Sounds like trump is planning on nominating someone named Amy Coney Barrett to the supreme court.

[lil devils x]

Abuse is widespread everywhere in everything. Do you have reason to believe this crime is exceptionally common in this jail? That they are doing something or not doing anything to prevent misconduct that would be worthy of punishment?

Um WHAT?!. You are seriously trying to argue that because abuse is widespread, they should wave the jails OBLIGATION to make sure no one is harmed in their care and/or employment? It is the jail's obligation to ensure they do not allow someone to be harmed in their care. EACH and EVERY Jail is responsible for makings sure no one is harmed in their care. If they failed to do so, OF COURSE they are liable. YES, each and every one of them. No matter how many people are doing something, it is STILL just as wrong. That just means they have a lot of jails to sue at that point.

The fact they can be sued/ shut down entirely is their primary motivation for making sure this NEVER happens.

 

[tstorm823]

Um WHAT?!. You are seriously trying to argue that because abuse is widespread, they should wave the jails OBLIGATION to make sure no one is harmed in their care and/or employment? It is the jail's obligation to ensure they do not allow someone to be harmed in their care. EACH and EVERY Jail is responsible for makings sure no one is harmed in their care. If they failed to do so, OF COURSE they are liable. YES, each and every one of them. No matter how many people are doing something, it is STILL just as wrong. That just means they have a lot of jails to sue at that point.

That is absurd position, that denies the reality that an organization can do everything right within their power and still face circumstances like this. You're not just proposing we sue every jail. We'd have to ring out every school, every hospital, every church, every sports organization... just sue anyone with the audacity to try and organize something to benefit people because they hired someone who committed a crime. It's ridiculous the way these things happen, and exceptionally counterproductive when the thing you need most is transparency.

 

[lil devils x]

That is absurd position, that denies the reality that an organization can do everything right within their power and still face circumstances like this. You're not just proposing we sue every jail. We'd have to ring out every school, every hospital, every church, every sports organization... just sue anyone with the audacity to try and organize something to benefit people because they hired someone who committed a crime. It's ridiculous the way these things happen, and exceptionally counterproductive when the thing you need most is transparency.

It doesn't really because obviously the oversight was not there or it would not have happened in the first place. Being sued for neglecting to have the proper oversight IS the oversight of the oversight and their motivation to make sure it never happens again. Everywhere you just listed can be sued as well. That is how it is supposed to work here. It is called accountability. You are wanting to make them unaccountable for their actions, I disagree.

Yes, that is why you not only vet those you hire, you also monitor them to ensure quality control. We ARE responsible for those we hire.

 

[happyninja42]

That is absurd position, that denies the reality that an organization can do everything right within their power and still face circumstances like this. You're not just proposing we sue every jail. We'd have to ring out every school, every hospital, every church, every sports organization... just sue anyone with the audacity to try and organize something to benefit people because they hired someone who committed a crime. It's ridiculous the way these things happen, and exceptionally counterproductive when the thing you need most is transparency.

That's not what she said at all. She's saying that people who are in your CUSTODY, are ultimately your responsibility, and there is an expected level of care and safety for anyone who is now a ward of the state. I mean parents are held responsible for any children in their custody if something happens to them. Correctional facilities aren't some thunderdome of flesh that we just toss in there and let them fend for themselves. They are an arm of the government, which is an agency of the population, and they are actually accountable for the shit that happens to the people in their care. So if it's found out, that the facility failed in it's duty to protect the people, because they ARE people you know, not some alien monster called an "inmate", then yes, they should be investigated, and if found lacking in procedure, they should be held accountable.

I find it disturbing that this basic concept seems antithetical to what you think they should do.

 

[lil devils x]

That's not what she said at all. She's saying that people who are in your CUSTODY, are ultimately your responsibility, and there is an expected level of care and safety for anyone who is now a ward of the state. I mean parents are held responsible for any children in their custody if something happens to them. Correctional facilities aren't some thunderdome of flesh that we just toss in there and let them fend for themselves. They are an arm of the government, which is an agency of the population, and they are actually accountable for the shit that happens to the people in their care. So if it's found out, that the facility failed in it's duty to protect the people, because they ARE people you know, not some alien monster called an "inmate", then yes, they should be investigated, and if found lacking in procedure, they should be held accountable.

I find it disturbing that this basic concept seems antithetical to what you think they should do.

Exactly. We have to have the accountability in place or things like the guards raping women in jail like they did here would just continue because they have no reason to stop it. He mentioned Hospitals and such and the same duty of care to our patients applies here as well. It is like that nursing home who had that woman give birth to a child when she had been incapacitated for years due to being raped in the nursing home being sued. OF course they are being sued for allowing that to happen there at all.

Yes, someone committed a crime, but they created an environment where they could do so. If they had cameras in the rooms and proper monitoring that could not have happened in the first place. The same should apply to a jail. Someone should have been able to stop it WHILE happening, not just find out about it later. The entire place is on camera, there is no excuse for this being allowed to happen at all. They should have had multiple people present at all times to prevent it from happening and been able to stop the crime in progress if that alone was not a deterrent. The jail itself was negligent because they did not have multiple people present at all times to prevent tat from happening, and if they did and they allowed that to happen, that is even worse.

 

[Silvanus]

Abuse is widespread everywhere in everything. Do you have reason to believe this crime is exceptionally common in this jail?

Oh, please. You don't for one second believe that violence, abuse and rape are as common "everywhere in everything" to the same extent as in the prison-industrial complex.

But, very well, we'll compare some numbers. The Bureau of Justice states about 80,000 people are sexually abused a year in American correctional facilities, and that that number is certainly underrepresentative. 21% of inmates state they've been assaulted by prison staff (the same article provides evidence from a former staff member, who also provided evidence of exceptionally high levels of violence and underreporting, particularly at private prisons). Research by Cindy Struckman-Johnson, who acts as a commissioner for the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission, found exceptionally high levels of forcible penetration, and that about 20% of physical assaults are carried out by staff. The Justice Department itself has carried out research which pointed to systemic sexual and physical abuse, brought about in part by "overcrowding", "inadequate supervision", "discouraged reporting", and "deliberate indifference".

 

[tstorm823]

You are wanting to make them unaccountable for their actions, I disagree.

No, I want them accountable for their actions. You want them accountable for someone else's.

Exactly. We have to have the accountability in place or things like the guards raping women in jail like they did here would just continue because they have no reason to stop it.

That's not accountability. Like, a person committing a crime and instead transferring guilt to the institution is exactly the qualified immunity problem in policing. "Well, the committed the crime while working, so instead of prison, they get off and the government pays millions." That's not justice. That's not accountability. And it incentivizes organizations to hide the crimes committed by its members because its ultimately the organization getting punished.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Abuse is widespread everywhere in everything.

This is almost a good point. It's true, though, that abuse often occurs when there are power imbalances and power imbalances are widespread everywhere in everything that is capitalist or involves any other kind of hierarchy. Nevertheless, it is particularly the case in prisons, where the presumption that the victim is just lying is bolstered by the very clear antagonism between prisoners and guards.

That's not accountability. Like, a person committing a crime and instead transferring guilt to the institution is exactly the qualified immunity problem in policing. "Well, the committed the crime while working, so instead of prison, they get off and the government pays millions." That's not justice. That's not accountability. And it incentivizes organizations to hide the crimes committed by its members because its ultimately the organization getting punished.

A granule of a good point: go after the management of the institution directly, not just the institution as a whole.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

No, I want them accountable for their actions. You want them accountable for someone else's.

That's not accountability. Like, a person committing a crime and instead transferring guilt to the institution is exactly the qualified immunity problem in policing. "Well, the committed the crime while working, so instead of prison, they get off and the government pays millions." That's not justice. That's not accountability. And it incentivizes organizations to hide the crimes committed by its members because its ultimately the organization getting punished.

So instead, he gets off and the organization pays...nothing.

That's not better

 

[Elijin]

Ah yes, tstorm championing the REAL victims of prison rape, the corporate executives and their company reputations.

 

[Iron]

Ah yes, tstorm championing the REAL victims of prison rape, the corporate executives and their company reputations.

The real victims are the friends we made along the way

 

[lil devils x]

No, I want them accountable for their actions. You want them accountable for someone else's.

That's not accountability. Like, a person committing a crime and instead transferring guilt to the institution is exactly the qualified immunity problem in policing. "Well, the committed the crime while working, so instead of prison, they get off and the government pays millions." That's not justice. That's not accountability. And it incentivizes organizations to hide the crimes committed by its members because its ultimately the organization getting punished.

I want accountability for THEIR actions. Their actions were that they were negligent in that :
1) They did not provide adequate oversight to ensure all safety protocols were being followed.
2) If the entire place was under camera surveillance, why did whoever was supposed to be watching those cameras not intervene immediately and have the employee arrested?
3) DID they require two employees to be present at all times while interacting with people in the facility?

If they failed to require or oversee that these things were being done 24/7, yes they were negligent and should be held accountable for their OWN negligence. You put oversight in place to make sure thing like this cannot happen, in failing to do so, they were responsible for ENABLING this to happen, thus they are accountable as well. That is how this works. If numerous safeguards were put in and failed, that too is their responsibility to oversee and make SURE those safeguards work that are in place.

You want to remove their own accountability so they have no incentive to make sure they do not allow rape jails in their county/city to begin with. That way they do not need to require the addit9onal oversight necessary to make sure this doesn't happen.

No one is saying we do not hold the individual responsible as well. Of course we do, but we also hold each person and organization responsible, not just one. Because we have the person's failure, and we have the additional systems failure and each part of that system, including oversight has to have failed for this to happen at all. If they had not failed in their oversight, this would not have been enable to happen at all.

In addition to the criminal charges, however, the city can then SUE the person who did this as well for damages they paid out. There is nothing stopping the city from suing the perpetrator as well.

 

[Cheetodust]

No, I want them accountable for their actions. You want them accountable for someone else's.

That's not accountability. Like, a person committing a crime and instead transferring guilt to the institution is exactly the qualified immunity problem in policing. "Well, the committed the crime while working, so instead of prison, they get off and the government pays millions." That's not justice. That's not accountability. And it incentivizes organizations to hide the crimes committed by its members because its ultimately the organization getting punished.

Except people want the perpetrators And the institutions punished. Literally nobody is saying the rapist shouldn't be punished (except for the American legal system of course). That argument onky holds water if Lil was claiming that only the institution should be punished. If the institution discovers it and reports it themselves they wouldn't be punished. The fact that you brought up the Catholic Church speaks volumes. They intentionally moved around priests and spent decades covering up the abuses. Not to mention shit like the mother and baby homes here in Ireland where they literally kidnapped children and sold them to Americans. The Catholic Church doesn't get to claim it was a few bad apples when they were up to their tits on cover ups.

 

[tstorm823]

1) They did not provide adequate oversight to ensure all safety protocols were being followed.
2) If the entire place was under camera surveillance, why did whoever was supposed to be watching those cameras not intervene immediately and have the employee arrested?
3) DID they require two employees to be present at all times while interacting with people in the facility?

1) You don't know that.
2) Perhaps the rapist was the one on camera duty.
3) Perhaps the rapist ignored the requirements.

Like, you're automatically assuming the institution screwed up because someone was raped. By that logic, you have to destroy every institution in existence. All of them. People do bad things everywhere, in spite of efforts to stop them.

 

[tstorm823]

Except people want the perpetrators And the institutions punished. Literally nobody is saying the rapist shouldn't be punished (except for the American legal system of course). That argument onky holds water if Lil was claiming that only the institution should be punished. If the institution discovers it and reports it themselves they wouldn't be punished. The fact that you brought up the Catholic Church speaks volumes. They intentionally moved around priests and spent decades covering up the abuses. Not to mention shit like the mother and baby homes here in Ireland where they literally kidnapped children and sold them to Americans. The Catholic Church doesn't get to claim it was a few bad apples when they were up to their tits on cover ups.

The Catholic Church has a way better record than the general public. Priests are no more likely to assault someone than any other adult, but get convicted more often because the Church cooperates with authorities. The grand juries and whatnot that come out have so much information because the Church kept records and cooperated. A lot of victims don't want to go through court, so they took those priests not being prosecuted and shoved them in old folks homes to rot. And the vast majority of these cases were priests having relationships with older teenage boys in seminary, something that gets regularly overlooked in society at large.

I don't know in what world getting victims out of harms way, keeping records, and cooperating with authorities is a cover-up.

 

[Agema]

I don't know in what world getting victims out of harms way, keeping records, and cooperating with authorities is a cover-up.

It's a cover-up because it's a crime and should have been reported to the authorities in a timely fashion. Not belatedly when people realised the Church had spent decades persuading their faithful not to press charges, shuffling offenders off to new parishes, and frequently denied claims abuse had occurred despite what you call their "record-keeping", which suggests that the deniers should have known better.

This was, unquestionably, a major instutitional failure by the Catholic Church. You can sure point out the arguments that priests offend at about the same rates as the general population and that in the relevant period society as a whole was pretty awful on this sort of thing and fair enough, but it simply doesn't erase the core inadequacy of the Church's attitude, and that it only finally took action only because it was forced to by public pressure.

 

[tstorm823]

it only finally took action only because it was forced to by public pressure.

Except they were taking actions the whole time, but the actions are looked at as a cover-up. The failure here is the civil authorities, who were unwilling or incapable at the time of prosecuting the offenders. In lieu of criminal justice, the Church did what it could to segregate offenders from victims, and that gets treated as cover-up.

 

[happyninja42]

but the actions are looked at as a cover-up.

....LOOKED like a cover up......systematically shuffling predator priests around to avoid criminal charges(while still letting them be in contact with further victims in new areas), hiding records about said behavior, for DECADES. That isn't the appearance of a cover up, that IS a cover up. I mean what the fuck do you think the term refers to? Literally putting blankets over the rapist priests to "cover them up" or something?

Society works by having a system of checks and balances, and in any organization that is given authority over others, there is a level of expectation that they will not act in a way that is harmful to the population they are put in charge of. That's why we have a legal system that allows for holding those groups, when they do fail in their duties accountable. We have rules in place, to make sure people are treated humanely. There are regulations and protocols, and since I'm 100% fucking certain that "inmates being raped" isn't listed as one of the accepted activities in a prison population (since you know, sexual assault is a fucking CRIME, no matter where it happens), then the rules would cover the prison....oh I don't know....MAKING SURE THAT DOESN'T FUCKING HAPPEN.

Sure human behavior is always a wild card, and you can't account for everything, but it's well known that the correctional facility is a high stress job. You don't just walk in there off the street and get a job. You have to go through personality tests, and other criteria, so they can try and assure that you aren't the kind of person who would...oh I don't know, use your position of control and authority over another person to FUCKING RAPE THEM. And since you can't 100% spot these things, and they can also change as time goes on, and the long term stress of the job can alter personalities, that's why you have regular psych evaluations, and similar stuff. To make sure that, after say, working there for 10 years, you aren't becoming a danger to the population, and might say....oh I don't know...FUCKING RAPE THEM. They also likely have safeguards in place, of redundancy of supervision and security, so that you don't ever just have a single point of failure, to prevent this very kind of thing from happening.

Now, it might turn out, that the facility didn't do anything wrong, that all protocols were followed to the letter, and this was some random, flashpoint issue with this one security guard, that's entirely possible. I think it's highly improbable, just given the track record our correctional facility, and how corrupt and prone to exploitation it is, but it's possible sure. That's why an investigation needs to take place, to see what happened and where things went wrong.

If it turns out that nothing was done wrong, then no, I don't think the facility should face criminal charges. But, the catch is, there are a LOT of layers of safety that are supposed to be in place. So, the chance that NONE of those steps, were overlooked or whatever, I think is low. And if it does turn out that they didn't take all the steps they are supposed to, then yes they ARE responsible for the criminal activity that took place in their facility, and should be held accountable.

Why is this such an alien concept for you?

 

[Cheetodust]

The Catholic Church has a way better record than the general public. Priests are no more likely to assault someone than any other adult, but get convicted more often because the Church cooperates with authorities. The grand juries and whatnot that come out have so much information because the Church kept records and cooperated. A lot of victims don't want to go through court, so they took those priests not being prosecuted and shoved them in old folks homes to rot. And the vast majority of these cases were priests having relationships with older teenage boys in seminary, something that gets regularly overlooked in society at large.

I don't know in what world getting victims out of harms way, keeping records, and cooperating with authorities is a cover-up.

Yeah you're just living in another world or just bullshitting. The amount of abuse the church carried out in Ireland is well documented and more and more keeps coming out.

 

[tstorm823]

....LOOKED like a cover up......systematically shuffling predator priests around to avoid criminal charges(while still letting them be in contact with further victims in new areas), hiding records about said behavior, for DECADES.

Now give evidence that these things happened in the way you're describing. Find me where the priests were being prosecuted and got smuggled away from the charges.

If it turns out that nothing was done wrong, then no, I don't think the facility should face criminal charges. But, the catch is, there are a LOT of layers of safety that are supposed to be in place. So, the chance that NONE of those steps, were overlooked or whatever, I think is low. And if it does turn out that they didn't take all the steps they are supposed to, then yes they ARE responsible for the criminal activity that took place in their facility, and should be held accountable.

But that's where we are now. They were taken to court and the victim was awarded damages. The ruling was appealed, and the appellate court ruled the prison wasn't liable for the damages, in part because:

Uncontested evidence at trial demonstrated County thoroughly trained Thicklen not to have sexual contact with inmates. County expressly forbade him from having sexual contact with an inmate under any circumstances, regardless of apparent consent. County’s training warned him that such sexual contact violates state law and the Sheriff’s Office’s mission.

And she has actually ruled the opposite way in a similar case, where a prison was found not liable to damages by a lower court, and she (with other judges) made the determination that the evidence of negligence for the safety of inmates was sufficient to hold the jail liable.

Like, this conversation started as a condemnation of Barrett for ruling in favor of a jail once, as though it isn't possible for them to not be in the wrong.