|
21stCentury posted:Then again, i wonder, what does a banker have to gain or give back to society that needs him in prison? A Banker who steals billions and is found out is pretty hosed. What does jail time do to him? I figured the state would seize the financier's assets except for a hard cap of $1000, ban them from working any sort of financial job, guarantee them Section 8 housing credits and food stamps if they need it, and force them to attend state-paid psychiatric sessions. Basically, you'd force them to live the life of the people whose livelihoods they destroyed and demonstrate they understand what happened. It's a learning experience for them, and prevents them from being in a position to take advantage of people without exposing them to the punitive and barbaric nature of prison. Not that I'm saying violent offenders would need prison, just saying that's what I think rehabilitative sentences would be for white-collar financial criminals. It's (in my mind) the same notion as a rehabilitative sentence for a violent criminal involving a ban on owning weapons while forcing them to make reparations to victim(s) and attend psychiatric sessions (while also being on house arrest or whatever means to keep them out of prison but still prevent violent activity as best as possible). It's still a punishment, but it's not entirely punitive, and hell, you could even make the ban on financial work/owning a weapon/whatever temporary (X number of years) to show that a person is restored their rights after a certain amount of time without. Of course, the financier will probably have people more than willing to float them money until they can work in the industry again, which is why it should probably be permanent, since then they'd be forced to take up a different line of work since they demonstrated they can't be trusted with money. I never understood why people treated white collar large-scale crime as less serious than individual theft; if I ripped off a liquor store for $500, yeah I still deserve to be punished, but the guy who destroyed 500 families financially and robbed countless children of future education by bankrupting their families' savings definitely made a larger negative impact. It's like what Authorman said, it's the same concept as a guy with a gun, just without a need for violence due to birthright.
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
S.T.C.A. posted:I figured the state would seize the financier's assets except for a hard cap of $1000, ban them from working any sort of financial job, guarantee them Section 8 housing credits and food stamps if they need it, and force them to attend state-paid psychiatric sessions. Basically, you'd force them to live the life of the people whose livelihoods they destroyed and demonstrate they understand what happened. God, don't even start with these complex goony eye for an eye poetic justice plans. That is not what our justice system should ever be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 16:36
|
|
|
mew force shoelace posted:God, don't even start with these complex goony eye for an eye poetic justice plans. That is not what our justice system should ever be. No hear me out, if a rapist gets raped.... For real though yea, 'making it even' is the dumbest thing and just furthers the already major problems in our justice systems where punishment is above rehabilitation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:00
|
|
|
If someone commits a violent crime, we aim to rehabilitate them in some way (in name only for the majority of the time at the moment) and take away their ill-gotten gains from their crime and their ability to commit crime again (felons can't own guns for X amount of time/forever depending on the state). Maybe seizing ALL assets is excessive, but taking any assets and cash tied to their financial crimes and preventing work in the financial industry does not strike me as eye-for-an-eye in any way. You're taking away their ill-gotten gains and preventing them from committing the same crime. How else do you 'rehabilitate' someone who will likely still have millions, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, and their freedom, besides at least taking away their method of crime (abusing finance)? Again, this was within the context of rehabilitative justice, wherein prison time would be reserved for I don't even know what, but whatever 21st was talking about which I got the impression meant that people who committed petty crimes or even violent crimes wouldn't necessarily be jailed but would go through counseling and job skills training or something other than the current system. How is what I said at all different from having a violent offender make amends to the victim or the affected community? It's not like the assets seized from a white collar criminal would just go poof or instantly into state coffers, the idea would be that it would go towards reparations towards those defrauded or the community of those defrauded or something similar (though I did not at all frame it that way initially). Especially when you consider that a white collar criminal's crimes at the highest levels will likely exceed their personal net worth, I'm very confused how this is viewed as eye-for-an-eye. If I steal something, I expect to pay for it. This is property-related, this is vastly different than literal eye-for-an-eye or violent crime in general. Tempora Mutantur fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
S.T.C.A. posted:I thought about that, but there's a significant difference between, "We're freezing your assets and ensuring you can live freely," and, "Have fun in a rape dungeon!" If someone commits a violent crime, we aim to rehabilitate them in some way (in name only for the majority of the time at the moment) and take away their ill-gotten gains from their crime and their ability to commit crime again (felons can't own guns for X amount of time/forever depending on the state). Setting up poetic justice for crimes works for poems. It is not the basis of a real justice system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:14
|
|
|
mew force shoelace posted:Setting up poetic justice for crimes works for poems. It is not the basis of a real justice system. If my crime revolved around abusing my job in the finance sector, and I made 70% of my personal net worth by that abuse, and that abuse was deemed illegal, you're calling it 'poetic justice' if the state seizes 70% of my personal net worth and says I can't have a job in the finance sector again (or for X years)? EDIT: And we're not even looking at the amount of financial damage my abuses may have caused nor the livelihoods I may have destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
S.T.C.A. posted:If my crime revolved around abusing my job in the finance sector, and I made 70% of my personal net worth by that abuse, and that abuse was deemed illegal, you're calling it 'poetic justice' if the state seizes 70% of my personal net worth and says I can't have a job in the finance sector again (or for X years)? Now wait just a second, what you said before was your plan was "Basically, you'd force them to live the life of the people whose livelihoods they destroyed and demonstrate they understand what happened." Now you have changed it to simply having to pay back what they took with a weird lifetime restriction of job choice slapped on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
S.T.C.A. posted:If my crime revolved around abusing my job in the finance sector, and I made 70% of my personal net worth by that abuse, and that abuse was deemed illegal, you're calling it 'poetic justice' if the state seizes 70% of my personal net worth and says I can't have a job in the finance sector again (or for X years)? I don't think HE is, I think the definition of poetic justice is. Also seriously stop already, eye-for-eye justice is not how civilized justice systems work, no matter what the crime.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:22
|
|
|
Wait, so you disagree that if someone embezzled 1 million dollars, they should pay back 1 million? I don't think it's poetic justice... It's just taking away what was stolen from the thief.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:25
|
|
|
shotgunbadger posted:I don't think HE is, I think the definition of poetic justice is. Also seriously stop already, eye-for-eye justice is not how civilized justice systems work, no matter what the crime. How is it vengeance-based to say, "You cannot keep the wealth you illegally made?" That's what I'm asking at this point. I concede that I poorly worded what I said initially because I didn't mean to make it sound like, "MAKE THE RICH BOY LIVE POOR HAW HAW!" but it clearly did sound that way. Now I'm asking you a very specific question that poetic justice does not fit at all. I am saying take away the personal gain the white collar criminal earned for their crime. This is the same as someone who is caught for theft is forced to return the goods they stole. That is not vengeance-based. That is restoring things to the point they were at prior to the crime. Vengeance-based would be saying now the victim gets to do to you what you did to them; that's poetic justice (sort of, but hey, you're misusing it too so whatever). So in other words, how is it poetic justice to disallow white-collar criminals from keeping the wealth they illegally created?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:27
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:Wait, so you disagree that if someone embezzled 1 million dollars, they should pay back 1 million? That is a much diffrent concept than the elaborate plan to put bankers in section 8 with 1000 dollars to make them learn what it is they did to others. If something is physically returnable that is clearly reasonable. It is unreasonable to start pulling up karmic returns that it becomes a horrible system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:28
|
|
|
S.T.C.A. posted:How is it vengeance-based to say, "You cannot keep the wealth you illegally made?" You are continously watering your idea away down to nothing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:29
|
|
|
The "and ban them for life from being a banker!" is the problem. Because the problem is of having a ton of catagories of 'criminals' that have all sorts of various bans on their freedoms. You get caught, you go to jail, you get out, you pay your fine, then welp, your still not a full citizen. I mean if you are singling out just bankers for this sort of justice it's overy specific to just pick one crime if it's a philosophy for justice it's evil, as it arbitarily carves up the population to have varying levels of rights and by definition that only leads to fewer and fewer people having full rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:33
|
|
|
Epiphany. Thanks, Mew. I see how this is incongruent with my desire to see a system that does not screw those who are penalized by law, since the example of penalizing a drunk driver by removing their ability to drive to work instead of rehabilitating them through recovery programs furthers the problem in society ("hey! now that you got a DUI and lost your means to get to work, why not drink yourself into a coma!") and a similar effect on bankers would be the same thing in concept, regardless of the damage caused, and as s0meb0dy pointed out the fix is to overhaul the justice system, not build on it as an example of how things should be.
Tempora Mutantur fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:40
|
|
|
I would absolutely not hold up things like the restrictions felons have put on them as a good system that we want to expand and emulate either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:43
|
|
|
mew force shoelace posted:The "and ban them for life from being a banker!" is the problem. Because the problem is of having a ton of catagories of 'criminals' that have all sorts of various bans on their freedoms. You get caught, you go to jail, you get out, you pay your fine, then welp, your still not a full citizen. I mean if you are singling out just bankers for this sort of justice it's overy specific to just pick one crime if it's a philosophy for justice it's evil, as it arbitarily carves up the population to have varying levels of rights and by definition that only leads to fewer and fewer people having full rights. But if you're a drug felon, good luck finding ANY job and oh, we just seized your car and house. (obviously the solution is to fix felony provisions and seizures laws, not the other way).
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:45
|
|
|
s0meb0dy0 posted:It's a hilarious double standard. No one would THINK of seizing all of their wealth and prohibiting them from working in that industry. Yeah, I see that now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:Personally I would have that banker meet with and apologize to every single person he screwed over with insider trading or whatever. Look them in the eyes and say: "Yes I destroyed your retirement fund, which you worked your entire life for in order to add a small fraction to my own wealth". I think it would be an eye opening experience. This would be terrible for the people who have lost everything. They get to sit down, face to face with a man that's partly responsible for their financial lives being ruined. No longer is it, 'the recession', 'the bankers', 'the system' - it's Tom Kisby, Banker. Perhaps he can apologize after his prison sentence? Those who have lost everything can be sent his chauffeur, brought to the banker's home and invited in for scotch and private-chef snacks while they sit across from each other in lovely chairs. He can tell them of his time in jail, but now he is out and their money is still his. I don't see why you think the banker would care. If he had the gall to commit the crime, his apology means nothing. Your scenario only extends the misfortune of those who've lost everything. Saying he's sorry won't actually do anything except salt the wounds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 18:04
|
|
|
quote:bankers There is a perceptual difference in the West (and especially in America) between individual violence and institutional/systemic violence. If am negligent with my car; for example if I drive after drinking, even with no malice "I'm not that drunk" or whatever and kill somebody- even if that person may have been "in the wrong" WRT a red light or whatever- then I will go to prison (especially in AZ, which has the toughest DUI laws in the nation). But if I am negligent with my corporation ("I've skirted these safety regulations plenty of times with no harm," "they knew the risks," etc)- and a mine collapses killing miners, or I cause and oil spill or the Bhopal disaster- well then it's time for a press conference and maybe pay a fine, but the important part is that we all just "get on with our lives" and "work tirelessly to fix the problem." Even if there is malice, for example if my company intentionally starves 200 million people in 30 countries and causes the violent overthrow of a government in pursuit of profit, it's "just business" (incidentally the term used by inmates to describe killing each other). There is never the same (criminal justice) reaction to someone who did that spill killing 12 guys; that there would be if I drove drunk and crashed into a school bus killing 12 people. The mentality between those actions is so different that they wouldn't even come close to being framed in the same way by media, the government, whatever. They're just so alien to one another (within the American 'narrative' or whatever it's called) that nobody even blinks an eye when they're treated differently. It's just supposed to be "the way things work," or if you can even get someone to engage you in the conversation: "dude that's like, totally different." There's a whole book about this: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 18:46
|
|
|
I thought Dave Chappelle did it best when he did a skit where for one day, the criminal justice system worked in reverse. Institutional crimes were treated like street crimes and street crimes were treated like institutional crimes. While, he loses some points by making it a racial thing, because some white redneck DUI is going to get similar treatment, I think the skit does a good job of consciousness raising. How is Goldman-Sachs any less destructive than a small time coke dealer?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:You work in restorative justice correct? I assume that involves confronting criminals with the impact of their crimes. How many regret what they have done afterwords? In my personal experience the more deliberate the crime, the less likely it is that the criminal will feel the real impact of what they've done. It has nothing to do with the severity of the crime really. If you get pissed, throw a punch into some guys face and he dies you're far more likely to be impacted than a guy who is told to do a hit and follows through. This is essentially why restorative justice would have a ton of hurdles for this specific type of crime. Their crimes are so prolonged and calculated, and there's no base to gain empathy save a really really long period of time . Many times there's no direct victim and really just obfuscated piles of cash lying around. But a restorative justice perspective would also require you to directly refund all money to people you've harmed with interest as well as part of your job is to repair the harm to the community that you've created.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 19:31
|
|
|
mew force shoelace posted:I would absolutely not hold up things like the restrictions felons have put on them as a good system that we want to expand and emulate either. There's a difference between restrictions. You're equating it with a mugger being restricted from voting. It should be compared with a mugger being restricted from owning a loving gun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:I disagree. Humans are social animals, empathy for people is innate. Screwing over "someone" who to you is just a number on a spread sheet if psychologically different than screwing someone you have sat down and talked to. Unless white collar criminals are disproportionally sociopaths (and I wouldn't doubt if that was the case, but would need to see some evidence) then it would have an effect. Not to mention that in such cases the sheer volume of people you would have to apologize to would have to have an impact. I disagree with your first paragraph entirely, there's a lot of work that shows that in fact the top of the top are either sociopaths, or have a lot of sociopathic tendencies. "Humans are social animals, empathy for people is innate." is a meaningless blanket statement. Your second paragraph is a simple equivalence fallacy. The rich of the rich could very well be monsters (in other words to get to the top of the top you need to be a sociopath) while the people at the bottom are victims of circumstance. Seriously all of your posts on this only make sense if you don't believe in free will. I mean that's the only reason you wouldn't criticize the people who have all the power as monsters when they do monstrous things. Doddery Meerkat fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Aug 10, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 19:44
|
|
|
Mugrim are you still in Texas and if so did you work on the reading-course diversion program?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 19:57
|
|
|
9PoolPony posted:This would be terrible for the people who have lost everything. They get to sit down, face to face with a man that's partly responsible for their financial lives being ruined. No longer is it, 'the recession', 'the bankers', 'the system' - it's Tom Kisby, Banker. Victim-impact panels/encounter sessions are sometimes mandatory for the offender, but they are never mandatory for the victim. I don't think any sane person (even given our insane system) would ever consider making it mandatory for the victim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 20:00
|
|
|
Fire posted:I thought Dave Chappelle did it best when he did a skit where for one day, the criminal justice system worked in reverse. Institutional crimes were treated like street crimes and street crimes were treated like institutional crimes. While, he loses some points by making it a racial thing, because some white redneck DUI is going to get similar treatment, I think the skit does a good job of consciousness raising. How is Goldman-Sachs any less destructive than a small time coke dealer? I haven't seen this (I've only seen the "fifth!" one) and don't have cable. Is it available online?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 20:02
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:I haven't seen this (I've only seen the "fifth!" one) and don't have cable. Is it available online? Its that one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 20:07
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:Mugrim are you still in Texas and if so did you work on the reading-course diversion program? I haven't been in TX since 08, and I was mostly dealing with parole side at that point. It sounds like a deferred adjudication program I read about but I don't remember working for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 22:28
|
|
|
Doddery Meerkat posted:Seriously all of your posts on this only make sense if you don't believe in free will. I mean that's the only reason you wouldn't criticize the people who have all the power as monsters when they do monstrous things. I don't believe in free will. I am a student of the physical sciences, when I look at a problem like this I see a series of interacting deterministic systems. I think blaming specific people for societal problems is the same kind of anthropomorphizing projection that made our ancestors believe that Zeus brought the lightning when it rained. Peoples behavior is caused by a very complex system of circumstances, the vast majority they have no say in. This is true of the rich and poor alike. The concept of free will is actually how we got into the mess with the prison system to begin with. No one would think that a malfunctioning computer "deserved" suffering for it's errors, they would just repair it in the most efficient manner possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:No one would think that a malfunctioning computer "deserved" suffering for it's errors, they would just repair it in the most efficient manner possible. We can't repair humans very well at all though, so we just poke them until they work right or break completely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 06:31
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:The concept of free will is actually how we got into the mess with the prison system to begin with. No one would think that a malfunctioning computer "deserved" suffering for it's errors, they would just repair it in the most efficient manner possible. From what I've observed, if we replace the computer in your analogy with a person, there seems to be a strong compulsion in the consciousness of mainstream America that although a malfunctioning person might not necessarily deserve to suffer, there's no time, inclination or compassion to repair them. It's just easier to throw them away; label them as broken and focus on "working" models. To mix the metaphor further: prisons become an industrialized and convenient dumping site for the broken and malfunctioning units amongst us. I'm not taking a piss on your point, but rather I'm supporting the idea that both the computer in your analogy and the very real way our society views prisoners, have one terrible thing in common: they're disposable if we can't muster an effort to repair them. I'll admit that this is the first time I've ventured to post in any of these Prison threads. However, I've read them all, thoroughly. And the two things that keep coming up over and over again for me as I read them are the blind hubris and utter lack of compassion that seem to fuel the engines of our vengeance. If we're not incarcerating each other out of self-superior emotionalism and barbaric revenge, then we're incarcerating each other out of sheer gross indifference. I'm not sure exactly how just yet, but because of these threads and the raw and heartrending commentary by HG, I decided a year ago I'm going to try to make some sort of difference. I can't just watch people become this disposable. Corzen fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Aug 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 06:40
|
|
|
Razor Craze posted:From what I've observed, if we replace the computer in your analogy with a person, there seems to be a strong compulsion in the consciousness of mainstream America that although a malfunctioning person might not necessarily deserve to suffer, there's no time, inclination or compassion to repair them. It's just easier to throw them away; label them as broken and focus on "working" models. To mix the metaphor further: prisons become an industrialized and convenient dumping site for the broken and malfunctioning units amongst us. Yeah I don't understand the attitude either. Sure living in a tribe where you eat the weak might seem good when your hungry and someone just broke their leg, but you or a loved on one might be the next victim of circumstance to be eaten. It's better for everyone to live in a society where we take care of each other. baquerd posted:We can't repair humans very well at all though, so we just poke them until they work right or break completely. Prison isn't even an honest attempt. Rutibex fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Aug 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 14:24
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:Citing concerns over how much it might cost, AG Holder is still dragging his heels when it comes to stopping prison rape. Just so you guys know, Eric Holder (along with Barack Obama) is still dragging his heels, and he's still intentionally complicit in the devastation of hundreds of thousands of people's lives. Because he's choosing not to enforce a law- a unanimously-supported law- which exists to remedy one of the most heinous institutional failures in American history; a failure that enables, condones, and even encourages the large-scale violent torture of citizens across the entire nation. From sea to shining sea, legions of people are brutalized to an extent the average person can't even comprehend, through unspeakable pain and indescribable humiliation. Every four minutes, someone's life is irrevocably changed- they will never be the same. For some of them their families will be shattered, for others it will "only" be a private hell. For all of them life is vastly, horribly different. Every four minutes, this happens. Chris J happens. Everywhere, and all the time. Eric Holder can act, and let's be real, he's not gonna stamp it out altogether overnight. But he can act. He can enforce that law- literally the people's law, passed unanimously in record time- he can act. The President can force him to act. But no, let's worry about a few dollars. In the time it took me write this, it happened again. Twice. A person, a person with a family that loves them, who made their mark on their community, was raped- maybe gang-raped. And with a level of force and violence and degradation such that you can scarcely imagine. If you read this then look at the timestamp, and you clock, and divide that by four minutes. That's how many times it happened since I posted this. What kind of letters are you going to write? What kind of stand are you going to take? Don't answer me, I don't want your answer. The next Chris J wants your answer (3:59 and counting as you read this sentence). You want it for yourself (maybe you don't?) Your community, your nation wants it. 3:55, and counting. It's time. 3:50 Let's stop this, let's end this. 3:45 HidingFromGoro fucked around with this message at 22:21 on Aug 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 22:17
|
|
|
Hey, look at that! As soon as a congressman goes to prison, he's all for prison reform!Duke Cunningham posted:"The USA has more prisoners than any other nation, including Russian & China," he writes. "The US Attorneys win 98% of their cases and if you do not plead in which 80-90% is not true they threaten your wife children etc with prison time."
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2010 23:56
|
|
|
tendrilsfor20 posted:Hey, look at that! As soon as a congressman goes to prison, he's all for prison reform! Well I guess then all you guys have to do is find some way to send the majority of your politicians to prison, and hey, you'll have prison reform.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 02:04
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:Just so you guys know, Eric Holder (along with Barack Obama) is still dragging his heels, and he's still intentionally complicit in the devastation of hundreds of thousands of people's lives. Because he's choosing not to enforce a law- a unanimously-supported law- which exists to remedy one of the most heinous institutional failures in American history; a failure that enables, condones, and even encourages the large-scale violent torture of citizens across the entire nation. From sea to shining sea, legions of people are brutalized to an extent the average person can't even comprehend, through unspeakable pain and indescribable humiliation. "NPR reports that the standards — which include segregating young or weak prisoners and ensuring that male guards don’t supervise female prisoners — could cost more than $1 billion to kick off, and another $1 billion each year." Jesus loving Christ. 1 billion is what's holding them back? That's between 2-3 days of funding for the war in Iraq. Harper's dropping $9 billion on prisons for imaginary criminals who commit theoretical crimes up here. We can't even look down on Prison America with contempt and pity anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 02:17
|
|
|
I recently watched a documentary about the Russian prison system and specifically Russian prison tattoos called the Mark of Cain. The inmates and officials addressed issues of poor sanitation, overcrowding, inadequate food and medical care, rape, torture, and violence. It's hardly a comprehensive overview, but it does offer some disturbing insight into similarities with the American system. Russia at least has the excuse of three decades of slow economic collapse to account for the lack of funding, in America it seems intentional.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2010 15:43
|
|
|
The Justice Department is moving on states that segregate prisoners with HIV. http://www.salon.com/life/aids/index.html?story=/news/feature/2010/08/14/prison_segregations_aids As they're enforcing the existing laws prohibiting discrimination against people with HIV and other diseases, this is a good thing, right? In response, the Republican party is going to spin it as Obama trying to increase the spread of AIDS. That makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
olylifter posted:The Justice Department is moving on states that segregate prisoners with HIV. An easy spin to make, considering the Obama administration isn't enforcing (or even complying with) existing laws addressing prison rape.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 15:32 |
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:An easy spin to make, considering the Obama administration isn't enforcing (or even complying with) existing laws addressing prison rape. But then, neither have the previous administrations, so it's still a step forward, even if a tiny one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2010 00:00
|
|