26 year old male who sexually assaulted 10 year old girl will be housed in juvenile female facility.

[TomC]

The series of events that led to Tubbs being solitary confinement.
You seem to forget the solitary confinement part when it doesn't suit your personal narrative.

I haven't forgotten anything. Tubbs belongs in solitary confinement in the adult male estate, because he is an adult male.

Why is it important where Tubbs is held in solitary confinement?
Tom

Because the juvenile female estate was built for juvenile females, not adult males. I don't know how to explain it more simply than that.

How about you explain it, rather than just make an unsupported assertion?

I agree that under most circumstances that's the way to go. But Tubbs is a freakish anomaly.

I don't know how to ask this any more simply. Why does the usual purpose of a building make any difference, in these particular circumstances?
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know how to ask this any more simply. Why does the usual purpose of a building make any difference, in these particular circumstances?

Because everything about the building and the estate is designed for the housing of juvenile female offenders, not adult male offenders.

If you cannot understand that answer, I cannot explain it further, I'm sorry.

 

[TomC]

I don't know how to ask this any more simply. Why does the usual purpose of a building make any difference, in these particular circumstances?

Because everything about the building and the estate is designed for the housing of juvenile female offenders, not adult male offenders.

If you cannot understand that answer, I cannot explain it further, I'm sorry.

Try explaining exactly how the facility is designed that makes it "for" housing a particular kind of inmate. And how an inmate in solitary confinement is a problem.

How about explaining that, not just making vague assertions.
Tom

ETA ~If Tubbs were a cis-female with a history of child rape I'd still expect Tubbs to kept in solitary.~

 

[Emily Lake]

I think the real danger is rewriting policy in regards this one singular incident. An appeals process should sort this out. But you clearly want me to be outraged before the final analysis, so he's me with my pitchfork, brother. You and me against the system, let's go!

Appealed by whom? Do you think the adult child molester is inclined to complain about being placed with his victim pool?

Additionally, this singular incident demonstrates that the policy is complete shit. It should be obvious to anyone with any sense of decency that child molesters shouldn't be imprisoned with a bunch of potential victims.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'll also add that this 26 year old decided to "identify" as trans when he was arrested. And for saying those magic words... he is being housed with girls.

If nothing else, I really expect decent caring human being to object to a fully and completely adult male sex offender being placed in with a bunch of female children. He shouldn't be placed with ANY juveniles at all, but this is literally the state putting the fox in the henhouse. It's just plain dumb and irresponsible.

 

[Emily Lake]

That'it?
I mean, I get that it plays into the "my kids aren't safe from transvestites using public restrooms"... but more kids drown in a toilet than get harmed by a transvestite in a bathroom... and there is only one kid I know that is afraid of the toilet.

Yeah... I think you need to revise your priors, given that this particular male-presenting, male-bodied, in-name-only transgender person is ALREADY a sex offender.

You're implying that the likelihood of a kid drowning in a toilet is higher than the likelihood of a child being assaulted by a transperson. As a general statement, that's true. But that's also not a reasonable comparison. It needs to be amended, because I'm inclined to say that the likelihood of a kid drowning in a toilet is lower than the likelihood of a kid being assaulted by a known child molester.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't know how to ask this any more simply. Why does the usual purpose of a building make any difference, in these particular circumstances?

Because everything about the building and the estate is designed for the housing of juvenile female offenders, not adult male offenders.

If you cannot understand that answer, I cannot explain it further, I'm sorry.

Try explaining exactly how the facility is designed that makes it "for" housing a particular kind of inmate. And how an inmate in solitary confinement is a problem.

How about explaining that, not just making vague assertions.
Tom

I assume here you would find it completely unacceptable for Tubbs to be housed in the juvenile female estate if he were not in permanent solitary confinement, because Tubbs poses a clear and present danger to the juvenile female detainees. Is that correct?

So, one of the problems is that Tubbs could be let out of permanent solitary confinement (if that was indicated as a good idea for his rehabilitation) if he were in the adult male estate, but he could not be let out in the juvenile female estate.

Now, I could not possibly enumerate all the differences between how an adult male estate is run and how a juvenile female estate is run (because I don't know them), but even if those differences were zero (which I find hard to believe), there is one pertinent difference--we separate people by sex, especially where vulnerable people are concerned, and that enables both for the physical safety and psychological comfort of females. Even if you believe the physical safety of females is not compromised because Tubbs will be in permanent solitary, that does not mean their psychological safety has not been compromised by the mere presence of a known adult male rapist in their prison.

 

[Emily Lake]

The issue is that the DA chose to prosecute in juvenile court rather than as an adult. That’s a policy choice. Elections have consequences.

Why do we have juvenile courts if we aren't going to treat juveniles like juveniles?

Um... at what point is a 26 year old a juvenile? It's even borderline at the time of the assault, given that the perpetrator was only two weeks shy of being an adult.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ah, this old cannard again.

A: It is entirely reasonable to say "I do not want people housed alongside those for whom they may have a proclivity to rape, nor whom they have the ability to make or become pregnant thereby".

B: It is entirely UNreasonable to say "I do not want people housed because together because (assumptions about people with penises and vaginas)".

C: it is entirely UNreasonable to say "I want people housed together because (nonsense about "men" and "women" needing to be houses with "men" and "women" respectively)".

But the next 20 some odd pages of this thread will be Metaphor making every attempt to implying those who argue A are instead arguing C, as a justification to support B.

Emphasis mine. The bolded section is ENTIRELY the point here.

It's also a matter of this outcome being driven by California policy. I cannot see any rational case where a known sex offender should be housed with their victim pool, even more so when the sex offender is a child molester who assaulted a child.

It's already unacceptable that they've put an adult who sexually offends against children in with children. But it's compounded by the fact that this man identified as transgender when he was arrested, and that magic phrase has him placed with girls. It's insane that this sexual abuser's feelings are being catered to with complete disregard for the safety of the girls in the detention facility.

 

[Emily Lake]

The issue is that the DA chose to prosecute in juvenile court rather than as an adult. That’s a policy choice. Elections have consequences.

Why do we have juvenile courts if we aren't going to treat juveniles like juveniles?

He committed a violent rape of a child just shy of his 18th birthday. Juveniles can be and are prosecuted in adult court for heinous crimes. Here, the DA chose not to do that. That’s a policy choice.

The perp was still a juvenile. Just because a crime offends your sensibilities doesn't mean you just willy-nilly throw out the fact that young people are not fully developed in their emotional and intellectual capacities like a true adult.

Great. But he is now 26.

Do you genuinely support the policy that places a 26 year old child rapist in with his preferred victim pool?

 

[Emily Lake]

Well, okay. But my understanding is that the risk/benefit portion of the brain doesn’t mature until late, not the right/wrong or moral/immoral part. School kids know that murder is wrong. Teenagers know that rape is wrong. Surely, at age 17 you knew rape was wrong. If not, when did you first appreciate that rape is wrong? In your 20s, 30s, 40s? Or are you still not sure?

I desperately hope that by 17 years and 50 weeks old, males know that RAPING A 10 YEAR OLD is wrong.

 

[Emily Lake]

My reading is that the rapist will be put in isolation. So the placement in a girls facility is kind of inconsequential. But had he been charged as an adult for the violent rape of a child, he’d face a long prison term and sex offender registration.

Given that he had additional offenses AFTER attacking and violating a 10 year old, I would much, much, much rather he was suffering a long prison term and sex offender registration.

 

[Emily Lake]

She.

Its amazing how many people here are so willing to ignore the identity of a person just because they have been (are?) also a rather awful person.

They can be an awful child rapist born with a penis and still be "she", and she can still be an inappropriate inmate to house among anyone at all similar to her victim.

HE identified as transgender upon being arrested. HE is completely 100% male-presenting. I am pretty well convinced that HE is a lying shitbag who just wanted to be placed with women, and he's pretty much hit the jackpot by being placed with juvenile girls.

 

[Emily Lake]

She.

Its amazing how many people here are so willing to ignore the identity of a person just because they have been (are?) also a rather awful person.

They can be an awful child rapist born with a penis and still be "she", and she can still be an inappropriate inmate to house among anyone at all similar to her victim.

Hannah Tubbs is male, and the correct pronoun for the male of a species is 'he'.

The correct pronoun for any person is exactly the pronoun that comports with their public and social identity. Other acceptable pronouns include any such that does not explicitly conflict with their named social identity.

Otherwise someone could easily justify calling all "gay people" by the utterance "faggot", under the belief that the correct pronoun for such is "faggot".

Does it matter to you at all that Tubbs didn't begin to identify as a woman until AFTER he was arrested? All of his crimes have been committed while he has been living, presenting, and behaving like a male pedophile predator who offends against young girls.

I am quite willing to be considerate of pronouns for people most of the time. But I refuse to be bullied into it for an asshole who is exploiting an obvious and glaring loophole in the system by pretending to be transgender.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is amazing. A child rapist gets a light sentence because the DA treats all juvenile offenses the same, but our real concern should be affirming the rapist’s gender identity. We live in really stupid times.

The feelings of transgender "identified" males is far more important than the safety of young girls. His "right" to be referenced with feminine pronouns is a way bigger deal than him sexually assaulting a 10 year old girl.

 

[Emily Lake]

Whether the prosecution made 'mistakes' is your supposition and is not in evidence. It could have been an oversight, or it could have been deliberate.

I agree the outcome is absurd and it's an outcome I don't think should happen again.

The prosecutor has made it his position that he will NOT try juveniles as adults in any case. He has publicized that view. And apparently, in his view, that means that a dude who is currently 26 should be tried as a juvenile... which by CA law requires that he be sentenced as a juvenile, subject to the limitations on punishment for juveniles. Which in this case means that Tubbs doesn't register as a sex offender (despite having committed other sex crimes elsewhere already) AND can only be jailed for a maximum of two years. That's not a "mistake" on the part of the prosecutor, that's Gascon's entire progressive premise.

 

[Emily Lake]

If it makes no difference, as you appear to imagine, then we ought not have male or female estates, nor juvenile and adult estates. All prisons should be unisex and all-ages, and the violent offenders can just be locked up within the lockup.

Is that what you are proposing?

Why not?

Seriously? Because the negative affects of that would be borne almost entirely by females. Are you under the impression that women don't get raped or sexually assaulted enough? Because your position exhibits a complete disregard for the safety of women.

 

[Emily Lake]

The thought just occurred to me. Since this perp is being segregated completely from the rest of the inmate population, what difference does it make what kind of facility is being used?

In that case, why isn't he in the male estate along with the other males?

Because she’s not a guy.

As evidenced by "her" suddenly finding "her true self" AFTER being taken into custody?

 

[Emily Lake]

You are incorrect. There are legal documents establishing that she’s not a guy.

Bullshit. I think you're pulling this out of your ass on the assumption that any person who claims to be transgender must have undertaken the legal steps to be registered as such. That's a false assumption to begin with, and it's absolutely 100% not required for California prisons at all. ANY person can claim to be transgender, without taking ANY steps of ANY kind, and in CA, they are treated as their "identified" gender within the prison system.

And given that Tubbs didn't even begin to identify as transgender until after he was taken into custody, I seriously doubt that he has any legal documents as transgender.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes--but don't blame the judge or the prosecutor. This is a case where the legislature fucked up an edge case.

Well, other than the fact that the prosecutor has been extremely clear that he will never try a child as an adult, and seems to have intentionally sought to have a 26 year old tried as a juvenile. The prosecutor's concern for the criminal is so strong that he initially requested that Tubbs not spend ANY time in prison, and instead be confined to his house... because of the concern that this "transwoman" might be victimized in jail.

 

[Emily Lake]

OK. Maybe-shoulda. That's why there is the provision of law where on the 19th birthday the once-juvenile, now-adult delinquent can be transferred to an adult facility (and this is where the DA fucked up.. I see no reason why it can't be easily and quickly remedied - it's just a blip of missing paperwork). The only real difference I can see with having been tried as a minor is that she will not be on the sex offender registry.

Is that it? This would have been handled correctly if only for not being transferred at 19 and not put on the registry?

I get the impression that the law says they are transferred on their 19th birthday--but that doesn't cover the case of someone who is sentenced after their 19th birthday is already passed.

The judge seems to think he has a pretty clear understanding that Tubbs CANNOT be moved to an adult facility

Attorney Justin W. Clark, who represented LA County in the case, argued Thursday that the court has the ability to allow the Probation Department to decide that Tubbs should stay in the adult county jail because the law states individuals who are over 19 years old should remain in an adult facility.

Sanna added the issue regarding where Tubbs should be housed is different from where she should be transferred.

The judge disagreed and ruled that an amendment to the law limits his ability to allow the Probation Department to transfer Tubbs. The law states persons 19 years or older who were already committed to a juvenile facility should remain there and cannot be transferred, the judge said.