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

[Metaphor]

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?

Again, what difference does it make.

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?

Probably because the overwhelming majority of people would disagree with you, though I admit there might be majority support among fringe leftists who would agree only insofar as they want to abolish prison anyway and this would be a sure fire way to fast track that.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

Again, what difference does it make.

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?

Are you unable to understand the concept of solidarity confinement, or does that just interfere with what you already believe?
Tom

If you mean 'solitary', yes, I understand it, that's why I wrote 'locked up within the lockup'. What did you think I meant by 'locked up within the lockup'?

 

[ZiprHead]

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?

Again, what difference does it make.

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?

Probably because the overwhelming majority of people would disagree with you, though I admit there might be majority support among fringe leftists who would agree only insofar as they want to abolish prison anyway and this would be a sure fire way to fast track that.

I admit that might be a statistic you pulled from your keester.

 

[Toni]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

He is male.

 

[Metaphor]

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?

Again, what difference does it make.

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?

Probably because the overwhelming majority of people would disagree with you, though I admit there might be majority support among fringe leftists who would agree only insofar as they want to abolish prison anyway and this would be a sure fire way to fast track that.

I admit that might be a statistic you pulled from your keester.

Yes, it's true that I haven't seen any polling on the question "should all juvenile and adult offenders, male and female, be housed in the same prison?"

I wonder why that isn't a polling question? I suspect because it is an inconceivably fringe idea.

 

[Toni]

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.

He is male.

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

This person sounds pretty despicable and/or severely disturbed. Suppose her crime had been armed robbery at age 17 and she was sentenced as a juvenile —or as an adult. How do you think she would care in general population in a make facility?

 

[Metaphor]

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

I have not used the term 'guy'. I said 'male'. Please stop pretending I said 'guy'. Legal fictions do not change biological fact. Tubbs is a biological male no matter what thoughts he has in his head.

How do you think she would care in general population in a make facility?

I don't know how he would fare. But, if your contention is 'he is safer with women than men', whilst I probably agree, that is completely irrelevant. The prison estate has historically been separated by sex, and to separate it instead by gender identity (or to have no separation, as ZiprHead imagines is viable) requires a good argument, and I have not heard a good argument.

 

[Trausti]

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

Transfiguration by court pleading. Not even Jesus could do that.

 

[Patooka]

If it makes no difference, as you appear to imagine, then we ought not have male or female estates, nor juvenile and adult estates

You see, people without agendas call that a leap.

Would you like for me to explain how that is so?

 

[Metaphor]

If it makes no difference, as you appear to imagine, then we ought not have male or female estates, nor juvenile and adult estates

You see, people without agendas call that a leap.

Would you like for me to explain how that is so?

ZiprHead seemed to understand the connection.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

He didn't need to be charged as an adult, but he is now an adult and belongs in an adult prison.

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

 

[Jarhyn]

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? (Re: B)

Because she’s not a guy.

He is male. (Re: B)

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

This person sounds pretty despicable and/or severely disturbed. Suppose her crime had been armed robbery at age 17 and she was sentenced as a juvenile —or as an adult. How do you think she would care in general population in a make facility?

Don't forget I left that handy chart on page 1:
Metaphor is currently at behavior B.

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)".

I'm going to point out that Toni has not argued for C.

It is merely the case that the law, demand this ridiculous outcome because it is not well formulated nor egalitarian.

Not to mention that language is contextual rather than prescriptive. To demand everyone limit their use of language to "Metaphor's chosen definitions" is essentially "newspeak".

Non. I demand you not prescribe my use of language.

See that's the thing. The thing we prescribe you do with language is not talk about what is in other people's pants.

I am arguing that 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

You have somehow mutated the straw man of C into "I want people housed together because (nonsense about housing everyone together, period)."

This is still

Metaphor making every attempt to implying those who argue A are instead arguing C, as a justification to support B.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

English has changed substantially since it was recognisable as English, and nothing I've ever said implies differently.

The fact that historical usage dictates that the pronouns he, she, and they have been used in the way I've suggested does not mean that standard usage could not change in the future.

But you are trying to decree that the language is as it used to be.

 

[Metaphor]

See that's the thing. The thing we prescribe you do with language is not talk about what is in other people's pants.

So yes, you want to prescribe my language. Say it. Say "I want to prescribe Metaphor's language".

I am arguing that 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

Great.

I am arguing that the prison estate is divided by sex, so it thereofre is not divided by 'gender identity', which is not sex, and then you ought not pretend it was divided by 'gender identity' the whole time.

 

[Jarhyn]

Really, the only real question as to my prediction panning out is whether the thread makes it 20 whole pages.

 

[Metaphor]

English has changed substantially since it was recognisable as English, and nothing I've ever said implies differently.

The fact that historical usage dictates that the pronouns he, she, and they have been used in the way I've suggested does not mean that standard usage could not change in the future.

But you are trying to decree that the language is as it used to be.

I am decree-ing fuck nothing.

I'm saying I use 'he' to describe biological males, and neither you nor Jarhyn have the moral authority, or any good arguments, to tell me to stop.

 

[Jarhyn]

I am quite aware of that.

Post 38 suggested differently.

No, it didn't.

English has changed substantially since it was recognisable as English, and nothing I've ever said implies differently.

The fact that historical usage dictates that the pronouns he, she, and they have been used in the way I've suggested does not mean that standard usage could not change in the future.

I don't really care much. One vicious perp will be having a bad life for awhile. I'm not losing sleep over that.

But, yeah, no. Centuries of English usage can become obsolete nowadays.
Tom

Jarhyn wanted to know why I used pronouns the way I do. I do it for the same reason I use other words the way I do.

Oh, I think I have some understanding of the reason you use words, and this thread is just another point on that line of zero slope.

estate is divided

... Doesn't get you to "ought."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are so many questions left unanswered by the article linked and others I found. Apparently there have been a number of other arrests by which means they matched DNA to the rapist. So….why are there no other sentences that are being served right now? No convictions? That opens a lot of serious questions about the legal system. Was this person unfairly targeted and accused? Was this related to trans bigotry ( unfair arrests) or inadequate prosecution?

In any case, Hannah will be isolated out of sight from other inmates during their sentence. The juveniles should be safe from
Hannah. That is the real concern, isn’t it?

It bears considering that while sexual assault and rape are more often committed by males, females can also commit acts of sexual violence against other females and against makes as well. Even as juveniles. It is unlikely that there have been zero juvenile XX females convicted of sexual assault against other XX female juveniles. How are they held during their sentences?

Perhaps this is just the first one to be tried.

Also, California used to have a 10 year statute of limitations on rape. This person is 26 now, anything before they were 16 probably can't be prosecuted.