I know I can't be free
In
all aspects of life, men and women have been integrated so that they go
to same schools, work at same jobs, serve together in the military, and
so on. It is becoming very difficult to name even one institution that
still uses the policy of "separate but equal" to completely segregate
men and women. One important exception immediately comes to mind,
though: the prison system. Could anybody explain to me why prisons are
still completely segregated by sex? What is the precise reason why
prisons are not made unisex, so that each prisoner would be placed into
a prison of appropriate security level based on how dangerous he or she
is considered to be, regardless of his or her genitals? After all, as
the progressives have been constantly telling us for a long time now,
there are no real differences between men and women except those that
are socially constructed. So you would think that they would eagerly
support this proposal. In a few years, the idea of having separate
prisons for men and women would be as unthinkable as having separate
prisons for black and white prisoners.
Yes, I know perfectly well what the gut-level reason is. And no, this reason is not valid or hold any water, if you bother to think about it even a little bit. If this reason were valid, then it would also apply to schools, workplaces, the military and every other institution in society, and it would logically follow that men and women would have to be completely segregated everywhere. In fact, this gut-level reason applies to prisons even less than for other places, since unlike places where people are allowed to move and interact freely, prisons are strictly controlled institutions. So could anybody please tell me a valid reason why prisons are still segragated by sex? Make sure that your reason applies to minimum-security Club Fed prisons whose population consists mostly of fat and nerdy white-collar embezzlers and drug smugglers, who are no more likely to be rapists than the average man.
Of course, the lack of women is an important part of the punitive effect of the prison. When it comes to punishing criminals, prisons have the advantage of having a reasonable deterrence effect due to their general unpleasantness (although this unpleasantness is not that much due to the prison itself, but the people in it) and the simple fact that they physically prevent the criminals from doing more crimes against innocent people. That's pretty much the advantages right there, and other aspects of prisons tend to be bad. For starters, prisons are not known as universities of crime for nothing, and they are rancid breeding grounds for the criminal subculture. Criminal gangs mercilessly oppress the weaker prisoners with the tacit approval of prison officials. And prison rape, if anything, is an epitome of cruel and unusual punishment.
Even if we don't care what happens to criminals in prisons (until they get out), prisons are also very expensive, although of course they are much less expensive than letting the criminals run free. The annual cost of one prisoner seems to be about 25,000 dollars, based on the figures that I have seen mentioned around during the years. However, I assume that this figure was calculated by taking the total cost of the whole department of corrections and then dividing it by the average number of prisoners. I have never seen mentioned anywhere the marginal cost of adding one more prisoner to the system, so I have to wonder what how much this marginal cost would be, especially if the prisoners were housed Joe Arpaio -style in military tents set up in desert surrounded by barbed wire and made to work to earn their upkeep.
When I watched a documentary of the Supermax prisons, I had to wonder if therein lies a solution. In a supermax prison, prisoners don't get to congregate but have to spend time in their cells 23 hours a day. I can see how this would suck and the sensory isolation would drive you crazy. However, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I could envision a modified supermax prison in which the prisoners had to remain in their cells and would have no contact whatsoever with other prisoners, but their cells would be significantly more comfortable, essentially at the level of the average prison cell in Denmark or the average university dorm room. (Take a moment to guess which one is more comfortable and better-equipped. A magazine article that I once read showed pictures of a typical prison cell in Denmark.) A television and perhaps even video games would keep the prisoner sedated and happy (a doped up cell block is a quiet cell block, in more ways than one), sunlight would come in from a window, food would come from the slot three times a day, and so on.
I am pretty sure that many prisoners would happily choose to go to a prison like this, since there would be no contact with other prisoners and thus no danger of becoming some violent sociopath's bitch. Were I the legislator, all new prisons would be built this way. For a small extra investment to furnish the cells, pretty much all disciplinary problems would be completely avoided. The criminal could not associate with the scum and thus grow into the rules of the criminal underworld and have to act all tough and be against authority in front of his buddies, but he could be forced to study and improve himself, with the threat of taking away the telly and other goodies.
Of course, for the most aggressive and violent prisoners there could be another solution: an isolated island in which the prisoners were allowed to roam freely and perhaps even take their weapons with them. Again, I am certain that a large number of gangsters and sociopathic thugs would prefer this place over a normal prison and happily move there. This way, these men could have their little nation of lawlessness and rule of the strongest, freed from the oppressive constraints of civilization. The civilized world outside would simply post some guards to watch the border fence (no guards would ever actually go inside for any reason, of course) and make a weekly delivery of food and other necessities at the gate, with the understanding that if should the prisoners shoot at this delivery, there won't be another for a long time. Also at any time, a prisoner could show up at the gate and request to be transferred back to the normal prison. Assuming that his chums let him, but that's the risk you take if you choose the Island instead of the regular prison.
Back in the day, when it wasn't feasible to house unproductive people for years, other punishments were used. Many of these punishments are unacceptable today, but it doesn't follow that we shouldn't try to creatively come up with new types of punishments that would relieve the overflowing and near-explosive prisons. Something that doesn't cost as much but is easy to administer and is reasonably unpleasant so that people will try to avoid it. If this punishment benefits other people, even better. Fines are straightforward, but usually the criminal scum doesn't have the resources to pay them, so they don't really work. Community service works for productive people and keeps them in check, but again, this doesn't really work for the criminal underclass whose services few people need. Of course, they could always clean the public sphere of garbage, which would be appropriate in the sense of poetic justice.
Yes, I know perfectly well what the gut-level reason is. And no, this reason is not valid or hold any water, if you bother to think about it even a little bit. If this reason were valid, then it would also apply to schools, workplaces, the military and every other institution in society, and it would logically follow that men and women would have to be completely segregated everywhere. In fact, this gut-level reason applies to prisons even less than for other places, since unlike places where people are allowed to move and interact freely, prisons are strictly controlled institutions. So could anybody please tell me a valid reason why prisons are still segragated by sex? Make sure that your reason applies to minimum-security Club Fed prisons whose population consists mostly of fat and nerdy white-collar embezzlers and drug smugglers, who are no more likely to be rapists than the average man.
Of course, the lack of women is an important part of the punitive effect of the prison. When it comes to punishing criminals, prisons have the advantage of having a reasonable deterrence effect due to their general unpleasantness (although this unpleasantness is not that much due to the prison itself, but the people in it) and the simple fact that they physically prevent the criminals from doing more crimes against innocent people. That's pretty much the advantages right there, and other aspects of prisons tend to be bad. For starters, prisons are not known as universities of crime for nothing, and they are rancid breeding grounds for the criminal subculture. Criminal gangs mercilessly oppress the weaker prisoners with the tacit approval of prison officials. And prison rape, if anything, is an epitome of cruel and unusual punishment.
Even if we don't care what happens to criminals in prisons (until they get out), prisons are also very expensive, although of course they are much less expensive than letting the criminals run free. The annual cost of one prisoner seems to be about 25,000 dollars, based on the figures that I have seen mentioned around during the years. However, I assume that this figure was calculated by taking the total cost of the whole department of corrections and then dividing it by the average number of prisoners. I have never seen mentioned anywhere the marginal cost of adding one more prisoner to the system, so I have to wonder what how much this marginal cost would be, especially if the prisoners were housed Joe Arpaio -style in military tents set up in desert surrounded by barbed wire and made to work to earn their upkeep.
When I watched a documentary of the Supermax prisons, I had to wonder if therein lies a solution. In a supermax prison, prisoners don't get to congregate but have to spend time in their cells 23 hours a day. I can see how this would suck and the sensory isolation would drive you crazy. However, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I could envision a modified supermax prison in which the prisoners had to remain in their cells and would have no contact whatsoever with other prisoners, but their cells would be significantly more comfortable, essentially at the level of the average prison cell in Denmark or the average university dorm room. (Take a moment to guess which one is more comfortable and better-equipped. A magazine article that I once read showed pictures of a typical prison cell in Denmark.) A television and perhaps even video games would keep the prisoner sedated and happy (a doped up cell block is a quiet cell block, in more ways than one), sunlight would come in from a window, food would come from the slot three times a day, and so on.
I am pretty sure that many prisoners would happily choose to go to a prison like this, since there would be no contact with other prisoners and thus no danger of becoming some violent sociopath's bitch. Were I the legislator, all new prisons would be built this way. For a small extra investment to furnish the cells, pretty much all disciplinary problems would be completely avoided. The criminal could not associate with the scum and thus grow into the rules of the criminal underworld and have to act all tough and be against authority in front of his buddies, but he could be forced to study and improve himself, with the threat of taking away the telly and other goodies.
Of course, for the most aggressive and violent prisoners there could be another solution: an isolated island in which the prisoners were allowed to roam freely and perhaps even take their weapons with them. Again, I am certain that a large number of gangsters and sociopathic thugs would prefer this place over a normal prison and happily move there. This way, these men could have their little nation of lawlessness and rule of the strongest, freed from the oppressive constraints of civilization. The civilized world outside would simply post some guards to watch the border fence (no guards would ever actually go inside for any reason, of course) and make a weekly delivery of food and other necessities at the gate, with the understanding that if should the prisoners shoot at this delivery, there won't be another for a long time. Also at any time, a prisoner could show up at the gate and request to be transferred back to the normal prison. Assuming that his chums let him, but that's the risk you take if you choose the Island instead of the regular prison.
Back in the day, when it wasn't feasible to house unproductive people for years, other punishments were used. Many of these punishments are unacceptable today, but it doesn't follow that we shouldn't try to creatively come up with new types of punishments that would relieve the overflowing and near-explosive prisons. Something that doesn't cost as much but is easy to administer and is reasonably unpleasant so that people will try to avoid it. If this punishment benefits other people, even better. Fines are straightforward, but usually the criminal scum doesn't have the resources to pay them, so they don't really work. Community service works for productive people and keeps them in check, but again, this doesn't really work for the criminal underclass whose services few people need. Of course, they could always clean the public sphere of garbage, which would be appropriate in the sense of poetic justice.
In Finland official line implies that women are weaker than men. Why else conscription is mandatory for men but free choise for women?
- Syltty
Posted by Anonymous | 12:22 PM
Quite clearly the risks of sexual assault (or false accusations thereof) are the primary reason for gender segregation in prisons. You cannot go by the same standards as in schools or workplaces, as the overwhelming majority of the people in such institutions/facilities would never dream of committing sexual offenses. The same is not true for prisons, yes even the minimum security ones.
Also note that privacy is nonexistent in prisons - toilets right out in the open and all that - which would create another complication when it comes to mixing the genders. Even the otherwise unisex U.S. Navy will not let women work on submarines due to the lack of privacy onboard.
Getting back to prisons, the latest hot issue involves segregating inmates by race. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision forbidding this practice except in temporary emergency situations is not popular among prison officials in many states, California in particular, who believe that keeping the races separate as much as possible helps prevent violence.
Posted by Anonymous | 1:47 PM
You hardly ever see women speculating about prisons. Men, on the other hand, not only speculate about prisons but have dreamed up a plan for how they would survive in and escape from prison - just in case.
Posted by C. Van Carter | 2:14 PM
The same is not true for prisons, yes even the minimum security ones.
That is of course true for anybody with common sense. However, I don't see how any leftist could claim that without denying at least one core leftist axiom, such as
(a) there is no difference in the sexual desire of men and women, on average
(b) criminals are victims of capitalist society and they are not any worse people than the rest of the society, on average
(c) since rape is not about sex but power and violence, a man who is deprived of sex is no more likely to rape a woman than a man whose sexual needs are satisfied elsewhere, on average
Besides, since the prisoners have a "code of honor" to protect women, wouldn't a female prisoner be less likely to be raped than the average woman in the outside world?
Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen | 2:53 PM
Anonymous opines:
Quite clearly the risks of sexual assault (or false accusations thereof) are the primary reason for gender segregation in prisons.
Hmmm, do they actually segregate by (claimed) gender, and not, say, perceived sex?
Posted by beenaround | 4:29 PM