Asymmetrical Information

Keep restarting these until you get a thread where nobody but "I'd never be dumb enough to put all my money, er, stand for having my employer put all my 401k money into the company's stock" objectivist fanboys post.

Thanks from beyond the grave,
Kenny-boy

Jane Galt, how about some examples of people against waterboarding and for prison rape? And what is your position on waterboarding since you brought the subject up?

Depravity and Cognitive Dissonance are, seemingly, stitched into the fabric of many of our "Countrymen".

I agree, those that wouldn't "DIY" should really wonder why they would support having it done in their stead. Such Cowardice must be its own Cell, they just haven't figured out who it is that thinks them their "Girlfriend".

how about some examples of people against waterboarding and for prison rape

Considering the post mentioned precisely one blogger by name who (probably flippantly, but still troublingly) endorsed the rape of Enron execs, you might consider, you know, searching that blogger's site. It takes 5 seconds, if you're a slow typer.

Google is your friend.

"onsidering the post mentioned precisely one blogger by name who (probably flippantly, but still troublingly) endorsed the rape of Enron execs"

Delong didn't endorse this. A commentator in a Delong thread advocated the rape. I agree with Jane's sentiment but the wording is a bit confusing and makes it seem Delong said this. but all the quotes are from thread commentators I believe.

Wow, that "Kenny-boy" bit just keeps getting funnier with each use!

D'you get it? His name was Ken so it's really funny to keep calling him "Kenny-boy" again and again!

Delong didn't endorse this. A commentator in a Delong thread advocated the rape.

You are, of course, correct. I intended to say "blog" not "blogger," but I guess that's not fair to Delong either--I certainly wouldn't want Jane to take any blame for today's comment sections. And good for DeLong for not saying anything like that.

Best way to avoid getting raped in prison: don't go to prison.
Best way to avoid going to prison: don't commit multiple felonies.

And how, how, my heart cries, can people who profess to be shocked and disgusted by the Bush administration's endorsement of waterboarding suspected terrorists

Because they think it will embarass the president, who is a Republican.

suddenly enamoured of rape and crippling beatings when the victims are disgraced CEO's?

Because said CEO's are also Republicans.

Moral: Embarassing and/or raping Republicans is OK, because, well, they deserve it.

James, I am making a (possibly unjustified) assumption that a liberal commenter on Delong's site is, in fact, opposed to Bush on torture.

As for what I think about it, I wrote about it just a few days ago:

I'm not sure exactly what constitutes torture. Does humilitating someone by forcing them to be interrogated by a woman count? Not to my mind (sexist bastards). How about humiliating someone by making them wear a ridiculous costume? Stripping them naked? Urinating on them? Similarly, pinching someone is not torture. Nor is slapping them once in the back of the head. I suppose wiring them up to a 9-volt battery wouldn't be either (or I have a Geneva convention beef with my 3rd grade teacher)--but wiring them up to an electric generator, or jumping up and down on them in steel-toed boots, pretty clearly is. We forbid things that aren't torture so that "interrogation" doesn't shade into torture. Most of the stuff the Bush administration is describing isn't torture--but that doesn't mean I think it should be legal.

I'm not sure waterboarding constitutes torture . . . but I'm agin' it anyway.

Jane Galt, how about some examples of people against waterboarding and for prison rape?

I think the issue isn't the scoring of points against specific people; it's that prison rape is a stock item of comedy in the media and and in conversation, in a way that would be considered appalling for much less severe violations of human rights.

I'm going to likewise assume that Jane is in favor of rich white guys getting to steal the pensions of their employees (and the savings of other investors).

And to the guy posting as me: Dubya gave me this nickname, you ignorant wanker. It was obviously before he had to pretend he didn't know me, of course.

Yup, you nailed me . . . foursquare in favour of pension-stealing. In fact, I steal pensions myself as a sideline, even though I'm neither rich nor male. I'm like, an equal opportunity oppressor.

On a more serious note, James, searching Google Blogs on "jeff skilling prison bitch" gives you a few candidates to start with:

"I do not believe the state is morally allowed to do that which individuals are not morally allowed to do"

It's immoral for the state to have an army?

"I do not believe that prison sentences should have "off label" uses; and I think that if you are willing for the state to impose a sentence in your name, you should be willing to carry it out"

Me too, and every thing you denounce here could be prevented, except that the measures required to do so would violate prisoners' rights.

Let's get away from the rape issue and talk about other punishments. If criminal activity by people like Fastow or Ebbers results in thousands of people who hoped to retire having to work pretty much the rest of their lives, isn't it fair that those guys should spend the rest of their lives on a chain gang landscaping the freeway or picking up garbage? Granted, their crimes weren't violent, but should their punishment be less than what their victims endure?

'Delong didn't endorse this. A commentator in a Delong thread advocated the rape.'

J Bradford Scissorhands is notorious for deleting comments he disagrees with. So, why, oh why, doesn't he have a better class of commenter?

Btw, Fastow, Lay, nor anyone else took anything from anyone's pension. Enron employees had a full smorgasboard from which to choose--including a defined benefit pension. If someone was 100% own company stock in their 401k, that was their fault.

You touched on this earlier with your blue-collar/white-collar post, but perhaps the fact that common criminals get sentenced to a regular round of rapes could lead people, while opposing official torture, to advocate the same treatment for very rich criminals. If it is what our society has decided is good enough for the thief of a $70,000 car, why isn't it good enough for the thief of $70 million?

Jane,

I'm touched that you quoted me.

Touched.

So sorry that you are not absolutely horrified by what those jamokes at Enron did to those people. Maybe you would feel differently if daddy Galt was looking forward to retirement after working (and SAVING) for 40+ years, only to see all that he has earned be wiped away by some shrewd and devious stock manipulation of the company that he trusted so much. I think you would feel differently.

And for the record I have no family members who worked for Enron, nor do I know anyone (personally) who lost all their retirement savings. Moreover, I AM a Republican (not a Libertarian), but a Republican that believes in accountability and personal responsibility.

Those thousands of people are without their nest eggs, the results of a lifetime's earnings and savings (and doing without, living below your means.) Ken Lay and others are not solely responsible for that, but they sure helped exaserbate it. What really irritates me is that these guys thought they could get away with it, as if they were entitled to be well off even at the expense of those who worked for them.

Therefore, they get no sympathies from me.

Fry them, for all I care.

>> why isn't it good enough for the thief of $70 million

Because this gives an incentive to the prospective thief of 70mil to do things that the small-time crook is UNABLE to do. In short, if you want to have the people with mentality of a mafia capo PREDOMINANTLY heading the major corporations, then go right ahead.

I'll give you an example of the country where this has already happened though. Russia. Why don't you guys move there?

Another wrinkle for those who (grotesquely) think that prison rape is in any way valid punishment: it's not applied equally. A big guy is less likely to get raped than a small guy. A guy with gang connections and friends on the inside is less likely to get raped than someone with no connections. In fact, this method of punishment seems to reward prisoner who are in gangs, are big, or are especially ruthless and violent. Is this what we want?

I think Retief may have a very, very good point--the semi-informed public is advocating the same punishment for stealing $7000 from a liquor store, a $70,000 BMW or $70M in pensions. Whether prison rape is justified for any of the three is a separate discussion.

Sentencing an individual to a prison at which he will be raped should be deemed cruel and unusual punishment, and should therefore be unconstitutional.

I'm going to likewise assume that Jane is in favor of rich white guys getting to steal the pensions of their employees (and the savings of other investors).

Yes, blah, blah, people opposed to waterboarding love terrorists and want them to kill people, blah, blah.

Sure, Bush gave Ken Lay a nickname. Also, Paul Krugman got a big consulting job from them that he bragged about and environmental groups gave Enron an award (partially because it was a big energy company in favor of Kyoto hoping to make money off of emissions trading). Hardly has a point.

Prison rape is disturbingly accepted and even joked about. You didn't even mention the Bill Lockyer comment (which I referred to in your original post) about Ken Lay.

Prison rape is one of those cultural practices which--like the routine murder of unborn children--will make us seem as vicious and brutal to some future generation as the Visigoths seem to us now.

Waterboarding is routinely done to American troops during SERE (survival, evasion, resistance, escape) school, which has existed since before the Vietnam war. As to whether is still qualifies as torture, I'll gladly defer to Sen. McCain, as perhaps many other grateful Americans will.

Ken

J -- who said it's immoral for an individual to have an army? Not all restrictions on private individuals have to be for moral reasons; laws that place practical restrictions on otherwise moral acts can be perfectly justified.

I agree, those that wouldn't "DIY" should really wonder why they would support having it done in their stead.

I wouldn't think this was an alien concept to most people, but it is possible to be personally repulsed by a morally-acceptable activity.

I know from personal experience that I cannot so much as dissect a fetal pig without wanting to vomit. This has not inspired me to view surgery as a moral abomination, nor has it caused me to feel deep shame over my willingness to pay doctors to do things I could never bring myself to do. Similarly, I support gay rights even though I find the idea of sex with another man to be completely disgusting -- my emotional and sexual hang-ups are not a valid basis for a system of morality.

Might I also add that there's nothing strange about paying other people to perform unpleasant tasks in your stead. Half the world would be out of work if it wasn't for people doing that. :)

J,

It's immoral for the state to have an army?

Of course not, don't be silly. In order for that to be true, by analogy it would also have to be immoral for an individual to defend himself....

Hmm, OK, then I guess it is a good and proper thing that neither DC nor Chicago has an army, isn't it?

Answer for James B. Shearer: Bill Lockyer.

Though perhaps he's not against waterboarding.

"who said it's immoral for an individual to have an army? Not all restrictions on private individuals have to be for moral reasons; laws that place practical restrictions on otherwise moral acts can be perfectly justified"

To Jane, Warmongering Looney, and Kirk: Agreed. I need to be more careful about re-reading remarks I don't think make sense. Sorry.

Solitary but short

I agree with Jane Galt on the current system of prisons being unacceptable if her characterization is true.

Probably one realistic answer would be to make all prison into solitary confinement (except for approved visits), but (because SC is much harsher) to make sentences short: measured in weeks rather than months/years.

This strikes me as more realistic (I mean, more likely to happen under contemporary conditions) than advocating corporal punishments.

"I do not believe the state is morally allowed to do that which individuals are not morally allowed to do"

Jane, I can get behind this sentiment - but wouldn't this mean you would have to be opposed to taxation? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Some of these people being flippant about prison rape should realize that it could happen their family too. It's not outside the realm of possibility that the twentysomething son of an upper middle-class family could get busted on drug charges and be sentenced to a considerable jail term (thanks to mandatory minimums). Squeal like a piggy!

Seriously, I commend Janey for being a voice of reason on this. America is such an amazing country -- why does it tolerate such appallingly uncivilized conditions in its prisons?

"If someone was 100% own company stock in their 401k, that was their fault."

And if they invested a bunch of money in the 401k, and my company forced all of the matching funds to be paid in company stock, that was their fault too! Yee-haw! I win again!

Usually, you can reallocate your 401K funds. And if you can't, then this "401K matching" is not that much of a benefit -- same as matching with an extremely long vesting schedule. Discount that part of your compensation then decide if your present employment is still worthwhile.

Here's an interesting idea: $10,000 worth of state lottery tickets presented annually as part of the compensation package (tax-free, to make it even funnier -- can you say "lottery ticket options"?). Can't QUITE come out and call it worthless, but what IS it worth?

I wouldn't think this was an alien concept to most people, but it is possible to be personally repulsed by a morally-acceptable activity.

What? You didn't witness the wild popularity of the do-it-yourself proctology kit? First in a series. I believe the second release in the series will allow you to surgically remove your own warts.

"Seriously, I commend Janey for being a voice of reason on this. America is such an amazing country -- why does it tolerate such appallingly uncivilized conditions in its prisons?"

For the same reason that America supports hideously unjust tactics in the War on Drugs -- everyone in favor of the tactics is convinced that the tactics (and corresponding abuse) will never be used against them. It's easy to be in favor of something that you're in no risk of experiencing.

The truly noble thing is to support the same standards for everyone else that you'd want used in your own unique, "I swear I'm innocent" case.

For the same reason that America supports hideously unjust tactics in the War on Drugs -- everyone in favor of the tactics is convinced that the tactics (and corresponding abuse) will never be used against them.

The thing is, that's not an unreasonable belief. If you don't associate with criminals and aren't a criminal yourself, your chances of finding yourself convicted of a felony are incredibly remote.

So when faced with the question "are you willing to spend a LOT more of your tax money on prison security so that, in the unlikely possibility of your going to prison, you won't get raped", the average person is obviously going to answer "no".

The truly noble thing is to support the same standards for everyone else that you'd want used in your own unique, "I swear I'm innocent" case.

Not possible. If I was wrongly accused I'd want the state to keep investigating and spending money indefinitely until they found someone ELSE to convict. But as a society we're not willing to spend millions of dollars on every criminal case, so we perform a cost-benefit analysis.

I still think that capital punishment would be an effective response to prison rape, and would help to reduce the occurance of rape in prison.

"Seriously, I commend Janey for being a voice of reason on this. America is such an amazing country -- why does it tolerate such appallingly uncivilized conditions in its prisons?"

Freedom and Responsibility....

We in the United States have the unique opportunity to pretty much live as we choose. You can drive pretty much whatever you want. You can have as big or as small a house as you want (and can afford.) You can work as many (or as few) hours as you want. You can do what you want. We have that Freedom. But with that freedom comes great Responsibility. If you have proven that you abused the great freedoms that have been bestowed upon you, than you will face the responsibility for your action.

If you don't want to be raped in prison, then don't break what very few laws we have! It really is that simple.

The whole injustice with the "401(k) looting" arises from three factors:

1. The company match for Enron's 401k was company stock - no other choice.
2. Employees were NOT allowed to reallocate until x years had gone by (to keep some "skin in the game", ha-ha)
3. Employees who were able to reallocate were openly discouraged in doing so because Messrs. Lay and Skilling lied about the company's financial position (and were huge cheerleaders for the company's stock, while selling their own stakes)

Ergo, looting by proxy. Very bad things happened to mostly good people. I personally don't think that calls for rape as a sentence, though.

The whole injustice with the "401(k) looting" arises from three factors:

1. The company match for Enron's 401k was company stock - no other choice.
2. Employees were NOT allowed to reallocate until x years had gone by (to keep some "skin in the game", ha-ha)
3. Employees who were able to reallocate were openly discouraged in doing so because Messrs. Lay and Skilling lied about the company's financial position (and were huge cheerleaders for the company's stock, while selling their own stakes)

Ergo, looting by proxy. Very bad things happened to mostly good people. I personally don't think that calls for rape as a sentence, though.

I have a deep, and possibly unfounded, suspicion that prison rape is less common than often assumed. IIRC a while back there was an interview with one of the writers of that Human Rights Watch report, telling about how his/her research assistants were emotionally broken up from the dreadful tales the prisoners told them about how they'd been abused. Because, y'know, people in prison are typically quite truthful, and would never lie to get sympathy or aid.

Incidentally, Jane had an interesting thread about this in October 2003. Worth a re-read, I think.

The thing is, that's not an unreasonable belief. If you don't associate with criminals and aren't a criminal yourself, your chances of finding yourself convicted of a felony are incredibly remote.

What about earning yourself a felony? There are other dangers lurking that are potentially worse, all direct casualties of the drug war:

-- The guy in the next apartment over tokes one too many and the police get wind of it. Then they come with SWAT gear at 2am and mistakenly kick your door down instead of his. Hopefully the ones holding the MP5s haven't been watching too many cop or action movies lately.

-- You discover that your renter was growing marijuana in the basement...after the police do. Now you have to fight tooth and nail to keep your property from being forfeit.

-- One of your kids gets tangled up with bad company and is convicted in court; and even if s/he cleans up later, s/he is permanently ineligible for student financial aid because of the felony.

There are more like this. People maybe don't think very hard about them, but ordinary, honest citizens are at an ever-increasing risk of being wronged by the state due to drug war mania.

"I do not believe the state is morally allowed to do that which individuals are not morally allowed to do..."

This defines the essence of the state itself.
Therefore the state cannot be morally allowed to exist.
QED.

And how, how, my heart cries, can people who profess to be shocked and disgusted by the Bush administration's endorsement of waterboarding suspected terrorists

Isn't the point of waterboarding people to get information from them? We've gotten more than enough information from Lay.

Personally, my problems is that the US Army is using a very imprecise standard for separating offenders from innocents.

But I'm against prison rape since, as was mentioned, it's not applied equally. And it spreads disease which can eventually harm innocents. You can't even donate blood if you've been to prison (recently?) Besides, it may be a threatening punishment, but I find it difficult to think that it helps rehabilitate, which sould be a goal.

Personally, I think sensory deprivation + isolation is a better punishment. Letting criminals socialize in jail only reinforces their deviant beliefs.

And it spreads disease which can eventually harm innocents.

Not in jail. I can't speak for every country, but in the United States, all prisoners who are HIV positive or infected with AIDS (or Hepititis-B or any other nasty infectuous disease) are seperated from the general population. I don't even think they are allowed to mingle at anytime with the other prisoners. Theirs is a life of complete isolation (at least until they are gone from prison or gone from this Earth.)

What about earning yourself a felony? There are other dangers lurking that are potentially worse, all direct casualties of the drug war:

If you want to argue that the drug war is bad, go argue with somebody else. I agree it is very bad indeed, I was just pointing out that normal people don't have any rational reason to fear going to prison because of it.

The guy in the next apartment over tokes one too many and the police get wind of it. Then they come with SWAT gear at 2am

No-knock raids are indeed very bad. But (a) they don't call out SWAT for smoking a joint and (b) the number of mistaken no-knock raids, while high, is heavily concentrated in poor areas and public housing, where the overwhelming majority of Americans do not live. If you're a middle-class American you're probably more likely to be struck dead by lightning than be wrongly targetted in a no-knock raid.

The reason to be opposed to no-knock raids is that they violate people's rights, not because they pose a personal danger.

You discover that your renter was growing marijuana in the basement...after the police do.

Certainly a possibility, but of all the bad things that could happen to a landlord, that's not one of the significant ones risks. But, again, yes, forfeiture laws are bad.

One of your kids gets tangled up with bad company and is convicted in court; and even if s/he cleans up later, s/he is permanently ineligible for student financial aid because of the felony

Sorry, that one I have no problem with at all. Student loans are a questionable use of my tax dollars in the first place -- loans to people who have proven themselves to be irresponsible liars? Forget about it. Let them get a full-time job at The Gap to pay for college.

Paul - in the United States, all prisoners who are HIV positive or infected with AIDS (or Hepititis-B or any other nasty infectuous disease) are seperated from the general population.

From the CDC;

The findings in this report indicate that most facilities had a policy of STD screening based on symptoms or arrestee request. Less than half of the facilities had a policy of offering routine testing. In those facilities with a policy of routine testing, less than half of the arrestees were actually tested. Many STDs, including chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis, can be asymptomatic and can only be detected through routine screening activities (6). Therefore, routine testing policies and greater implementation of existing routine testing policies in jails can increase STD diagnosis and treatment.

CDC

Citing budget woes, the California Department of Corrections does not, as a rule, administer blood tests to new inmates and so does not know how many inmates have undetected HIV/AIDS or hepatitis. An earlier state study, however, indicated that about one-third of all new convicts have either hepatitis B or C. The corrections department says it does know that 20,434 inmates have hepatitis B or C; 742 have HIV; and another 582 have AIDS, up from 157 in 1999. All of these sick inmates are housed in the general population.
source

If we as a society take people into custody, then we have a duty of care to keep them safe. If it was wrong to allow abuses in Abu Graihb, then it's just as wrong to allow them in the state penitentiary. There is no 'Not guilty because the victim is a criminal' defense in the courtroom. Why should there be anywhere else.

Rape is not a joke.

Rape is not a joke.

Rape is not a joke.

Ryan,

Your post does not dispute my post. All it proves is that there should be more testing. If they know you are positive, you are not permitted to mingle with the general population at any time, just like I said.

The problem is they don't always know because they don't always test. If they tested everyone the minute they get to the prison, then they wouldn't have to test again (for HIV.)

Comments are Closed.