Three Women Found After Being Abducted Over 10 Years Ago

[Valka D'Ur]

If you really want to ask about something I ended up not posting in the end - The biggest reason I can think of is time, particularly a high profile case where there may be hundreds of people calling thinking they have pertinent information. Another reason could be a certain amount of disorganization where people didn't pass on the information, this occurs even in high profile cases, not just instances no one cares about.

I edited this post too, I edit a lot for various reasons. Anyway, that post I edited seconds after finishing it so I'm a bit surprised you're raising this issue.

That's the beauty of instant email notifications. I get to see the original content of peoples' posts.

 

[Bamspeedy]

So Cleveland needed to have more 'law and order', 'jack-booted thugs' patrolling the streets?

 

[metatron]

Ironically, prison rape in the US is largely condoned because many "law and order" advocates think it is part of the punishment which they deserve.

I'm generally in favor of justified and acountable authority as well as some form of penal system. And i'm not too shy to say so.
I suppose that makes me a "law and order advocate".
I feel that prison rape cannot be tolerated at all and has to be eliminitated - with great effort if necessary.
If i was American i'd probably feel that any toleration of prison rape was a severe violation of (at the very least) the 6th, 8th and 14th amendment - and i'd feel that way as a direct result of being a "law and order type".

Now, sure, i understand that you didn't mean me, that you were rather using the term to remind us of certain stereotypes (that do have a lot of truth to them).
But i can see how one could misunderstand you. I can also see how one could misunderstand you on purpose.

Forma's position was that "law and order types," a figment of his over active and utterly boring imagination but which I am sure he thinks includes everyone who ever disagrees with him on anything, supports prison rape as punishment.

Nobody is contesting that prison guards are not preventing them, but what does that have to do with the at least 150 million people Forma indicted?

emphasis added

Forma spoke of "many of" the aforementioned type.
I took it that he meant a specific brand of "law and order" proponents. You know, the ones who are hugely in favor of "liberty" and "rights" and "dignity" as long as it is their own but feel it can be easily sacrificed if it's the poor's or the ethnic minorities'...

Everything. Law-and-order types, people who support the prison systems as a matter of due course, are at worst approving and at best indifferent. Given the evidence Formaldehyde presented we cannot conclude that the justice system's most draconian proponents are genuine opponents of the prison rape phenomenon.

emphasis added

You do realise that these are two different groups and that depending on the judgement of the reader the overlap could potentially be rather small?

For the record: I would of course not support the US prison system in its current form. But i would support a prison system.
Many of the "150 million" Patroklos is trying to defend here may be merely too uninformed to be as outraged about prison rape as we are.

If anything it seems like they'd be the vanguards, and if not them then nobody, and we know for a fact that they condone this illegal behavior on a widespread basis.

You are now talking about people actually involved with the penal system? Wardens, cops, attorneys, judges, lawmakers etc?
If so, i completely agree with you.

So once again I fail to see what defense "law-and-order" types can muster in lieu of the knowledge that the structure they support so vociferously is the structure most tolerant of this behavior they're supposed to be against.

Disclaimer: I am writing this under the impression that you meant by "in lieu" the opposite of what i (and a dictionary) would have thought that it means. Your argument makes way more sense that way so i am assuming this is a slip of mind. Correct me if i am wrong. If that was the case the following paragraph would be rendered immaterial and a waste of everyones time.
I am sorry if that turns out to be the case.

I don't see how this is an argument that can indict every US citizen who is highly supportive of the concept of criminals being jailed.

You do support modern medicine even though it is virtually the only context where people die because somebody accidentally put an intifact into their sawed open chest and left it there. That's - like - exclusive. Modern medicine is "the structure most tolerant of this behavior". Of course, you'd say that's a) not intentional and b) comes with the territory.
One could asume the same about prison rape. Lots of men in a confined highly aggressive environment, no small share of them having a violent dispostion, no small share of them being sexually disturbed in the first place, or - wait for it - even doing time for precisely these reasons: Rape is bound to happen unless one actively prevents it (and of course doing just that is easily recognisable as an obvious duty of those in charge).
The point is: Many Americans may be under the impression that prison rape is not actively condoned or promoted but merely happens due to unintentional failure to prevent it.
To make your argument valid, your premise ("knowledge" etc.) would have to be supported. And i am not so sure about that.
Are you confident that the "150 million" Americans Patroklos talked about are fully aware of the information presented in Forma's post #84?


@Patroklos, Forma, Crezth
So in summation i'd like to ask all three of you, particularly Patroklos, to what degree you feel the US' general population has plausible denyability. To which degree can people claim they did not know?

despite this clearly reprehensible problem being well known for decades,

Again: This is my point: To whom is it "well known for decades"? I have no clearly formed opinion on that either way. But in general i have made the experience that many people do know rather little about a lot of things...

 

[NovaKart]

That's the beauty of instant email notifications. I get to see the original content of peoples' posts.

Seems a bit rude to me to post on something immediately edited out. Well, it's not something I would do anyway.

Well, If I can edit again, only a bit rude. I do probably agree with you on most things, I'm just not so quick to jump to the same conclusions about police not caring or not being competent, which is odd because I'm generally not such a big defender of the police. I got so sick of their fundraising calls last time I was in NC.

 

[Crezth]

I don't see how this is an argument that can indict every US citizen who is highly supportive of the concept of criminals being jailed.

In typical thread-destroying fashion you have constructed an unreadable monolith of blah-blah-blah, but this, in particular, stands out as a disgusting straw man. How my statement could be construed as an indictment of every person who has merely thought criminals should be jailed I will never understand, but thanks for demonstrating so plainly your lack of basic reading comprehension. Some ESL thing, I'm sure.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So Cleveland needed to have more 'law and order', 'jack-booted thugs' patrolling the streets?

Yes. Everybody knows that community police are exactly that.

What Cleveland apparently didn't need were so many hypocritical "law and order" Republicans who drastically slashed the funding of the police department.

Again: This is my point: To whom is it "well known for decades"? I have no clearly formed opinion on that either way. But in general i have made the experience that many people do know rather little about a lot of things...

Do you really think the issue of prison rape in the US hasn't been a pervasive issue for decades now?

Dallas Morning News, 1987: LEGISLATURE MAY HOLD INQUIRY ON PRISON RAPE ALLEGATIONS

DEQUINCY, La. -- The Legislature may look into allegations that Louisiana's prison for first offenders is plagued with homosexual rape, the chairman of the House Criminal Justice Committee said Friday.

Rep. Bruce Bolin, D-Minden, said the committee will decide whether to look into the allegations after hearing from Corrections Secretary C. Paul Phelps and the chief investigator at the Louisiana Correctional Industrial School.

Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 1980: Judge Irate Over Jail rape, Gives Inmate Anther Term

County officials are allowing "sexual vultures" to roan freely throughout the county jail, where young, first-time offenders are being raped, a local judge said yesterday.

This is just a handful of the thousands of similar articles.

The "law and order" light bulb has to want to change.

 

[metatron]

Do you really think the issue of prison rape in the US hasn't been a pervasive issue for decades now?

I am pretty much presuming that awareness of the prison rape epidemic is virtually universal.
My question is whether people know that this is intentional.

(I could go all Crezth on you and blame you for not realising that. But since that is only clear if one reads the parts of my post addressed at Patroklos and Crezth, i am ready to accept that as my fault rather than yours.)

In typical thread-destroying fashion you have constructed an unreadable monolith of blah-blah-blah, but this, in particular, stands out as a disgusting straw man. How my statement could be construed as an indictment of every person who has merely thought criminals should be jailed I will never understand, but thanks for demonstrating so plainly your lack of basic reading comprehension. Some ESL thing, I'm sure.

My goodness. We'll have to go through that one by one.

In typical thread-destroying fashion

I generally think of my input as rather constructive. That doesn't mean much. I would suspect most people do think that about their own input.

I usually consider unproductive - among other things:

-Fielding opinions with the unvieled and frequently enforced threat that insults will be leveled against those who disagree.
-Proactively namecalling in a manner barely conforming to forum rules leveled against entire groups of people such as to preemptively disqualify them from partaking in debate.
-Demanding the uttermost precision from others in reading, quoting and reflecting and arguing against ones posts, while completely refusing to return the favor, starting with an outright refusal to read the oppositions arguments in context and in, well, at least something bordering on good will, at all.​

To say that you frequently engaged in all these would be a reckless understatement.

an unreadable monolith of blah-blah-blah

You later complain about my "reading comprehension".
Of course it is very comfortable when one does not have to prove ones own since everything the opposition writes is unworthy of being read in the first place.

but this, in particular, stands out as a disgusting straw man.

The reciprocal strawman - that everybody in this debate can be blamed for - is a result of the equivocation regarding "law-and-order types".
I didn't start that.

I responded to your post as a possible endictment of the "150 million Americans" Patroklos talked about.
I am not saying that you issued such an endictment, although i have some suspicion that was your intention.
In fact one of the purposes of the post you disliked so much was to inqire if you did that, if you wanted it to be understood that way.
Giving your apparently exorbitant reading comprehension you would have easily realised that had you deemed my post worthy of being read.

Note that i have so far not explicitly taken any stance in opposition to that, if that was in fact what you were saying. I am merely asking you a) if you did b) if you have further arguments to support that c) if you can understand how Patroklos could think (i don't know if he does) that the answer to a) was "yes", that to b) was "no", and that he could be somewhat offended by that.
I could imagine that the answer to both was "yes". If these people know about prison rape as an intentional tactic condoned and furthered by authorities such an argument could be made.
This is not a gotcha thing where i am trying to accuse you of stupid things like "you insulted 150 million Americans, wah wah wah". I don't do those (that's more like... your thing, really).
I am merely complaining to all three of you that your debate about varying degrees of responsibility would be way more productive if you'd agree on terms and thus agree on who the heck you are actually talking about.
Again: Putting your stellar reading comprehension to work would have helped you out.

but thanks for demonstrating so plainly your lack of basic reading comprehension. Some ESL thing, I'm sure.

At least i know what "in lieu" means...
...and have a non-naive understanding of the concept of attention.

*snicker*

In typical thread-destroying fashion

I hope you also appreciate your part in turning a debate on responsibility for the victimhood of three women into a debate on whether Dinodoc and metatron are stupid...

 

[Crezth]

I guess I could respond a la metatron with a 40,000 word post couched with fridge-snipes and condescending, arrogant claims, but what would be the point? Nobody is as tedious and pointlessly equivocal as you.

The "in lieu" thing was most assuredly a mistake, that I admit, less a slip of the mind and more being an idiot, but that has no bearing on the fact that you consistently struggle at acquiring conversation with people.

To give an example:

You do support modern medicine even though it is virtually the only context where people die because somebody accidentally put an intifact into their sawed open chest and left it there. That's - like - exclusive. Modern medicine is "the structure most tolerant of this behavior". Of course, you'd say that's a) not intentional and b) comes with the territory.
One could asume the same about prison rape. Lots of men in a confined highly aggressive environment, no small share of them having a violent dispostion, no small share of them being sexually disturbed in the first place, or - wait for it - even doing time for precisely these reasons: Rape is bound to happen unless one actively prevents it (and of course doing just that is easily recognisable as an obvious duty of those in charge).
The point is: Many Americans may be under the impression that prison rape is not actively condoned or promoted but merely happens due to unintentional failure to prevent it.
To make your argument valid, your premise ("knowledge" etc.) would have to be supported. And i am not so sure about that.
Are you confident that the "150 million" Americans Patroklos talked about are fully aware of the information presented in Forma's post #84?

To call this dense or messy would be a reckless understatement. To say "the point is" is kind enough but comes across as tedious and equivocal. You're writing a lot of words to say very, very little.

 

[Silurian]

I generally think of my input as rather constructive.

I generally think of your input as rather constructive even when you disagree with me.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I am pretty much presuming that awareness of the prison rape epidemic is virtually universal.
My question is whether people know that this is intentional.

How could it possibly be an accident given that it has been largely ignored in certain countries but not in others?

 

[metatron]

How could it possibly be an accident given that it has been largely ignored in certain countries but not in others?

Yes. But you have made that deduction as an intelectual person, based on the information that this is actually happening a lot less in other places.

The question is whether that is/can be true for ordinary Americans, you know, the 150 millions Patroklos talked about.
Say... people making a prison rape joke, at the dinner table, in a bar, whatever, middle class politically moderate Americans, maybe with a college degree (not more), maybe not, with roughly average political interest and intelectual aptitude: Would they know?
Would they know that prison rape is not just not prevented (due to things like lack in ressources) but actively condoned and furthered?
I think this is a somewhat important question. Depending on what the answer is one would have to do somewhat different things in an effort to start to fix this.

To call this dense or messy would be a reckless understatement. To say "the point is" is kind enough but comes across as tedious and equivocal. You're writing a lot of words to say very, very little.

The equivocation is yours not mine, as is the "struggle at acquiring conversation with people".

I would not have to engage in tedious speculation (bending every which way as not to strawman you) if you would tell us what exactly you were trying to say in post 105, starting with a somewhat clear description of who (and how many) these people are in your view.

Let me remind you again: I am not even sure i disagree with you. I would like to find out.

fridge-snipes

I am not sure what that is.
That actually is an ESL thing.
I have some faint ideas though - not sure if they're correct.

Look, in the case of the "in lieu" - for example - the primary purpose wasn't to dis you but rather to safeguard against you rather frequent claims of being strawmanned.
Depending on whether i went with the actual meaning or the one that you intended your paragraph would have meant very different things.
So i thought i'd point it out before you call me an evil, evil strawman-er (well, you did anyway...).
Later i kinda mocked you with that. But you can hardly complain about me joining your debate on peoples reading comprehension (and related skills).

 

[Formaldehyde]

Yes. But you have made that deduction as an intelectual person, based on the information that this is actually happening a lot less in other places.

Yes, I agree. A modicum of intelligence, knowledge, and common sense is apparently required to grasp what I certainly consider to be the obvious.

The question is whether that is/can be true for ordinary Americans, you know, the 150 millions Patroklos talked about.

I would certainly hope so. But maybe I am just an optimist in this regard.

 

[Patroklos]

Or merely read the articles which I have posted.

Speaking of the articles I have posted which you haven't been able to dispute any of the facts presented in them so far, I'm sure it is just sheer coincidence that prison rape is an out-of-control activity which is actually coordinated and controlled by many guards to get revenge on specific inmates for breaking their rules, unlike most any other modern civilized country on the planet. That it is actually the guards in the female prisons who rape the inmates instead of the other inmates. That this occurs with an estimated 200,000 inmates every single year. That due to the risk of HIV infection and general lack of medical care, this is essentially a long-term death sentence for many of them. That despite this clearly reprehensible problem being well known for decades, little or nothing is done to correct it by supposed "law and order" advocates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Rape_Elimination_Act_of_2003

Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House. Forma crashes and burns yet again.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Finally giving it lip service decades later which didn't really do anything to actually eliminate it is the true "crash and burn" here.

Don't you ever tire of all this hyperbolic nonsense while completely ignoring the reality of the situation?

 

[Patroklos]

Why would people propose laws on their own accord to ban something you claim they overtly support? That is your claim, that they support prison rape.

Given the left/Democrats haven't passed anything significant on the matter I suppose you have to believe they support prison rape even more!

Protip for you Forma, when you get so utterly and completely rolled as you just did you should probably avoid topping it just so you can fail at damage control.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Obviously, not everybody supports rape as punishment. But it is clear many reactionary authoritarians do as evidenced by the facts which I have documented extensively in this and other threads, and which you have completely failed to show were not true.

But please, continue to post your wacky opinions of this ilk while jumping to absurd conclusions on "gotchas" that actually aren't at all. This one actually supports my contention far more than it does your own, since it is clearly a major problem which was finally addressed long after it should have been and which continues largely unabated even today.

 

[Glassfan]

Ariel Castro found hanged

(CNN) -- Ariel Castro, who was sentenced to life plus 1,000 years for kidnapping and raping three women, as well as murder, was found hanging in his prison cell Tuesday night.

Authorities found Castro, 52, hanging in his cell at the Correctional Reception Center in Orient, Ohio, about 9:20 p.m., the state's Department of Corrections said.

Prison medical staff tried to revive him but failed.

Castro was taken to The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center where he was pronounced dead at 10:52 p.m.

 

[bhsup]

So he did to himself what the State didn't have the gumption to do in the first place. At least he knew the appropriate punishment for raping those women all these years.

 

[Glassfan]

One wonders why he plea-bargained for life?

 

[Borachio]

Someone pointed out that he couldn't handle for a month what he'd subjected his victims to for 10 years. The imprisonment that is, not the rape.

On the other hand, his victims weren't facing the certainty of life imprisonment, + 1000 years. Which isn't to say that their uncertainty wasn't worse, of course.