inmates in private settings, such as the shower. About 40 percent of TDCJ correctional officers at units that house males are female, Perry wrote. PREA standards would force TDCJ to deny female officers jobs and promotion opportunities at those units.

If he's actually being honest here, I can understand the objection. Plus, are there really a significant number of female officers raping male inmates? And why wouldn't the male officers that replace them be just as bad? Probably there are other parts of the PREA that ought to be implemented, but this rule doesn't sound effective.

(I don't see the source of the title quote in the NYT, Jezebel, or the Texas Tribune; did Perry really say that?)
posted by Rangi at 8:32 AM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


It was a prison CO, quoted in the Jezebel article, who said that to Passion Star. Not Perry.
posted by spitbull at 8:36 AM on May 14, 2015


I am starting to hear all news from Texas like the BBC is reading it.

"Texas, the former breakaway republic in the United States, has come under international condemnation for its failure to abide by humans rights conventions...."
posted by the man of twists and turns at 8:40 AM on May 14, 2015 [23 favorites]


It sounds like Perry just doesn't really care if Texas inmates are raped but wants to justify the failure of prisons to keep inmates safe on grounds other than pervasive negligence.

People who are OK with the idea of turning prison into a place where some people learn they can *keep getting away with horrible crimes* unless you believe that some people should be raped.

You can't believe that some people should be raped unless you hold the corollary belief that someone else is entitled to rape them.

Clearly a lot of Texas politicians believe some people should be allowed to get away with rape; indeed, that the tax money of the good people of Texas should be used to fund the activities of rapists. Is this what they mean by "fiscal responsibility" and "tough on crime?"
posted by kewb at 8:40 AM on May 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


I am starting to hear all news from Texas like the BBC is reading it.

"Texas, the former breakaway republic in the United States, has come under international condemnation for its failure to abide by humans rights conventions...."


You might enjoy: The Pentagon's Response to Ted Cruz Regarding Jade Helm 15 (satire)
posted by Drinky Die at 8:43 AM on May 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


I have family in West Texas, and the two major employers are oil and correction facilities, many of them are private businesses vs government facilities. They need to get this in order because sexual assault and rape create further damage and obliterate "correction" efforts. We know that across all sorts of demographic categories.

For the Maryland initiatives, collaborating with MCASA might help with training.
posted by childofTethys at 8:49 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


I don't see the source of the title quote in the NYT, Jezebel, or the Texas Tribune; did Perry really say that?

No, Perry didn't say it. The quote is attributed to an unnamed Corrections Officer by a transgendered inmate in the Jezebel article.
posted by 256 at 9:04 AM on May 14, 2015


Texas reminds me of a delusional twenty something conspiracy nut who can't hold a full time job for a month but makes up for its self loathing lack of direction by fighting Chem trails on the weekends. They pray for the end of the world because when you're doddering around accomplishing nothing with your life while your friends become social workers and lawyers and doctors and IT folks, it's satisfying to imagine being struck by a comet or hand of God that erases the grasshopper and ant narrative.
posted by aydeejones at 9:14 AM on May 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


Should qualify that with "the worst representatives of Texas and Republicans in general but especially the ones who drum up the TEXAS! stereotype at every turn"
posted by aydeejones at 9:16 AM on May 14, 2015


Clearly a lot of Texas politicians believe some people should be allowed to get away with rape; indeed, that the tax money of the good people of Texas should be used to fund the activities of rapists. Is this what they mean by "fiscal responsibility" and "tough on crime?"

Crime law enforcement has historically focused on who has been victimized. I mean, I see what you're trying to do there, but for a lot of pols, the idea is that it doesn't matter what happens in prison, as long as the Good Citizens On The Street are safe. I mean, I'm sure Texas would cheerfully volunteer to execute all their prisoners to avoid this problem, but that's hardly an optimal outcome.

The real question is: how do you prevent rape without creating forms of solitary confinement or other consequences that are even harder for the populations? Moving the 'most vulnerable' to separate populations is not a long term fix -it's a fix only for those individuals and not anyone else.
posted by corb at 9:30 AM on May 14, 2015


I spent 14 years in Texas. I would expect, based on that experience, that the people in charge of the prisons would not only perceive the threat of sexual assault as being a normal part of incarceration, but would be very surprised to learn that anyone else would think differently. Like, I expect that Perry is baffled that anyone would think that it's the State of Texas's responsibility to protect prisoners from rape, or that prisoners should be protected from rape at all.
posted by KathrynT at 9:34 AM on May 14, 2015 [5 favorites]


I mean, I'm sure Texas would cheerfully volunteer to execute all their prisoners to avoid this problem, but that's hardly an optimal outcome.

Considering that correction industries are pretty lucrative, while they can refill those cells I'm sure they'd rather those folks keep on working.
posted by taterpie at 9:38 AM on May 14, 2015


I mean, I see what you're trying to do there, but for a lot of pols, the idea is that it doesn't matter what happens in prison, as long as the Good Citizens On The Street are safe.

It's not just politicians, either. Lots of their constituents, lots of Good Citizens On The Street, are A-OK with prisoners getting raped as a matter of course. How many jokes at prisoners' expense are premised on US prisons' culture of unpunished rape? It's hard enough to get people to recognize rape culture outside of prison; getting Good Citizens to recognize that it's horrible when people who "deserve it" are raped, never mind getting them to agree on a way to end the horror, is nigh-impossible.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:42 AM on May 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


If he's actually being honest here, I can understand the objection. Plus, are there really a significant number of female officers raping male inmates?

It may be the case that it's legally difficult to create a standard that keeps male officers from working in places where they see female inmates in private settings without establishing the same restrictions when the gender roles are reversed. And given Texas' record, I am not inclined to give Perry the benefit of the doubt that his professed objection is honest or reasonable.

The real question is: how do you prevent rape without creating forms of solitary confinement or other consequences that are even harder for the populations?

I think that one thing that might be helpful would be to remove the prohibition on consensual sexual relations between inmates.
posted by layceepee at 9:46 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


The real question is: how do you prevent rape without creating forms of solitary confinement or other consequences that are even harder for the populations?

This was a question I have had for a long time. Why is it necessary for any prisoner to have any contact with any other prisoner, ever? Why not have small private cells, feed the prisoners in their cell? Maybe you could transport the prisoners one by one for a shower or workout or whatever.

(My guess is: cost.)
posted by theorique at 9:47 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Why is it necessary for any prisoner to have any contact with any other prisoner, ever?

Because solitary confinement is a horrifyingly abusive torture that ruins people for life.
posted by KathrynT at 9:49 AM on May 14, 2015 [37 favorites]


I think that one thing that might be helpful would be to remove the prohibition on consensual sexual relations between inmates.

You mean treat inmates like citizens, let alone human? Next thing you'll say is that prison should be for rehabilitation, not simple revenge.
posted by eclectist at 9:50 AM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


I think that one thing that might be helpful would be to remove the prohibition on consensual sexual relations between inmates.

But that is problematic on two grounds: first, on consent grounds, because it is impossible to truly give consent when you are constrained. But secondly, because that would make it impossible to actually deal with rape cases when they come up - the other person will simply say it was consensual. It's not like we have a great track record on prosecuting he-said/she-saids in the civilian population, sadly.
posted by corb at 9:51 AM on May 14, 2015


But that is problematic on two grounds: first, on consent grounds, because it is impossible to truly give consent when you are constrained. But secondly, because that would make it impossible to actually deal with rape cases when they come up - the other person will simply say it was consensual. It's not like we have a great track record on prosecuting he-said/she-saids in the civilian population, sadly.

Yes, it would be problematic, but the question is whether the problems would be greater or less than the status quo. I don't think it would solve the problem of rape in prisoon, but I think there is good reason to believe that it will ameliorate it, and almost no reason to believe it would make it worse. Since it would be compassionate to allow people who are incarcerated for extended periods to have consensual sex, it would be a good idea even if it had no net positive effect on the problem of rape in prison.

I am not sure how you have determined that it is impossible to give consent when you are constrained. I was in prison for four years, and I had consensual sexual relations during that period. I was also sexually assaulted, and I didn't have any trouble telling the difference between the two.
posted by layceepee at 10:00 AM on May 14, 2015 [14 favorites]


it would be a good idea even if it had no net positive effect on the problem of rape in prison.

I'm really tempted by this idea. Here's my worry: what if allowing consensual sex increased the rates of rape, exploitation, and prostitution in prisons? That is: by making the policy "consensual sex is allowed" it seems like there would be ample room for lots of things to occur that are nominally but not actually consensual.

One possibility: the COs notice a sex act and ask if there is consent: the victim understands that denying consent will lead to injuries or attacks in the future, so they pretend that there is. Another possibility: depending where you're incarcerated, it may be that there are active and open gangs that give loans and collect debts, and I'd be uncomfortable with the idea that "consensual" sex was one way to repay debts if you fall behind. (The gangs already use the standard panoply of violence and intimidation to collect, and sex too already plays a role, but adding "consensual" sex to the mix seems likely to make it worse.)

That said, the reason I'm tempted by this is that sexual assault rates are so high in prisons that really we ought to be willing to try anything else. At the very least we should make masturbation legal. (In many facilities, it's punished when detected under a variety of rubrics, like for instance labeling it "sexual harrassment" of the COs.)
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:29 AM on May 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


The UN has called solitary confinement torture unequivocally (in 2011). It's a gross human rights violation. It should not be considered as a remedy, in any way. IO9 (of all places) has a really good write-up on why this is so.
posted by bonehead at 10:32 AM on May 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


Let people choose solitary if they want it. And we're talking about voluntary solitary, not punitive sensory-deprivation solitary. Give them everything they're allowed when they live in the general population but let them live apart from the general prison population.

I can think of various prisoner-on-prisoner things (threats, beatings, rape, murder, and the constant fear of those things) that, for me, would be much more horrifyingly abusive than solitary.

I would choose solitary, especially if it permitted my own toilet, a tea kettle/pot/cup/tea/water, books, an mp3 player, a guitar, sending and receiving letters, and plenty of paper and pens.

And you could let people choose to live in semi-solitary. Let them come out for meals and certain other things, and make sure you doubled up on supervision for those things. Significantly reduce the chances people will be abused.
posted by pracowity at 10:58 AM on May 14, 2015 [3 favorites]


It's not a surprise that more consent education is needed EVERYWHERE, including prison staff and populations. If someone observes consensual sex in the wrong place, it's some variation of indecent exposure, depending on the exposure. That knowledge could de-escalate some of the responses to being discovered in the act, depending on the location. (Speeding ticket vs losing your license). Just a thought.
posted by childofTethys at 11:06 AM on May 14, 2015


Pracowity, there is too much overcrowding to provide solitary for those who would even choose that. And forced solitary confinement is torture.
posted by agregoli at 11:15 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Also, why would you think you'd get all the comforts of home you want? Guitars, mp3 players? I'm flabergasted at your rosy picture of prison...
posted by agregoli at 11:17 AM on May 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


I suppose it depends where you are imprisoned. The (surprising) things you're allowed in your prison cell.
posted by pracowity at 11:34 AM on May 14, 2015


Maybe for starters we should stop imprisoning people for non-violent drug offenses, thereby reducing overcrowding dramatically. Then start holding COs and wardens alike accountable for this kind of gross negligence of survivors. There is zero reason why the onus should be on the survivor to segregate themselves.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:36 AM on May 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


Yep. Overcrowding is largely the result of that fantastic war on drugs, which with any luck will continue to be rolled back as they all realize it was stupid.
posted by pracowity at 11:37 AM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


I feel like, couldn't rooms be designed to offer both communication between cells and private bunks for actual sleeping? I mean I agree doing so would mean dividing up space in such a way is "unhealthy" but getting raped is also unhealthy so I think providing at least an option of a private bunk and ONLY supervised social engagement (assuming we could reach a point prison workers could be trusted to do so ethically) should be an option? Or at least some version of such on the table?
posted by xarnop at 11:37 AM on May 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


"doing so would mean dividing up space in such a way is "unhealthy"
This of course assumes that expanding rooming areas or dealing with overpopulation in prisons by handling cases of drug use and mental illness in totally separate location and manner than violent/planned/deliberate criminal activity. It is of course not as simple to separate things out but you could probably pretty quickly pull our non-violent drug users from the ranks and offer purely rehabilitative services. (Also legalize pot)

I think those should also be options on the table.Of course we are having this conversation as if any progressive or humane possibilities could be on the table in Texas, but I like to remain hopeful and keep pushing because nothing ever gets done by giving up and thinking it's hopeless.
posted by xarnop at 11:42 AM on May 14, 2015


Also, why would you think you'd get all the comforts of home you want? Guitars, mp3 players? I'm flabergasted at your rosy picture of prison...

We're trying to rehabilitate people...right?
posted by Drinky Die at 11:43 AM on May 14, 2015 [2 favorites]


OH two comments hit as I was posting in my own little world lol, also what the two above me said!
posted by xarnop at 11:43 AM on May 14, 2015


Varies greatly by prison, is all, what you're allowed in your cell. I work with Illinois prisons and some of them have incredibly onerous restrictions about what you can have in your cell. I have clients that can't even have legal papers in their cell. Of course I also have no idea about what prisoners in the UK can have, until that article. At any rate, these postulations about how prisoner life could be changed sound so cavalier to me, not at all close to the realities many of my clients face. All I can say is please, anyone who feels moved to, PLEASE advocate and vote for prison reform and changes to sentencing laws for defendants.
posted by agregoli at 12:15 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


We're trying to rehabilitate people...right?

The America electorate's response to that.
posted by Talez at 12:20 PM on May 14, 2015


Why is it necessary for any prisoner to have any contact with any other prisoner, ever?

Because they are human, ffs.
posted by Cosine at 12:29 PM on May 14, 2015 [9 favorites]


We're trying to rehabilitate people...right?

Send them in as harmless, bumbling pot growers who wouldn't hurt a fly but who got caught growing a crop of soothing marijuana. Let them out year later as repeatedly raped and beaten battle-hardened PTSD motherfuckers who will cause trouble for themselves and others from then on.

And because you chose dehabilitation instead of rehabilitation, you and your family get to live in the same town as these guys and pay one way or another to take care of them forever after.
posted by pracowity at 12:41 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


And because you chose dehabilitation instead of rehabilitation, you and your family get to live in the same town as these guys and pay one way or another to take care of them forever after.

But hey, business is pretty good.

Murica!
posted by theorique at 12:59 PM on May 14, 2015


I feel like, couldn't rooms be designed to offer both communication between cells and private bunks for actual sleeping?

So I think we should drop the solitary confinement angle here; frankly, it's like the first thought of everyone who's ever been confronted by the reality of prison, and I had it once too, but the evidence (pdf) is that it's torture of the worst and most dehumanizing sort, that solitary can utterly destroy a human being without any guards laying a finger on him. It's one of the only times that we see male self-mutilation, for instance; and while it's hard to get mental health data because so many people in prisons start off with mental illnesses, the best evidence is that solitary can actually induce terrible depression, suicide, and schizophrenia-like symptoms. So pretty terrible.

It's also absurdly expensive: usually two to three times as expensive as ordinary incarceration.

But if it helps, here is what it looks like when you put people in segregated housing together. These sessions don't appear to reduce the torturous effects I mentioned.
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:22 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


Single celling is a different thing that solitary. Single celling can include access to social activities during the day and a private room where you are less likely to be be assaulted in your sleep at night (at least by another prisoner). There's pro's and cons and it will take a lot more than that to eliminate assault and rape in prisons however it's not the same as proposing solitary.
posted by xarnop at 1:54 PM on May 14, 2015 [4 favorites]


I see. I don't know anyone who opposes that sort of arrangement but the legislators and voters who pay for prison construction and like to keep occupancy in the 150% range.

As you say that wouldn't address the problem of sexual assault: I'm not sure that many sexual assaults are perpetrated by cell mates.

Given the timeline on new prison construction and the real hope that our incarceration rates might decrease over the next decade, I could imagine a situation that might look like what you're aiming for in many states in the next generation of prisoners. But there are issues: we tend to build supermaxes instead. Many architects who could design better spaces feel somewhat unwilling to participate in mass incarceration. And our capacity to incarcerate record numbers of people keeps surprising us, so the trend has been "build so you can easily exceed the designed-for capacity."
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:28 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


I started to read but ended up having to skim the jezebel article it was making me so sick to see what Passion has to endure. She should be released but if not she should at least have been transferred to a women's prison years ago. Omg so disturbing.
posted by biggreenplant at 5:11 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


xarnop: " Noooooooo....... there are innocent people trapped here! I have kids I can't legally move out of this state and I'm not leaving without them."

I get your message, xarnop, and it sucks. "Freedom of movement," my ass. Texas leaders know that there is a core group of people who like what they're doing, a smaller group who can't escape it, and the balance of folks either don't notice or don't have an opinion. I'm fortunate that I'm in the smaller, virtually unnoticed fourth group: people who can leave and, thus, did. Nothing that has happened since I got my family the hell out of there has changed my mind, from the election of Ted Cruz to the election of Greg Abbott to the outright madness over Denton's anti-fracking ordinance...the list just keeps growing.

Then again, this has been building for decades. I haven't been proud of any of my governors since Ann Richards was in office. The Legislature proved it is composed of a supermajority of partisan assholes when, in response to the minority party having to leave the damn state to stall legislation, the majority threw out the "2/3rds rule" to bring a bill to the floor. That's a rule that's survived almost a hundred years but FSM-forbid we should have compromise on anything more substantial than what to name a freeway (not that there are any more new freeways because All Hail Mighty Tollroads). But, hey, at least Texas now has more government debt than California! Woo, #1.

Signed, one long-suffering native Texan watching the mess safely from afar.
posted by fireoyster at 7:05 PM on May 14, 2015 [1 favorite]


But if it helps, here is what it looks like when you put people in segregated housing together.

...Those conditions are insane. Literally, I can't imagine staying sane in those cages for any length of time. You can't lie down, you can barely sit on what I'm sure is an uncomfortable chair, you're lined up next to other people in the same state like animals in a pet store or a lab... Who thought "How can we design segregated housing?" and thought this was a good idea?

Charles Oman said this about harsh punishments during the Napoleonic Wars:
If anything was calculated to brutalize an army it was the wicked cruelty of the British military punishment code, which Wellington to the end of his life supported. There is plenty of authority for the fact that the man who had once received his 500 lashes for a fault which was small, or which involved no moral guilt, was often turned thereby from a good soldier into a bad soldier, by losing his self-respect and having his sense of justice seared out. Good officers knew this well enough, and did their best to avoid the cat-of-nine-tails, and to try more rational means—more often than not with success.[13]
It would take a really depraved crime to deserve this kind of punishment, and receiving it for anything less is bound to sear out whatever sense of justice one had before being sent to prison. Perhaps tiny metal cages are cheap or vindictive, but they are the opposite of rehabilitative.
posted by Rangi at 12:33 AM on May 16, 2015 [1 favorite]


« Older Lambing season in the north of Iceland   |   I want to ride my cat-cycle Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments