Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on August 09, 2010, 11:15:41 AM
-
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Justice-Department-fights-South-Carolina-over-efforts-against-AIDS-in-prisons-1008381-100224289.html
Points of fact:
1. A goodly proportion of inmates in prison have AIDS.
2. Other prisoners are at risk of getting AIDS due to the practice of prison rape.
3. South Carolina takes AIDS & prison rape serious as a heart attack, segregates AIDS-infected prisoners, and has only one documented case of AIDS via prison rape since 1998.
4. SC tests every new inmate and half of the HIV positive inmates did not know they were HIV positive.
5. SC then immediately begins treatment of every prisoner with AIDS to keep them healthy & alive.
Some folks don't take prison rape too seriously, thinking it just punishment for whatever offense landed the convict in prison.
Others are of a different mind, thinking prison rape is heinous in and of itself and that the risk of getting AIDS via prison rape just too repugnant to remain sanguine about.
There is a third group, the Obama/Holder Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, that thinks SC's segregating the AIDS-infected population stigmatizes them and has filed a lawsuit to stop the practice.
-
This just seems typical of the Obama administration. If you want to predict their moves, just think of the most common sense solution, then think of the opposite of it.
I guess the other argument is "We can't let our prisoners get raped with out fear of AIDS! That would be humane!!.....................uhh..I mean inhumane!!!"
I don't suppose that prison system has a program to try to prevent the prison rape itself?
-
and the hep c is equally deadly and even more prevalent
-
^^^^ A very good point, indeed. I cannot recall where I read it, but one of the medical journals I follow had an article on the percentage of US prisoners with HIV vs. hepatitis C. Hep C is way, way more common in the prison population.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't SC segregate these prisoners on the basis that they are a threat/danger to the other prisoners? If DOJ wins wouldn't prisoners have a reasonably good case to have segregation for other dangers overturned?
-
^^^^ A very good point, indeed. I cannot recall where I read it, but one of the medical journals I follow had an article on the percentage of US prisoners with HIV vs. hepatitis C. Hep C is way, way more common in the prison population.
i wanna say off the top of my head over 50% i know in narcotics anonymous estimates are as high as 30% of folks have it
-
and one thing "normal " folks might not ken is that the type of person who has the decision making skills that get you locked up is also capable of concluding that aids might get you compassionate parole, which should be called let you die outside so we don't have to pay the med costs parole. and thats real problematic
-
i was high
http://www.annals.org/content/144/10/762.full.pdf
this says 20 some percent one study claims 41 %
-
i was high
http://www.annals.org/content/144/10/762.full.pdf
this says 20 some percent one study claims 41 %
That is still a huge rate of infection.
-
brother its hard to watch i see guys the very few who manage to turn their lives around croak 10 years clean with a new family from a shared needle 20 years earlier. lots of liver transplants and various cocktail treatments. if you want a primer on whats current in treatment check out the na oldtimers the few there are. the worst is the kids who suffer either by being infected through no fault of their own or the ones who lose parents. makes ya mad sometimes and drives home the idea that actions have consequences
-
I know it's common to use the terms HIV and AIDS interchangeably, but it still drives me crazy.
I do not understand why it is socially acceptable for anyone not to know his or her HIV/Hep/other STD status. Anything that's easy to test for should be. Segregation of prisons is the very least I would do if I were dictator for a day. Mandatory public testing would be more like it.
This is not the early 20th century. We have some really neat technology. Why are so many people not taking advantage of it and instead playing ostrich (I know the ostrich head-in-sand thing is a myth but it's still a good metaphor)? Is it psychological - fear of being HIV+? Is it economic - can't pay for testing? Is it simply that most people who are undiagnosed aren't aware that they're at at risk, and so we need better education? http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm) How the frell can this happen ???
-
some folks know they are positive and conceal it others don't wanna know a personal don't ask don't tell me.
-
AIDS is a contagious terminal illness but, as I recall, the CDC years ago cited "privacy" reasons for not tracking those who might spread it. Another inconvenient truth?
-
I do not understand why it is socially acceptable for anyone not to know his or her HIV/Hep/other STD status. Anything that's easy to test for should be.
Ignoring for the moment the oddity of hearing certain people call for social stigma, what if I have never had a blood transfusion, used illegal drugs or fornicated, nor have I slept or shared needles with anyone who has? Is that good enough for you? ???
As for the DOJ's concern that HIV-positive prisoners might be stigmatized, why shouldn't they be? ???
-
What I really want to see them justify is those who are hardened criminals who rape and are then eventually released to become recidivists, and spread what they caught in prison to some innocents out in the real world.
I like how it's put in the article about "They're criminals, they're supposed to be punished".
-
Ignoring for the moment the oddity of hearing certain people call for social stigma, what if I have never had a blood transfusion, used illegal drugs or fornicated, nor have I slept or shared needles with anyone who has? Is that good enough for you? ???
As for the DOJ's concern that HIV-positive prisoners might be stigmatized, why shouldn't they be? ???
A bunch of veterans were infected with some nasty stuff about two years ago because the VA hospitals (not all of them, but ... plural) were not properly sterilizing the equipment between colonoscopies.
And just recently, several OTHER VA hospitals managed to infect a whole 'nother bunch of veterans with some other nasty stuff because they weren't properly sterilizing dental instruments.
Nobody is safe. Being alive is a life-threatening condition.
-
Ignoring for the moment the oddity of hearing certain people call for social stigma, what if I have never had a blood transfusion, used illegal drugs or fornicated, nor have I slept or shared needles with anyone who has? Is that good enough for you? ???
Ayup. I don't need any tests to be certain that I don't have HIV. Of course, I should probably be forcibly tested anyway.
Anyone wanna wager how long before our dysfunctional country actually does implement some sort of involuntary medical testing?
-
Some of the craziness comes from attempts to apply non-prison-world scenarios to the world of prisons. For instance, HIPAA rules say I cannot release, even by accident or inuendo, personal health information about which infectious/contagious diseases you have. Fine in the free world, but how do I deal with someone with contagious TB, let along HepC or HIV/AIDS?
Ever try to explain why inmate X cannot be assigned to any job in the kitchen, the wastewater plant, or the food bank warehouse without disclosing that he has a disease that can/will be transmitted by contact with stuff that comes near your mouth on its way to your insides? Or why inmate Y must be kept in a postive-atmospheric-pressure, must-wear-special-protective-gowns-&-masks-to-enter cell on the hospital ward without actually saying he has TB?
And if you get creative and use inmate disciplinary procedures to "justify" their assignment to segregation, they lose the ability to accumulate good-time credits and a chance at a job that might provide them with both some meager income ($0.27 - $0.35/hr for a max of 5 hours a day) but really gives them something to do besides plot how yo screw with the prison system and its employees. And the DOJ says that is unconstitutional because it violates their civil rights.
stay safe.
-
Is it possible I have AIDS? Sure. About the same chance I have a hundred other life-threatening, communicable diseases, I guess.
I do not understand why it is socially acceptable for anyone not to know his or her HIV/Hep/other STD status. Anything that's easy to test for should be.
I'm still stumped by this. It is also easy to avoid needley-type drugs and sex outside of marriage. Maybe these things should also be socially unacceptable.
-
The problem with that is a lot of people who are undiagnosed HIV carriers would say the exact same thing about why they don't need to be tested. The only way to be sure is to test everyone. What is the problem with that? I hate needles and I'd have no problem with mandatory testing. Benefits to society far outweigh the minor annoyance to me. I also hate the idea of the government having databases on people for any reason, but this is one case where I'm willing to make an exception. Privacy my ass. Tell that to the 40k+ newly infected HIV patients every year. It's certainly not fair to them to continue with the status quo.
If there is any public threat that we should be fighting a "war" against, it's the few serious, widespread, detectable, treatable infectious diseases we know about.
Ignoring for the moment the oddity of hearing certain people call for social stigma, what if I have never had a blood transfusion, used illegal drugs or fornicated, nor have I slept or shared needles with anyone who has? Is that good enough for you? ???
Then you are at so little risk that for all practical purposes you know your HIV status without being tested. But being tested won't hurt you. See the first paragraph above. You are aware that HIV does not discriminate against the unmarried, right?
I was not trying to make an overly complex statement there with the "socially acceptable" comment. I simply do not think it's acceptable that 200k (CDC estimate) people in the U.S. are living with HIV and don't know it. If you have a better idea than mandatory testing I'm all ears. I would much prefer that people who had any inkling that they might be at risk would go get tested tomorrow. Since that isn't happening, I'm in favor of mandatory testing. Any of those 200k people could be in marriages spreading HIV to their spouses for all you know.
Assuming the number of psychopaths with HIV is within epsilon of 0, no public outings are necessary (someone might leak the government database at some point but there's not much that can be done about that). Mandatory testing and informing everyone of their HIV status should cut the accidental infection rate to zero. If that does not drop the rate of new HIV infections to near zero (it's roughly 40-50k per year), it's because of jackasses intentionally or negligently spreading HIV, and they need to be quarantined (I think we call it prison).
-
As for the DOJ's concern that HIV-positive prisoners might be stigmatized, why shouldn't they be? ???
Why should people who have a deadly disease be stigmatized?
Remember: you can contracT HIV by being bitten by an HIV-positive person. Or raped. Or even born with it.
Why should a person who has been born with HIV be stigmatized? Is it his/her fault somehow?
-
The problem with that is a lot of people who are undiagnosed HIV carriers would say the exact same thing about why they don't need to be tested.
That is a failure of logic. You can't select undiagnosed carriers, ask them why they think they aren't infected, and then select whoever has that same opinion and view them as suspected carriers.
-
The problem with that is a lot of people who are undiagnosed HIV carriers would say the exact same thing about why they don't need to be tested. The only way to be sure is to test everyone. What is the problem with that? I hate needles and I'd have no problem with mandatory testing. Benefits to society far outweigh the minor annoyance to me. I also hate the idea of the government having databases on people for any reason, but this is one case where I'm willing to make an exception. Privacy my ass. Tell that to the 40k+ newly infected HIV patients every year. It's certainly not fair to them to continue with the status quo.
If there is any public threat that we should be fighting a "war" against, it's the few serious, widespread, detectable, treatable infectious diseases we know about.
Then you are at so little risk that for all practical purposes you know your HIV status without being tested. But being tested won't hurt you. See the first paragraph above. You are aware that HIV does not discriminate against the unmarried, right?
I was not trying to make an overly complex statement there with the "socially acceptable" comment. I simply do not think it's acceptable that 200k (CDC estimate) people in the U.S. are living with HIV and don't know it. If you have a better idea than mandatory testing I'm all ears. I would much prefer that people who had any inkling that they might be at risk would go get tested tomorrow. Since that isn't happening, I'm in favor of mandatory testing. Any of those 200k people could be in marriages spreading HIV to their spouses for all you know.
Assuming the number of psychopaths with HIV is within epsilon of 0, no public outings are necessary (someone might leak the government database at some point but there's not much that can be done about that). Mandatory testing and informing everyone of their HIV status should cut the accidental infection rate to zero. If that does not drop the rate of new HIV infections to near zero (it's roughly 40-50k per year), it's because of jackasses intentionally or negligently spreading HIV, and they need to be quarantined (I think we call it prison).
Alright. I'm in healthcare, and yeah, I agree that HIV/HepC/TB/never-get-overs-of-the-day are all *really* bad things.
HOWEVER.
I will never agree to mandatory testing for everyone.
And while I do agree that you make some excellent points, Tyme, I'm gonna say that you're wrong. I believe it's Benjamin Franklin's words that sum it up best: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". I think that applies in this scenario. Yes, I agree that HIV/AIDS is a Bad Thing... But that doesn't mean that I'm willing to force people to take a risk (Yes, a blood test is a risk... It's a small risk, but it's a risk nonetheless.) in order that we may have a "benefit to society".
And just so we're clear, the examples of the VA are only some of the risks associated with blood tests. Lets say someone decided to "save the gov't a little money" while doing all this testing and started re-using needles. Or better yet, lets skip the hypotheticals and go right to the physical risks of venipuncture, starting at minor and working our way up to major: inflammation/bruising; excessive bleeding; infection (depending on the infectious agent, this can be very minor all the way up to fatal); tendon/ligament damage; nerve damage (to include numbness/decreased sensation up to paralysis below the venipuncture site).
So no. I'm not willing to say that everyone in the country (300+ million people) has to undergo a risk just so that a relatively small minority of the population (40,000/year, per your numbers) can avoid an infection. Especially when I wonder what percentage of those new infections is self-inflicted due to high-risk behavior.
-
Why should people who have a deadly disease be stigmatized?
Remember: you can contracT HIV by being bitten by an HIV-positive person. Or raped. Or even born with it.
Why should a person who has been born with HIV be stigmatized? Is it his/her fault somehow?
In the US at least, HIV still has a bit of "gay disase" stigma attached to it and that no "good" person would ever have or worry about having HIV.
-
Why should people who have a deadly disease be stigmatized?
Remember: you can contracT HIV by being bitten by an HIV-positive person. Or raped. Or even born with it.
Why should a person who has been born with HIV be stigmatized? Is it his/her fault somehow?
You are not asking the proper question in the proper context, which is, "Why should HIV+ prisoners be stigmatized?"
That whole "prisoner" deal is very important to the OP and to the question asked above.
Ayup. I don't need any tests to be certain that I don't have HIV. Of course, I should probably be forcibly tested anyway.
Anyone wanna wager how long before our dysfunctional country actually does implement some sort of involuntary medical testing?
Mandatory testing may be required for other infectious diseases, but will never be implemented for diseases that are considered to be largely prevalent in the homosexual community.
This debate has occurred before, when AIDS first become news. Up till then, STDs were tracked down by questioning those who came down with them and going after their sexual partners. But, not with AIDS.
-
Alright. I'm in healthcare, and yeah, I agree that HIV/HepC/TB/never-get-overs-of-the-day are all *really* bad things.
HOWEVER.
I will never agree to mandatory testing for everyone.
Do you have any other ideas for dramatically reducing the HIV (or Hep) infection rate, or is that just a necessary evil to if we want to keep our liberty?
9/11 only killed a few thousand Americans, one time, and look at what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention internally to our own country (fly recently?), because of it. Terrorist attacks have immediate casualties while HIV/Hep/TB are delayed, but even if terrorists managed to set off a dirty bomb in Manhattan, that would be a one-time equivalent -- at most -- of a few years of HIV infections.
There wouldn't even have to be an attack of the magnitude of a dirty bomb. Suppose terrorists started planting bombs in movie theatres and killed a few thousand that way. Any bet we'd be under quasi-martial law in large cities?
Let's compare: martial law in response to a smaller threat, or blood tests in response to a larger threat. People just aren't as frightened about HIV and Hep, because they're "gay" or "drug user" diseases, compared with terrorist attacks. Would our response to terrorist attacks be any different if they disproportionately targeted gay bars or slums dominated by drug users?
-
9/11 only killed a few thousand Americans, one time, and look at what we're doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention internally to our own country (fly recently?), because of it.
The difference is that it's government's proper place to defend against foreign attack, while it's none of government's damn business what kind of medical services we choose for ourselves.
-
This debate has occurred before, when AIDS first become news. Up till then, STDs were tracked down by questioning those who came down with them and going after their sexual partners. But, not with AIDS.
Wait, what? AIDS carriers are excempt (either by law or by practice) from laws regarding tracking seriously harmful diseases? ???
-
You are not asking the proper question in the proper context, which is, "Why should HIV+ prisoners be stigmatized?"
Fine.
Someone ends up in prison. They are raped, or bitten by a violent inmate. They get AIDS. They need to be stigmatized, why?
-
Fine.
Someone ends up in prison. They are raped, or bitten by a violent inmate. They get AIDS. They need to be stigmatized, why?
Isn't stigmatizing sort of in their own head? I believe they were essentially quarantining them.
If they had quarantined them earlier, that person might not have contracted AIDS.
-
In the US at least, HIV still has a bit of "gay disase" stigma attached to it and that no "good" person would ever have or worry about having HIV.
It still is because one of the highest infection rates continues to be in the gay community last time I saw numbers and still largely due to behavior.
-
Let's compare: martial law in response to a smaller threat, or blood tests in response to a larger threat. People just aren't as frightened about HIV and Hep, because they're "gay" or "drug user" diseases, compared with terrorist attacks. Would our response to terrorist attacks be any different if they disproportionately targeted gay bars or slums dominated by drug users?
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
When AIDS was new, people were rather scared of it, historically, and some got so scared that they advocated some pretty crazy stuff to deal with it.
Today, people just realize how un-dangerous it is.
I mean, sure, AIDS is very bad if you have it, but do you know how low the likelihood of an individual person is to become infected? Do you realize that AIDS deaths are in decline in absolute numbers? [dropped below 16,000 total in 2002]
People's bodies, and their sexuality, are the final fortress of their privacy. If we can invade that, then the entire concept of individual freedoms is pointless. To do that over HIV means that there's no threat, no matter how tiny, you won't do it over.
-
Fine.
Someone ends up in prison. They are raped, or bitten by a violent inmate. They get AIDS. They need to be stigmatized, why?
They're in prison and have been convicted of a crime? IOW, whatever stigma being HIV+ has is dwarfed by the stigma of being a convict.
-
They're in prison and have been convicted of a crime? IOW, whatever stigma being HIV+ has is dwarfed by the stigma of being a convict.
Being a convict is not necessarily a stigma, depending on the neighborhood.
-
Being a convict is not necessarily a stigma, depending on the neighborhood.
That plus because the perception is that HIV is a "gay" disease, the presumption may be that anyone singled out for having HIV is gay, and that may very well be stigmatic, even for (or perhaps especially for) one who is not.
-
I'm in favor of mandatory testing.
For prisoners, or for everyone ???
If the latter, how ya gonna do that? ;/
SWAT raids...? :O
-
For prisoners, or for everyone ???
Mandatory testing of prison inmates for HIV, hepatitis, and TB strikes me as a reasonable safety measure, given the close living conditions inside.
Mandatory testing of the general public is fascism. IMHO, of course.
-
Mandatory testing of prison inmates for HIV, hepatitis, and TB strikes me as a reasonable safety measure, given the close living conditions inside.
Mandatory testing of the general public is fascism. IMHO, of course.
I agree with this.
We owe the other prisoners, not infected with a deadly disease, a reasonable assurance that they will not contract a deadly disease while wards of the state.
-
Why should people who have a deadly disease be stigmatized?
Remember: you can contracT HIV by being bitten by an HIV-positive person. Or raped. Or even born with it.
Why should a person who has been born with HIV be stigmatized? Is it his/her fault somehow?
You mean why would people who have a deadly communicable disease be stigmatized? Because they have a deadly communicable disease, that's why. Whether they bear some moral culpability is not really at issue. They may be the nicest and otherwise wholesome people at the church picnic, but the presence of blood-born pathogens tends to put a damper on things. =|
-
But being tested won't hurt you.
You've no need to worry about Big Brother, if you've nothing to hide.
-
You mean why would people who have a deadly communicable disease be stigmatized? Because they have a deadly communicable disease, that's why. Whether they bear some moral culpability is not really at issue. They may be the nicest and otherwise wholesome people at the church picnic, but the presence of blood-born pathogens tends to put a damper on things. =|
Uh. You're not really likely to contract HIV from another person unless you... bite them? have sex with them? I'm out, really.
-
FWIW, there are a lot of avenues for getting HIV tested these days. I've had two this year in the process of buying life insurance (two policies). My wife had one this year (life insurance again, only one policy) and another when she was pregnant with our first child. She might have had one when she was pregnant with Thing 2, but I don't recall hearing.
Being solidly middle-class white and married, we're not exactly part of any risk group, yet that's 4 tests between the two of us in the past 8 years.
Chris
-
Uh. You're not really likely to contract HIV from another person unless you... bite them? have sex with them? I'm out, really.
Your point? ???
-
I agree with this.
We owe the other prisoners, not infected with a deadly disease, a reasonable assurance that they will not contract a deadly disease while wards of the state.
Again, we need to go back to the rules governing health care as it is provided in prisons. Generally speaking you cannot isolate/segregate an inmate just because s/he has disease X - unless disease X will spread by merely being in the presence of the inmate. That's why active TB cases are segregated in the infirmary until they either submit to treatment and become non-communicable or die. And yes, inmates have the right to refuse medical treatment. Sure, you can try for a court order to force it on them, but outside of MH issues it becomes more difficult.
Prisoners who are X-positive and who behave in a manner that subjects staff/other inmates to the possibility of having X spread to them - fighting, spitting, throwing bodily fluids, biting, etc. - can be segregated because of their behavior -- but mot merely because they are X-positive.
And even if their behavior is such that they pose a transmission risk, the administration cannot hang a big red "I HAVE X" sign around their neck or on the front of their cell. Go read and thank HIPAA for that. Best you can get is a policy that anybody that fights, spits, throws bodily fluids, bites, etc. and the person on the receiving end can/must be tested for a specified list of communicable diseases. Even if Inmate X does it three times a day, and has been tested daily for the last year, he gets a new test every time because doing otherwise would disclose his personal medical information.
Go look at how your free-world healthcare system deals with bodily-fluids exposures. Actually read the form you sign almost every time you access health care.
stay safe.
-
Your point? ???
That AIDS isn't really a communicable disease like, say, Ebola or the Black Death is. There's no point in stigmatizing those who have it and treating them like lepers.
-
I'm simply pointing out that there is a stigma attached to having a deadly communicable disease (dcd). If you have a dcd, and people know that you have said dcd, you expect them to treat you differently than those without dcd, at least in some way. Even you would acknowledge this.
I'm not saying they should wear a scarlet letter or yell "Unclean!" as they go down the street. ;/ As usual, you treat an observation as a policy proposal.
-
It's not a matter of stigmitization or being a "gay" disease....it's a matter of managing health care in a closed, controlled environment. And, having worked in prison environments, I'd be OK with segregating prisoners for most communicable diseases on a temporary or permanent (as needed) basis.
Getting adequate correctional officer coverage for these units....THAT'S the real problem...
-
Mandatory testing of prison inmates for HIV, hepatitis, and TB strikes me as a reasonable safety measure, given the close living conditions inside.
Mandatory testing of the general public is fascism. IMHO, of course.
I agree with this. I think perhaps though that a mass misrepresentation is at work here. The words we use to describe something affect the way we think and perceive an issue. For instance I has a Staff Sergeant who changed one of the rules of firearms handling to read "...anything you do not wish to kill" instead of "destroy." The word in this case is segregation. This word is closely tied with abuses of people by government over arbitrary causes (color of skin). This words brings into effect incorrect and disingenuous connotations for this discussion. An appropriate word that should be used, however, is quarantine. This word accurately depicts what is truly going on; those with diseases that are shown to be lethal are being separated from the existing population that do not have those diseases and this being done after definitive proof has been presented that keeping those two populations in close quarters (prison) has lead to a spread of that disease. The method of transmission is moot in this case as it has been shown that in these conditions fluid born transmission is just as problematic. I did have some qualms about forced quarantine regarding some previous discussions but as these are persons already being confined justly those discussions likewise also do not have merit in this case. In this case it is certainly proper and humane to attempt to stem the spread of communicable lethal diseases regardless of type, also I have yet to see any argument made to indicate that these quarantined prisoners are receiving any lesser treatment than those from which they have been separated. If you would readily quarantine those with typhus, TB, measles, or a myriad of lesser diseases, why would you not quarantine those with proven lethal illness that has been shown to spread in such a population? A society, ladies and gentlemen, is measured by the treatment of it's prisoners, how do you wish to be judged?
-
Mandatory testing of prison inmates for HIV, hepatitis, and TB strikes me as a reasonable safety measure, given the close living conditions inside.
Mandatory testing of the general public is fascism. IMHO, of course.
I agree. I know in boot camp we all had to get tested, I know of one person in my boot camp division who found out he had Syphilis and was able to get treatment.
-
Again, we need to go back to the rules governing health care as it is provided in prisons. Generally speaking you cannot isolate/segregate an inmate just because s/he has disease X - unless disease X will spread by merely being in the presence of the inmate. That's why active TB cases are segregated in the infirmary until they either submit to treatment and become non-communicable or die. And yes, inmates have the right to refuse medical treatment. Sure, you can try for a court order to force it on them, but outside of MH issues it becomes more difficult.
Prisoners who are X-positive and who behave in a manner that subjects staff/other inmates to the possibility of having X spread to them - fighting, spitting, throwing bodily fluids, biting, etc. - can be segregated because of their behavior -- but mot merely because they are X-positive.
And even if their behavior is such that they pose a transmission risk, the administration cannot hang a big red "I HAVE X" sign around their neck or on the front of their cell. Go read and thank HIPAA for that. Best you can get is a policy that anybody that fights, spits, throws bodily fluids, bites, etc. and the person on the receiving end can/must be tested for a specified list of communicable diseases. Even if Inmate X does it three times a day, and has been tested daily for the last year, he gets a new test every time because doing otherwise would disclose his personal medical information.
Go look at how your free-world healthcare system deals with bodily-fluids exposures. Actually read the form you sign almost every time you access health care.
stay safe.
One gives up their freedom when they commit acts against the public trust. Conversly, a prisoner shouldn't have to worry about being raped by an aids infected inmate. Nothing like serving out a relatively minor offense and being sentanced to death with a communicable disease.
-
An at-risk person not knowing their HIV status is not privacy, it's stupidity, and unlike other brands of stupidity, this one does affect other people in aggregate. More than terrorist attacks which have produced much more onerous restrictions than a simple blood test.
We have drivers ed to teach people how to drive. I'd be in favor of having mandatory firearms education in secondary school.
All I'm arguing in favor of is a similar level of education regarding HIV. Good drivers ed emphasizes the reality that it's not just others that pose a threat, but that we pose a threat to ourselves and others. Good firearm safety education is similar: we can pose a threat to ourselves and others if we do not handle firearms properly. It is impossible to conduct similar threat assessments for HIV without knowing who is infected, and since 1/5 (CDC estimates, see link in my first post) of the 1m+ living with HIV in the U.S. are undiagnosed and unaware, that represents, IMO, a breakdown in HIV education.
Why shouldn't HIV education start with knowing whether you're infected? And how can that be implemented without mandatory testing, when 1/5 of people in the U.S. who are clearly at risk (because they are already infected) don't even know it?
If a program ostensibly to test for HIV is too offensive, how about a mandatory blood donorship program?
It still is because one of the highest infection rates continues to be in the gay community last time I saw numbers and still largely due to behavior.
"It probably won't affect me, so why should I worry about it?" Is homosexuality and/or drug use worthy of an increased chance at a death sentence?
I mean, sure, AIDS is very bad if you have it, but do you know how low the likelihood of an individual person is to become infected? Do you realize that AIDS deaths are in decline in absolute numbers? [dropped below 16,000 total in 2002]
That's still a lot higher than terrorist threats that could, in combination with the government's reaction, turn the U.S. a virtual warzone. The fact is we could reduce those HIV numbers dramatically simply by mandatory testing (no scarlet letters, but simply by informing anyone who tests positive).
-
I'm desperately trying to find in the constitution and subsequent amendments where the Government would have authority to conduct mandatory aids testing?
You pile it onto other issues like hey, since we're doing this already, we should do this, too.
Drivers Ed: There's a reason we're falling behind in the world. Teaching our children how to drive, put condoms on banannas, and about equality and diversity. Your idea of mandatory HiV testing children...FAIL.
-
I'm desperately trying to find in the constitution and subsequent amendments where the Government would have authority to conduct mandatory aids testing?
Wouldn't this be akin to the mandatory cold vaccines they did once?
-
Wouldn't this be akin to the mandatory cold vaccines they did once?
I would argue that one cannot contract aids by sneezing in the classroom. And just because vaccines are mandatory, doesn't make them right.
-
I would argue that one cannot contract aids by sneezing in the classroom. And just because vaccines are mandatory, doesn't make them right.
Do you think there should be some sort of analysis matrix? IE: Impact, rarity, ease of spread
I know I wouldn't want the super ebola carriers hanging out [sans encounter suits] at stadiums and think government intervention proper in that extreme circumstance. I can see vaccines being a bit different, as they are a preventative imposition on believed non-carriers, rather than the more direct spread suppression.
There are a disturbing number of examples of ignorant/purposeful mass spreading of deadly diseases by individuals. According to my insurance company, the college I attended was one of the top 5 VD carrying colleges in the nation.
I would like for free [or highly subsidized by graduated income such that expense would not be an excuse] testing to be made available an legal consequences for negligent or purposeful spreading of serious diseases. Perhaps even criminal charges for reckless or purposeful spreading.
As for thread topic subject of prisoners [and I would extend it to military personal], rights were lost and the government is in control of associations. Identification or at least segregation is a pragmatic necessity for the preservation of health. The right of privacy is lost to an extreme degree and while broadcasting would be inappropriate, acting in preventative fashion [segregation and notification] would be entirely appropriate.
There is a fairly famous case out of NY where a police officer let her son [a straight A HS student] be arrested and locked up overnight for parking tickets as a lesson. In custody he was raped and contracted HIV and later AIDS from the encounter. [tinfoil]
-
Government intervention hasn't done much for HIV prevention except waste money. I would only support government intervention in the spread of involuntarily communciable dieseases that are a threat to the public. HIV is spread through activity.
As for thread topic subject of prisoners [and I would extend it to military personal], rights were lost and the government is in control of associations. Identification or at least segregation is a pragmatic necessity for the preservation of health. The right of privacy is lost to an extreme degree and while broadcasting would be inappropriate, acting in preventative fashion [segregation and notification] would be entirely appropriate.
Wholly agreed. I can't even believe that some would argue against prisoners with communciable diseases being tested and segregated. Especially with deadly STD's like HIV. Prison rape should never be acceptable. And worse, someone who's serving a debt to society is then saddled with a death sentance for, what? A few DUI's? Embezzling money? Having pot and a gun in the same house?
-
Is homosexuality and/or drug use worthy of an increased chance at a death sentence?
Mother Nature & Darwin sure think so.
-
I can't even believe that some would argue against prisoners with communicable diseases being tested and segregated. Especially with deadly STD's like HIV.
And yet... that is what some folks in the government are doing. :facepalm:
-
Mother Nature & Darwin sure think so.
Mother Nature thought we deserved to have smallpox, too.
Then we chased smallpox down and killed it.
-
Mother Nature thought we deserved to have smallpox, too.
Then we chased smallpox down and killed it.
Preaching to the choir, Brother.
Tell it to those who are chasing down HIV and giving it aid and succor.*
* Thereby getting an "...increased chance at a death sentence..."
-
"It probably won't affect me, so why should I worry about it?" Is homosexuality and/or drug use worthy of an increased chance at a death sentence?
It is not homosexuality itself, but their own behavior that is spreading AIDS. The story I keep hearing is that "risky" sex, one night stands, etc, etc are much more prevalent in the homosexual community. That is behavior, not sexual orientation. Heterosexuals have modified their behavior to a greater extent and the new infection rate is much less. So, yes, if you put yourself at risk through your own behavior, you make yourself more worthy of a death sentence. If they are doing it to themselves, I have little sympathy if feel stigmatized.
-
As far as general disease control, would that rightly fall under the general welfare clause? I know everything falls in that these days, but it seems to me that dealing with an epidemic would be something local or federal govt would/should take a leadership role in.
-
http://www.plusnews.org/report.aspx?ReportId=81939
http://www.haaretz.com/news/growing-number-of-hiv-carriers-knowingly-having-unprotected-sex-1.704
-
If you have an STD, unknowingly and knowingly, then pass it on to someone, should it be treated the same as say... a negligent discharge and hitting someone? Or something along those lines?
-
According to my insurance company, the college I attended was one of the top 5 VD carrying colleges in the nation.
I won't ask the circumstances under which they happened to mention that information ;)
-
I won't ask the circumstances under which they happened to mention that information ;)
The insurance company actually let me know before I headed off to college that they pointedly do cover, FULLY, a wide array of vaccinations and STRONGLY encourage me to get them.
I think that greatly affected some of my more wild excesses. Each likely was viewed with frank assessment of the uhh, likelyhood. [tinfoil]
-
If you have an STD, unknowingly and knowingly, then pass it on to someone, should it be treated the same as say... a negligent discharge and hitting someone?
Ewwwww!
-
The difference between and STD and other communicable diseases is that one is involuntarily contracted, one is generally not. Preventing people with drug resistant forms of TB from wandering around infecting everyone you pass is different than people who engage in stupid and risky behaviour (unprotected sex, sharing needles etc) taking the consequences of their actions.
-
It's been stated in this thread that over a million people have HIV and not know it.
It's entirely possible for one of these people to get married, and infect their entirely-monogamous wife and children.
Besides, the risk of actually getting HIV by sexual contact is below 1% per contact. Assuming the other party is a carrier.
AIDS isn't a new Black Plague. There's no need to be painting white crosses.
-
One gives up their freedom when they commit acts against the public trust. Conversly, a prisoner shouldn't have to worry about being raped by an aids infected inmate. Nothing like serving out a relatively minor offense and being sentanced to death with a communicable disease.
I concur in part and respectfully disagree in part.
We - society - have an obligation to protect inmates from harm because we have taken away their ability to protect themselves. That is done by locking away even further the inmate who physically or sexually assaults other inmates or staff. That is also done by refusing to assign non-violent inmates with communicable diseases to job sites where they might spread their disease - kitchens, barber jobs, some jobs involving the use of certain machinery where the rate of industrial accidents is high, etc. Keeping the bodily fluids inside the body is the best way to prevent the spread of disease caused by the spread of bodily fluids.
But it is not sound penal operation, nor is it sound penal management, to isolate/segregate each and every inmate who has HIV/AIDS/HepC (or A or B), or syphyllis or inactive TB or any of a raft of other potentially deadly diseases. You lose the availability of inmate labor to run essential operations, you require more staff to meet both the basic security needs and the operation of the facility, and worst of all you are faced with a population that has at least one more reason to spend all day dreaming up ways to rage against their fate.
And again, like a broken record, I keep coming back to the fact that the law says you cannot disclose personal health information, even by segregation/isolation status. Creating a segregation/isolation unit for those with communicable diseases is disclosing their personal health information. Yes, it is perhaps the flimsiest of arguments when all is considered, but society has an obligationto itself to obey the laws it enacts, even when it finds that those laws occassionally get in the way of the easy way of dealing with life's little problems. Trying to get some APS members to understand this is just as difficult as it was trying to get Dept. of Corrections administrators to understand it. At least then I was being paid for my efforts.
stay safe.
-
VASkidmark,
I [pretty much] agree, but would ask how does a society fufil the obligations in:
We - society - have an obligation to protect inmates from harm because we have taken away their ability to protect themselves. That is done by locking away even further the inmate who physically or sexually assaults other inmates or staff. That is also done by refusing to assign non-violent inmates with communicable diseases to job sites where they might spread their disease - kitchens, barber jobs, some jobs involving the use of certain machinery where the rate of industrial accidents is high, etc. Keeping the bodily fluids inside the body is the best way to prevent the spread of disease caused by the spread of bodily fluids.
with the legal requirements of:
And again, like a broken record, I keep coming back to the fact that the law says you cannot disclose personal health information, even by segregation/isolation status. Creating a segregation/isolation unit for those with communicable diseases is disclosing their personal health information.
It would seem even a reletivly stupid criminal could figure out pretty easy which inmates don't get license plate stamping or kitchen duty for no obvious reason. Then there's also the whole prison rape thing. My understanding is it's rarely reported. So how do we as a society protect the non-violent inmates from Claude the HIV+, serial prison rapist?
The obvious (and expensive) solution would be to not allow any interaction between inmates at all. But that would probably lead to phsych issues down the line.
And are we all in agreement that a STD test should be mandatory for all prisoners on incarceration? That seems a minimum first step to ensure our prisoners health.
-
It's been stated in this thread that over a million people have HIV and not know it.
It's entirely possible for one of these people to get married, and infect their entirely-monogamous wife and children.
Besides, the risk of actually getting HIV by sexual contact is below 1% per contact. Assuming the other party is a carrier.
AIDS isn't a new Black Plague. There's no need to be painting white crosses.
We can use another color. =)
-
And again, like a broken record, I keep coming back to the fact that the law says you cannot disclose personal health information, even by segregation/isolation status. Creating a segregation/isolation unit for those with communicable diseases is disclosing their personal health information.
Perhaps it is the law that needs to be changed. You lose some things when you commit a crime bad enough to be thrown in prison. Perhaps that medical privacy should be lost or modified for the time period they are in prison.
-
Given the prevelance of male rape in the prision system, who's rights are greater? The infected inmate's right to privacy, or the rape-ees right to not contract a death sentance?
-
Given the prevelance of male rape in the prision system, who's rights are greater? The infected inmate's right to privacy, or the rape-ees right to not contract a death sentance?
How prevalent is male rape in the prison system?
-
How prevalent is male rape in the prison system?
Not anywhere near as frequently as the ZOMG-screamers would try to make you believe. Nor is consensual sex that prevalent. The biggest problem, if you will allow the use of that term, is the unavailability of condoms, although some inmates are quite adept at making do with other sources of either latex, nitrile, or other plastic films.
As for amending the law so as to deal with the vagarities of prison administration? Why don't we propose that to our law,akers and see just hom much interest there is amongst them? [/sarcasm]
Just about everyone knows just about everything about all the other inmates, the staff, the families of both, including the daily toileting habits of both groups, within a few months of arrival at a prison. It's possible, but difficult, for staff to keep their private lives private mainly because they have that big gaping orifice between their nose and chin and cannot/will not control what comes out of it. As well, they spew information that is supposed to not even be available to them for everyone and anyone to hear and repeat.
But the freaking law is the law and must be obeyed. Why, that's one of life's little lessons that currently seems to be on the agenda to teach inmates. So the corrections systems struggle with ways to comply with even those laws that make the job as utterly difficult as possible if not outright impossible. And as long as there are no riots and the numbers of staff that get killed/hurt are kept "reasonable" (whatever that actual number may be - but obviously we have not yet exceeded it), few who are not directly involved with either operating prisons of those incarcerated within the prisons seem to care enough to make things easier.
One of my objectives in documenting the continuing violations of HIPAA regulations was to provide sufficient incentive to have the regulations changed. If the system could not manage to operate within the existing regulations there must be a reason, and perhaps that reason was the regulations were essentially such that nobody could comply with them. Rather than continue to expose the State to losses from lawsuits, perhaps spend a mere fraction of that amount lobbying to get the rules changed? Where is the head-banging-against-the-stone-wall smiley when you need it?
As for "You lose some things when you commit a crime bad enough to be thrown in prison. Perhaps that medical privacy should be lost or modified for the time period they are in prison" -well, there's that slippery slope thing cropping up again. I am probably the one person on earth that is the least in favor of softness for inmates, but then again I am possibly the most ardent for ensuring that society does not once again decide that a class of untermenchen exists who are not deserving of fully equal protection under the law. I once was known for saying "Inmates deserve to receive everything they are entitled to under the Constitution - and not one thing more!" I still fear the day when that which is prohibited because it is "cruel and unsusal" becomes permitted because it is now "cruel and usual".
stay safe.
-
How prevalent is male rape in the prison system?
I'd certainly suppose its much more common inside prision than outside prision.
-
How prevalent is male rape in the prison system?
Human Rights watch will claim 140,000 per year. I'd give them a histrionic quotient of 2 and knock it in half.
OTOH, studies done by fed & state gov'ts say between 9%-23% of male inmates get raped.
There is a bill before Congress concerning standards to prevent prison rape that Holder has asked them to delay:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/243151/prison-rape-standards-still-waiting-approval-eli-lehrer
-
How prevalent is male rape in the prison system?
I know a man who caught HIV due to prison rape. So it's common enough to be a problem.
-
Besides, the risk of actually getting HIV by sexual contact is below 1% per contact. Assuming the other party is a carrier.
Uhhh.... I think prison rape would tend to be a bit... rougher and less planned, than the considered 'encounter.'
I seriously doubt that 1% figure for the discussed situation. Just from my limited exposure I know some half dozen one night in prison, rape, HIV occurrences.
I'd advice folks against going to jail in generally, specially in NYC.
-
It's been stated in this thread that over a million people have HIV and not know it.
Are you referring to my stats? CDC estimates slightly over 1 million infected in the U.S., with an estimated 20% unaware (link to the data (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm) which was in my first post in this thread). Globally, I'm sure far more than 1 million people are unknowingly HIV+. Global incidence of HIV is like 35-40mil, with over 10mil on the African continent, and millions more in Asia. Certainly well more than 1mil are undiagnosed in Africa and Asia alone. http://globalhealthfacts.org/topic.jsp?i=1
It's entirely possible for one of these people to get married, and infect their entirely-monogamous wife and children.
Besides, the risk of actually getting HIV by sexual contact is below 1% per contact. Assuming the other party is a carrier.
AIDS isn't a new Black Plague. There's no need to be painting white crosses.
Points 1 and 2 are at odds with each other. Per-contact seroconversion is low. Overall seroconversion is high unless the couple always use barrier protection methods and do not engage in riskier sex, which ties in with...
Point 2 is dangerously simplified. Risk per contact is wildly dependent on all sorts of factors, from viral load to whether condoms are used to the type of sex to whether any other STDs are present (which might create ulcers which ease the spread of HIV, for instance).
Point 3 is highly subjective. I am more concerned about HIV than the Black Plague precisely because HIV infection is not obvious and because its latent period is much longer. If a Black Plague outbreak were detected, enormous efforts would be placed on containment and identification of all infected, and general proactive measures for the rest of the public to reduce transmission if the dragnet misses anyone. Certainly you can see the dramatic difference between a case like that and the current (lack of) efforts to deal with HIV transmission?
-
don't forget teeth problems causing bleeding etc. .
-
Heterosexuals have modified their behavior to a greater extent and the new infection rate is much less.
By my understanding, homosexuals have done it even more; but they're starting substantially 'behind the curve', so to speak.
Not to distract from the point too much, but wouldn't gay marriage, with the whole 'exclusivity' clause help?
If you have an STD, unknowingly and knowingly, then pass it on to someone, should it be treated the same as say... a negligent discharge and hitting someone? Or something along those lines?
Unknowingly, I'd require proof of negligence; that a reasonable person would have suspected and gotten tested.
Knowingly? With HIV I'd go for attempted murder, at the least. Heck, make a NEW law regarding it. Assault with a deadly weapon?
The difference between and STD and other communicable diseases is that one is involuntarily contracted, one is generally not. Preventing people with drug resistant forms of TB from wandering around infecting everyone you pass is different than people who engage in stupid and risky behaviour (unprotected sex, sharing needles etc) taking the consequences of their actions.
Uh, I don't think many people 'voluntarily' contracted HIV. You're also coming close to the line of treating HIV and STDs as punishment, not a disease. After all, you can avoid TB by wearing a breathing system(masks are better worn by the TB patient to prevent spread then worn by non-infected to prevent infection). There are people out there who became infected because their spouse was the one who engaged in 'risky behavior', whether drug use or an affair, then spread it.
Are you referring to my stats? CDC estimates slightly over 1 million infected in the U.S., with an estimated 20% unaware (link to the data (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm) which was in my first post in this thread). Globally, I'm sure far more than 1 million people are unknowingly HIV+. Global incidence of HIV is like 35-40mil, with over 10mil on the African continent, and millions more in Asia. Certainly well more than 1mil are undiagnosed in Africa and Asia alone. http://globalhealthfacts.org/topic.jsp?i=1
Interesting.
So we're looking at a .3% infection rate, around 200k unaware(.06%), out of a country of ~300M.
Just as an exercise: Let's say we get a cheap test that has a 1% false negative and false positive rate. We test all 300M people.
We'd be able to inform 198k of the estimated 200k people that they have HIV.
We'd have to retest, using better, more expensive methods, 3M people who we get a false positive on.
Still, assuming that each infected person we catch prevents somebody else getting infected, that's 198k lives 'saved' because HIV/AIDS is still considered lethal, right?
If the test costs $10ea, that's $3B for primary testing, another $302M on retesting($100/pop). We'll consider additional money on treating those ~200K people medically beneficial.
Though now that I looked into the costs, it seems my figures are a bit off:
Making HIV Testing Cost-Effective (http://aids-clinical-care.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1211/1).
$7 for a 'rapid test'
$40 for confirmatory
$37,100 estimated per 'quality-adjusted life-year' gained via successful treatment of those found via a 100% testing of all adults.
Per their studies; the military's tendency to test annually is excessive; every 3 years is considered just as good.
They list .2% as the break even point for mass adult testing vs other strategies. Given that they're estimating the US's infection rate at .3%, it seems a mass screening of the USA would be a net positive affair.
-
[cost analysis, pegging one very rough estimate at $3B]
We spent more than that each year for FY2007-09 in HIV-related foreign aid. Even if domestic testing were a net loss proposition on the order of a few hundred million to a few billion dollars, wouldn't it be a good idea to take care of the domestic situation first?
[third bullet point at http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/cbj2009/ : $3.2B 2007, $4.6B 2008, $4.7B 2009 ]
As the article you linked mentions, testing doesn't need to be annual; even a one-time aggressive nationwide testing program -- combined with ongoing testing of new immigrants, as well as giving doctors a little bit of leeway in getting federal funds to pay for testing anyone they think is particularly high risk -- would probably keep the pool of undiagnosed HIV infection near zero. Gradual unexplained increases in the HIV detection rate for higher-risk individuals could be an indicator that there is a new undiagnosed pool of HIV infection in the lower-risk population, and further measures up to and including another round of nationwide testing could be called for at some threshold.
-
By my understanding, homosexuals have done it even more; but they're starting substantially 'behind the curve', so to speak.
Not to distract from the point too much, but wouldn't gay marriage, with the whole 'exclusivity' clause help?
I think it was a year or two ago the last time I heard stats. It was said that "risky sex" was still common in that community (certainly not everyone) and that was one of the major factors stated. Homosexuals aren't alone in that certainly, but it was said the % of the community was higher and the risk of infection by that type of contact was higher. If things have changed for the better, that certainly a good thing.
I don't know if marriage would help or not. I figure it someone isn't monogamous before marriage, they are less likely to be that way after. I guess there is also the question: do they want marriage for the exclusivity factor or for the "I'm normal now just like mom and dad" factor?
-
I don't know if marriage would help or not. I figure it someone isn't monogamous before marriage, they are less likely to be that way after. I guess there is also the question: do they want marriage for the exclusivity factor or for the "I'm normal now just like mom and dad" factor?
I suspect the latter, as roughly half of homosexual "marriages" are explicitly "open" and eliminate any positive effects one might gain from monogamy, to include lesser chances of contracting venereal diseases.
-
I resurrect this thread to bring you this link:
http://www.slate.com/id/2267285/?gt1=38001
It argues that prisons should have tattoo parlors as a public health measure. Of note are the studies pointing out that Hep C infection is 10-20 times higher in prison, and if sanitary tattooing was available, this could reduce the rate of infection.
-
I resurrect this thread to bring you this link:
http://www.slate.com/id/2267285/?gt1=38001
It argues that prisons should have tattoo parlors as a public health measure. Of note are the studies pointing out that Hep C infection is 10-20 times higher in prison, and if sanitary tattooing was available, this could reduce the rate of infection.
It's interesting, and the cost effectiveness of preventing future cases of Hep/HIV and their associated medical costs do seem worth it, but I have to ask, why should someone who broke the law get to enjoy a recreational activity on my dime? On the flip side, I've no qualms about proper and sanitary tattooing facilities being made available if the inmates themselves paid for it/built it.
-
but I have to ask, why should someone who broke the law get to enjoy a recreational activity on my dime?
Do you feel the same about prison libraries?
-
Do you feel the same about prison libraries?
I don't. I want the prisoners to read books; I don't really care if they get tattoos.
-
I don't. I want the prisoners to read books; I don't really care if they get tattoos.
It seems to me the cost reduction in prisoners not contracting serious diseases is a good enough reason to care.
-
Eh, if you put it that way, maybe. Then again, we may wish to look into mandatory laser removal of all tattoos, or at least those not cataloged when the inmate is processed in. It would disincentive prison tats, would prevent tax money being spent on tattoos (to which some tax-payers have religious objections, anyway) and probably better suit the inmates for life outside the joint.
-
If we stopped funding everything to which some taxpayer has a religious objection, the state couldn't exist.
-
If we stopped funding everything to which some taxpayer has a religious objection, the state couldn't exist.
Is that all you got out of my post? ;/ =)
-
>If we stopped funding everything to which some taxpayer has a religious objection, the state couldn't exist.<
And the cons to this argument are?
Pardon the pun: it was unintentional...
-
By "tattoo parlors", I assume you mean giving the inmates the means to use properly sterilized equipment and not hiring a professional to do the tattoos. The only additional positive I can think of is at least one prisoner getting practice for a profession as a tattooist.
-
I'd bet dollars to Trojans that more prisoners get Hep C via homosexual activity than they do via prison tattoos.
This is more akin to midnight basketball and cable TV for cons than it is akin to disease prevention.
-
Maybe if the new policy is to amputate any area with new ink, the problem might solve itself...
-
I don't. I want the prisoners to read books; I don't really care if they get tattoos.
This.
I don't mind spending money on inmates in ways that better rehabilitates them. I do mind spending money for inmates to receive useless shiny baubles.
If a given con wants professional tats, that's fine with me. He can pay for 'em himself, after he's out.
-
its actually kinda problematic to be a prolific reader in jail. though its a great way to lose weight
-
Are prison inmates ever tattooed against their will?
-
depends on how you view some gang tats. you really almost do have to join in some camps to survive and then you gotta get the tats
-
its actually kinda problematic to be a prolific reader in jail. though its a great way to lose weight
Explicame, por favor.
-
they often limit how much stuff you can have in cell and how often you access library to get aound that you get guys who are less literary to check out books for you keep em in their house. gotta give em your desert to get em to do that
-
they often limit how much stuff you can have in cell and how often you access library to get aound that you get guys who are less literary to check out books for you keep em in their house. gotta give em your desert to get em to do that
Hmm, skip the Louis L'Amour westerns and take up long-winded Russian novelists.
-
Tolstoy for the win.
-
Hmm, skip the Louis L'Amour westerns and take up long-winded Russian novelists.
My father is of the opinion that the world would improve if we took the opportunity and limited the cultural consumption of prisoners to classical literature.
-
Hmm, skip the Louis L'Amour westerns and take up long-winded Russian novelists.
but i love his stories! especially his short stories! and i didn't need the desert i already got fat enough in there
i read a ton of shakespeare, in the original text whicj damn near made if a foreign language