I'm not familiar with the 1978 decision, so maybe that's why I don't see the slippery slope. I'm willing to believe in it -- why not, it's everywhere else. I am just not sure this is the best example of it, because once the system has you in custody it is responsible both for your safety and for preventing you from endangering other prisoners. Even though an involuntary cavity search strikes me as something close to institutionalized rape, I still see the security concern.
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: > > No, I wasn't proposing an alternate procedure. I was pointing out the > slippery slope based on precedent. > > First, Supreme Court says in 1978 that you can strip search inmates > after visits from outsiders because they could be smuggling in drugs > or weapons. But they placed careful limits on when people could be > strip searched. Fast forward years later and courts start allowing > more and more instances of strip searches. Now we have a ruling that > says it can be done in any instance if the person is in the general > prison population. At least one judge didn't even believe that it had > to be the general prison population but could, presumably, be any part > of the system. > > All in the name of furthering safety and order. So look at the arc of > the use of strip searches. Where does it stop? Do we start putting > everyone in solitary confinement because of safety? What else are we > willing to do in the name of safety? > > No one seems to be drawing lines around personal liberty and saying > "this is the line". It keeps eroding and eroding. That's my problem > and what I'm trying to point out with this ruling. It doesn't seem to > bother other folks here as much, so I guess I'm in the minority. That > bothers me, but such is life. > > Cheers, > Judah > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:25 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm saying that if I understand you, your proposed alternate procedure > > would be to keep someone like this out of the general population, in a > cell > > by himself. And that that's great, and would in fact be a good idea if > > there were clear-cut criteria for doing so, except for one thing. As a > > rule, jails are over-crowded and there may not be enough individual cells > > available. SO what might work ok for 3-4 hours while someone arranges for > > bail would not be practical in cases like this whether the man was held > for > > a week. I agree that from what I know about this he should not have been > > held for a week. But the point is, past 24 hours or so, you're starting > to > > look like you'll be there a while. > > > > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> > wrote: > > > >> > >> I'm not sure what you're saying, Dana. > >> > >> Judah > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > ok, but you're arguing for keeping people in individual cells, which > is > >> > fine for a few hours maybe, but impractical for the week this man was > >> > incarcerated, not to mention that it would itself draw complaints of > >> > inhumane treatment. > >> > > >> > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> I'll let the lead author of the dissent, Justice Breyer, in this case > >> >> take out your argument: > >> >> > >> >> **** > >> >> The New York Federal District Court, to which I have referred, > >> >> conducted a study of 23,000 persons admitted to the Orange County > >> >> correctional facility between 1999 and 2003.These 23,000 persons > >> >> underwent a strip search of the kind described. Of these 23,000 > >> >> persons, the court wrote, the County encountered three incidents of > >> >> drugs recovered from an inmates anal cavity and two incidents of > >> >> drugs falling from an inmates underwear during the course of a strip > >> >> search. The court added that in four of these five instances there > >> >> may have been reasonable suspicion to search, leaving only one > >> >> instance in 23,000 in which the strip search policy arguably > >> >> detected additional contraband. > >> >> > >> >> [...] After all, those arrested for minor offenses are often stopped > >> >> and arrested unexpectedly. And they consequently will have had little > >> >> opportunity to hide things in their body cavities. > >> >> > >> >> **** > >> >> > >> >> 1 incident out of 23,000 that might have uncovered something illicit > >> >> with a strip search that was not based on reasonable suspicion. And > no > >> >> incidents that found any weapons. > >> >> > >> >> Now, about these hypotheticals y'all keep saying aren't > hypothetical... > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:349416 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
