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

[Emily Lake]

Apparently they were 16 when they committed thus rape. Their identity was discovered because Hannah’s DNA was in the database due to other crimes—I’m assuming also sexual assaults. I was just surprised they weren’t already in prison..

No, Tubbs was 17, and two weeks shy of his 18th birthday.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is easy enough to divide the prison estates, not changing much of anything at all but removing "men" "women" "male" "female" and all that other bullshit from the legal structure, and put exactly everyone "capable of impregnating a human being" in their own estate, and everyone else in their own estate, and then further separating each so as to isolate rapists from victims.

This seems needlessly complicated. There's a word for human people who are capable of impregnating a human being. That word is male. The ones who are capable of being impregnated are females. That is the common terminology that is used across the entire mammalian kingdom.

I can't see any good reason to replace the easily understood term "male" with the complicated phrase "capable of impregnating a human being".

I can, however, see a very bad reason for it, which has a lot to do with pretending that sex doesn't exist as a material reality, and trying to obfuscate the impact that sex has on the every-day lives of female human beings.

 

[Toni]

Apparently they were 16 when they committed thus rape. Their identity was discovered because Hannah’s DNA was in the database due to other crimes—I’m assuming also sexual assaults. I was just surprised they weren’t already in prison..

No, Tubbs was 17, and two weeks shy of his 18th birthday.

I knew that--typo. I am a terrible typist. Thanks for the catch.

 

[Emily Lake]

I agree 10000 percent that prison rape is not OK. Rape/sexual assault and fear of such assaults should never be part of the condition of any sentence.

Rapists/sexual assailants should never be allowed access to potential victims.

I agree with this.

 

[Emily Lake]

But I can't help but notice that you ignored the part where I pointed out the Tubbs is a freakish anomaly.

A freakish anomaly in that he decided that he was transgender after being taken into custody? A freakish anomaly in that he raped a 10 year old when he was two weeks shy of his 18th birthday?

I don't think he's a freakish anomaly in any way. I think he's a sexual predator with a preference for female children who is currently a complete whole ass adult man and who is exploiting the obvious gaping loophole in California's prison policy for transgender self-identification. I don't think this is at all complicated.

 

[Toni]

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.

I'm not pulling it out of my ass. I doubt that the legal system is either. Whatever you or I might believe or feel about it, the legal system has established Tubbs as having a female identity. It's a non-issue in that they will be segregated physically and visually from the girls in the facility. I'm also troubled by her age and by the other offenses committed since that time. But the law is the law and sometimes, someone is really good at getting around it. Who knows? Maybe complying with chemical castration will be part of the terms of her stay?

 

[Emily Lake]

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

And I would expect - and advocate loudly for - them to held in an ADULT female facility in solitary confinement.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

What's the difference? Are the beds smaller?

 

[Emily Lake]

Apparently they were 16 when they committed thus rape. Their identity was discovered because Hannah’s DNA was in the database due to other crimes—I’m assuming also sexual assaults. I was just surprised they weren’t already in prison..

No, Tubbs was 17, and two weeks shy of his 18th birthday.

I knew that--typo. I am a terrible typist. Thanks for the catch.

No problem.

I'm pretty seriously outraged by this case. The placement of a 26 year old, male-presenting, male bodied pedophile who offends against females in a female detention center is completely irrational. The fact that so many people, most of them men, are defending this as if it is a fine decision has me incensed.

 

[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.

I'm not pulling it out of my ass. I doubt that the legal system is either. Whatever you or I might believe or feel about it, the legal system has established Tubbs as having a female identity. It's a non-issue in that they will be segregated physically and visually from the girls in the facility. I'm also troubled by her age and by the other offenses committed since that time. But the law is the law and sometimes, someone is really good at getting around it. Who knows? Maybe complying with chemical castration will be part of the terms of her stay?

They've "established" it solely by dint of him literally saying out loud that he's transgender.

There is literally no requirement to establish a "female identity" in California. It is literally a case of him saying it out loud. That's all, nothing else.

This is 100% a case of a man - a person who is male, presents as male, behaves as male, and lives as male - saying magic words AFTER being taken into custody... and the prison system simply accepts their "identification" and uses that to decide where to place this sex-offending man. He is 100% exploiting the idiotically obvious loophole of gender identity as self-declared being considered to override the realities of sex.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Supreme Court Rulings​

Since 2005, Supreme Court rulings have accepted adolescent brain science and banned the use of capital punishment for juveniles, limited life without parole sentences to homicide offenses, banned the use of mandatory life without parole, and applied the decision retroactively.

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)​

The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death, writing that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for the young; immaturity diminishes their culpability, as does their susceptibility to outside pressures and influences. Their heightened capacity for reform means that they are entitled to a separate set of punishments. The court also held that the nation’s “evolving standards of decency” showed the death penalty for juveniles to be cruel and unusual: 12 states banned the death penalty in all circumstances, and 18 more banned it for people under 18.4) The Roper ruling affected 72 juveniles on death row in 12 states.5) Between 1976 and the Roper decision, 22 defendants were executed for crimes committed before age 18.6)

Graham v. Florida, 130 S.CT. 2011 (2010)​

Having banned the use of the death penalty for juveniles in Roper, the Court left the sentence of life without parole as the harshest sentence available for offenses committed by people under 18. In Graham v. Florida, the Court banned the use of life without parole for juveniles not convicted of homicide. The ruling applied to at least 123 prisoners – 77 of whom had been sentenced in Florida, the remainder in 10 other states.7) As in Roper, the Court pointed to the rare imposition of a particular punishment to prove that the punishment is unusual.8)

U.S. Supreme Court precedent recognizes that non-homicide offenses do not warrant the most serious punishment available.9) “The concept of proportionality is central to the Eighth Amendment,” wrote Justice Kennedy.10) Thus, having denied the maximum punishment for all people under 18 (life without parole), the Court ruled that the harshest punishment must be limited to the most serious category of crimes (i.e., those involving homicide).

The Court called life without parole “an especially harsh punishment for a juvenile … A 16-year-old and a 75-year-old each sentenced to life without parole receive the same punishment in name only.”11) Limiting the use of life without parole did not guarantee such individuals would be released; it guaranteed a “meaningful opportunity” for release.

States that have banned or limited​

Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview – The Sentencing Project

The United States stands alone as the only nation that sentences people to life without parole for crimes committed before turning 18.

www.sentencingproject.org

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

What's the difference? Are the beds smaller?

Well, there's no urinals, so she'll have to pee in a toilet, like any man at most homes.

But....
She won't be in a position to vote for movies on movie night that girls won't understand.
She won't have the opportunity to dominate basketball pick-up games, or weightlifting, any team or single sports the Right is so concerned about infiltration of.
She won't be challenging fellow diners to burping contests or hot-sauce games of chicken.
Probably won't have an issue of her laundry being mixed up with anyone else's.
Does she know Morse Code? Might tell graphic jokes thru the pipes, scandalizing anyone with a Morse app on their phone....

 

[Toni]

Apparently they were 16 when they committed thus rape. Their identity was discovered because Hannah’s DNA was in the database due to other crimes—I’m assuming also sexual assaults. I was just surprised they weren’t already in prison..

No, Tubbs was 17, and two weeks shy of his 18th birthday.

I knew that--typo. I am a terrible typist. Thanks for the catch.

No problem.

I'm pretty seriously outraged by this case. The placement of a 26 year old, male-presenting, male bodied pedophile who offends against females in a female detention center is completely irrational. The fact that so many people, most of them men, are defending this as if it is a fine decision has me incensed.

I am less incensed because, according to the OP, he will be held separately from the girls, physically and visually (words from the article) which I am taking to mean that he can't see them, they can't see him.

It matters to me that he was a minor when he committed the offense against the 10 year old girl. Yes, it is horrific. Absolutely, 100% agreement there.

I am troubled by the fact that he was caught because he had other, apparently subsequent offenses which resulted in his DNA being entered into the database. What puzzles me is why he hasn't been tried and convicted and isn't being held for these offenses? I have no idea. There is no information that I could find about this.

The fact that there are multiple offenses suggests that this is a very disturbed individual and I hope that he is diverted into some kind of treatment program because it appears from what little I've found, he is likely to offend again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am less incensed because, according to the OP, he will be held separately from the girls, physically and visually (words from the article) which I am taking to mean that he can't see them, they can't see him.

Where he's held is irrelevant because of this. Why make an issue out of it?

I am troubled by the fact that he was caught because he had other, apparently subsequent offenses which resulted in his DNA being entered into the database. What puzzles me is why he hasn't been tried and convicted and isn't being held for these offenses? I have no idea. There is no information that I could find about this.

The other offenses might have been lesser things.

The fact that there are multiple offenses suggests that this is a very disturbed individual and I hope that he is diverted into some kind of treatment program because it appears from what little I've found, he is likely to offend again.

That's assuming there is treatment.

 

[Toni]

I am less incensed because, according to the OP, he will be held separately from the girls, physically and visually (words from the article) which I am taking to mean that he can't see them, they can't see him.

Where he's held is irrelevant because of this. Why make an issue out of it?

I am troubled by the fact that he was caught because he had other, apparently subsequent offenses which resulted in his DNA being entered into the database. What puzzles me is why he hasn't been tried and convicted and isn't being held for these offenses? I have no idea. There is no information that I could find about this.

The other offenses might have been lesser things.

The fact that there are multiple offenses suggests that this is a very disturbed individual and I hope that he is diverted into some kind of treatment program because it appears from what little I've found, he is likely to offend again.

That's assuming there is treatment.

The reason some people ( including me) are upset at someone who sexually assaulted d a 10 year old girl being held in a facility that certainly has young girls is that they’d have access to their preferred victim.

Except she won’t: she, now an adult, will not be held such that she has access to girls or can see/be seen by girls. The girls should be safe from her.

I don’t know how effective treatment for this person might be. Probably more effective if started earlier. I honestly don’t know.

I do know that I hate to think that we throw away juveniles fir crimes they commit before they are adults. As this person was still a juvenile when they committed the crime against the 10 year old.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am less incensed because, according to the OP, he will be held separately from the girls, physically and visually (words from the article) which I am taking to mean that he can't see them, they can't see him.

It's the precedent being set that has me irate. Basic human decency and common sense says it should NEVER have happened, even with special safeguards. A 26 year old man SHOULD NOT be placed in a female juvenile detention center, under ANY circumstances.

To me, it's basically saying "Oh, hey, yeah, we know that this fox who has already eaten several chickens is a danger to chickens... but we're going to put him in the henhouse anyway, because of technicalities. But don't worry, we're going to put the fox in a separate pen so no biggie!"

It's idiotic, and demonstrates a supreme lack of care and compassion for the girls in that center.

 

[Emily Lake]

Genuine question for folks in this thread.

Given that this person has zero history of identifying as trans, and didn't do so until AFTER being detained... why are so many of you so determined to refer to this person as "she"? Why would you grant such a courtesy to someone who seems to be lying in order to take advantage of a legal loophole?

 

[Toni]

I am less incensed because, according to the OP, he will be held separately from the girls, physically and visually (words from the article) which I am taking to mean that he can't see them, they can't see him.

It's the precedent being set that has me irate. Basic human decency and common sense says it should NEVER have happened, even with special safeguards. A 26 year old man SHOULD NOT be placed in a female juvenile detention center, under ANY circumstances.

To me, it's basically saying "Oh, hey, yeah, we know that this fox who has already eaten several chickens is a danger to chickens... but we're going to put him in the henhouse anyway, because of technicalities. But don't worry, we're going to put the fox in a separate pen so no biggie!"

It's idiotic, and demonstrates a supreme lack of care and compassion for the girls in that center.

I hear what you're saying. Whether we think they are sincere and are in the process or have the intention of transitioning or not, we are left with the reality that they are considered female.

Can we PLEASE be honest enough to acknowledge that there are likely XX females housed in that facility who have committed sexual assaults and rapes against other children, including other girls? It's a very, very ugly thing to have to deal with but it happens. I certainly hope and hope that we can safely assume that such rapists/sexual assailants are kept isolated from those they might victimize.

Yes, XY males are much more likely to commit acts of sexual violence than are XX people. But sexual violence does not require a penis or XY chromosomes for it to take place.

 

[Gun Nut]

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, you don't have the facts right in this case. It sounds like you are arguing the sentiment invented by the OP title, as opposed to the facts of the situation, which was that a juvenile was tried in juvenile court, came of age in jail, and due to a failure of the prosecution, was not transferred to an adult facility on the prisoner's 19th birthday. As a result, the prisoner was placed in permanent solitary confinement away from the "sights and sounds" of the types of people he assaulted.
What is sort of unfortunate is that this prisoner has to be kept in solitary because the prosecutor failed to file the right paperwork.
Now, go back and read your conversation (or better, read the article you are commenting on), and cringe while you request the mods to edit / delete.

 

[horhangi]

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, you don't have the facts right in this case. It sounds like you are arguing the sentiment invented by the OP title, as opposed to the facts of the situation, which was that a juvenile was tried in juvenile court, came of age in jail, and due to a failure of the prosecution, was not transferred to an adult facility on the prisoner's 19th birthday. As a result, the prisoner was placed in permanent solitary confinement away from the "sights and sounds" of the types of people he assaulted.
What is sort of unfortunate is that this prisoner has to be kept in solitary because the prosecutor failed to file the right paperwork.
Now, go back and read your conversation (or better, read the article you are commenting on), and cringe while you request the mods to edit / delete.

The bolded is not correct. The offense was committed when the person was 17, nearly 18. Tubs was arrested for another offense in 2019, and linked to the old crime. The DA in Los Angeles has unilaterally applied a policy of never allowing juvenile crimes to be tried in adult court. This results in a 26 year old adult receiving a 2 year sentence as the maximum penalty and being housed in a female juvenile facility. An adult was tried in a juvenile court because an offense they committed 9 years ago occurred when they were not yet 18. As I recall reporting on this when it first made the news it was a month or 2 short of the 18th birthday.