cliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/25/85)
"SAN FRANCISCO (October 20, 1983) Female inmates of San Quentin prison will have to endure strip searches and showers under the scrutiny of male guards, says a Federal judge who ruled that privacy is secondary to security. U.S. District Judge Spencer Williams yesterday dismissed a class-action suit brought by three inmates who complained it was humiliating to be naked in front of male guards at the maximum-security facility. They also complained some of the male guards verbally harassed them. Williams said use of male guards didn't violate the inmates' constitutional right to privacy and said security needs justified the physical observation and hands-on searches by correctional officers, including men. The ruling protects men's employment rights in correctional facilities, said California Attorney General John Van de Kamp." I don't like it! Seems to me there it shouldn't be hard to hire female guards for that purpose. What do others think? --Cliff
nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe) (01/25/85)
> Female inmates of San Quentin prison will have to endure strip searches and > showers under the scrutiny of male guards, says a Federal judge who ruled that > privacy is secondary to security. > > U.S. District Judge Spencer Williams yesterday dismissed a class-action suit > brought by three inmates who complained it was humiliating to be naked in front > of male guards at the maximum-security facility. They also complained some of > the male guards verbally harassed them. > > Williams said use of male guards didn't violate the inmates' constitutional > right to privacy and said security needs justified the physical observation > and hands-on searches by correctional officers, including men. > > The ruling protects men's employment rights in correctional facilities, said > California Attorney General John Van de Kamp." > > I don't like it! Seems to me there it shouldn't be hard to hire female guards > for that purpose. What do others think? > > --Cliff Where is the Bill of Rights when we need it? Cruel & unusual (well, at least cruel and I hope unusual but I wouldn't bet on it) punishment if ever I heard of it. Customs and the police routinely use women to search women. That judge should be subject to much free publicity when he's up for election next. Aghast, Nemo
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (01/26/85)
Prisons exist for punishment, and I think it is actually stated in the law somewhere (knowledgeable folks, correct me) that when it comes to civil rights in prison, all bets are off. If there are female guards at the place (no reason there shouldn't be...), some effort should be made to have them do the searches. BUT I don't want MY tax dollars being spent to hire SPECIAL guards just to perform these searches (and women shouldn't be given preference in hiring just because of this). Of course, if there are female guards and it is "impossible" to reallocate them, the men in the prison don't have a right to complain if women perform THEIR searches. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe) (01/28/85)
>From: mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) >Subject: Re: Strip Searches >Message-ID: <251@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA> > >Prisons exist for punishment, and I think it is actually stated in the law >somewhere (knowledgeable folks, correct me) that when it comes to civil >rights in prison, all bets are off. If there are female guards at the place >(no reason there shouldn't be...), some effort should be made to have them do >the searches. BUT I don't want MY tax dollars being spent to hire SPECIAL >guards just to perform these searches (and women shouldn't be given >preference in hiring just because of this). Prisons supposedly exist for rehabilitation (it's very hard to type that with a straight face). That's where the term "house of correction" comes from. In fact prisons today serve mainly to warehouse criminals and keep them off the streets for a while. The punishment part is an artifact of human nature in that particular situation. (Some very scary psychological studies exist on this phenomenon.) I don't see how having female prisoners stripped and humiliated by male guards is going to help rehabilitate anyone. Being stripped and humiliated by female guards isn't much better (I have that on testimony of a friend with first hand experience). Since no real rehabilitation is going on anyway, your tax dollars are being wasted no matter who they hire. Whether rehabilitation is possible with today's psychology is doubtful in most cases. On the other hand, even an empirical look at recidivism rates shows that punishment doesn't work either. I don't say that prisons should resemble resort hotels, but even a warehouse doesn't have to be brutalizing. Since the law requires the hiring of female guards anyway, I see nothing preventing them being assigned to appropriate locations and duties. -- ============================================================================== The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI If thy CRT offend thee, pluck 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. it out and cast it from thee. Santa Monica, California 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (02/02/85)
>right to privacy and said security needs justified the physical observation >and hands-on searches by correctional officers, including men. > >The ruling protects men's employment rights in correctional facilities, said >California Attorney General John Van de Kamp." > >I don't like it! Seems to me there it shouldn't be hard to hire female guards >for that purpose. What do others think? > > --Cliff It seems to me (my opinion only so flame by mail if you must) That if any person is imprissoned for a crime they have, at least for the duration of their sentence, been deprived of the right to claim anything more of soociety than perhaps subsistance. In a prison there is no right to privacy. If the guards are content with the situation then thre is no reason fo complaint. If I, as a female, were in the same situation as the guards in question I would be more thana a little uncomfortable and would soon ask to be replaced or relieved of the duty. I can hardly feel any sympathy for the convicts but I can feel a bit of confusion at society in the last 10 years or so, in that it appears that the criminal element is afforded more protection then the people they prey upon. =============================================================================== From the mostly vacant environment of Jeanette L. Zobjeck (ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie) All opinions expressed may not even be my own. ===============================================================================
jsz@bridge2.UUCP (Jay S. Zusman) (02/02/85)
> "SAN FRANCISCO (October 20, 1983) > > Female inmates of San Quentin prison will have to endure strip searches and > showers under the scrutiny of male guards, says a Federal judge who ruled that > privacy is secondary to security. > > U.S. District Judge Spencer Williams yesterday dismissed a class-action suit > brought by three inmates who complained it was humiliating to be naked in front > of male guards at the maximum-security facility. They also complained some of > the male guards verbally harassed them. > > Williams said use of male guards didn't violate the inmates' constitutional > right to privacy and said security needs justified the physical observation > and hands-on searches by correctional officers, including men. > > The ruling protects men's employment rights in correctional facilities, said > California Attorney General John Van de Kamp." > > I don't like it! Seems to me there it shouldn't be hard to hire female guards > for that purpose. What do others think? > > --Cliff A person convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison loses certain rights. Among these lost rights is the right to privacy. I have no sympathy. If you behave as an animal you should not complain about being treated as one. After all, we are talking about San Quentin, not detention hall after school.
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (02/10/85)
> A person convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison loses certain > rights. Among these lost rights is the right to privacy. I have no > sympathy. If you behave as an animal you should not complain about > being treated as one. After all, we are talking about San Quentin, > not detention hall after school. Where's my oxy-acetylene torch? Now, then ... 1. The question being debated is not whether a convict loses the right of privacy, but whether she ought to lose it. 2. You do not know the difference between a criminal and an animal. 3. The only objective truth in your article is the statement "I have no sympathy." It is all the commentary you needed to make. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...decvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (daver) (02/18/85)
>I don't like it! Seems to me there it shouldn't be hard to hire female guards >for that purpose. What do others think? This same excuse was used to keep women sports reporters out of locker rooms. What do people think of that? Dave Rabinowitz hplabs!hp-pcd!daver