Incarcerated women and Tampons

Posted by Mr_Stone 6 years, 8 months ago to Politics
29 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I came across a video today discussing how women who are in jail only recieve 12 tampons for a month. There is a push for the jails to supply more while these products are in commissary in the jail. What do you think? Should a Prison provide these or should the women purchase the rest as needed.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 8 months ago
    I would say that if you incarcerate someone you become responsible for meeting their normal needs for food clothing and shelter. This would fall into that category.

    I have not looked at it in detail, but it makes me wonder what they are using the extra tampons for if the prisons feel they need to limit them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 6 years, 8 months ago
      Retired Alabama corrections officer me dino can vouch that prisons are responsible for all normal needs.
      The first thing that the academy at Selma teaches corrections trainees is that convicted felons are sent to prison AS PUNISHMENT not FOR PUNISHMENT~the latter practiced by such places as North Korea.
      Normal needs includes protection. During my 21-year career I've broken up more fights and assaults than I can possibly remember.
      Using deadly force to stop an escape is called protecting the public, though.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 8 months ago
      So even if these individuals could purchase those products from the prison you would suggest that the prison and the society itself should supply the needed products? (just being devils advocate, I have my opinions but I still love intellectual conversation)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 8 months ago
        I think that if society, by force, deprives someone of their freedom and the ability to care for themselves it assumes the obligation to do so on their behalf.

        How one differentiates between prisoners who have the means to purchase things and those who do not is an interesting question. I would suggest that anything defined as a basic need should be included for all prisoners. Extras are are not.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by TREDGO 6 years, 8 months ago
          I agree that prisoners should have their basic needs met, but I wouldn't base that on the idea of those prisoners having been "deprived" of their freedom. Those people abnegated their freedom by committing whatever rights-disrespecting action they committed. (I did not use the term "illegal" here because I do not think many, possibly most, people in prison deserve to be there. Of course, the term illegal would work under a more ideal justice system. I am trying to avoid any backlash from others over innocent people in jail.)

          I think the same with how you used "force". It is not very important as force should be used against people that use force against innocent people. The basis by which prisoners deserve their basic needs rests on the idea of humane treatment of people. The punishment should fit the crime and a sort of torture by deprivation of basic needs should not be committed.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 8 months ago
    I agree with WilliamShipley and allosaur: when the government incarcerates you, the government assumes moral responsibility for your welfare. The brutality of prison - prisoner-on-prisoner violence, especially - is the culpability of the government that created the situation.

    Right now, governments are abandoning aging prisoners, releasing them before their sentences are completed, rather than caring for them.

    Prisons are a consequence of mysticism and collectivism, not realist-rationalist objective legal philosophy founded on individual rights. The first penitentiaries were invented by Quakers. Historically, in America, prisoners have been the slaves of the warden, being rented out as labor for the warden's enrichment. In the "best" cases, it has been the state itself which profits from the slave trade in convict labor. The entire system is flawed from the top to the bottom in every context. Any objective system wouid look entirely different.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 6 years, 8 months ago
      I think, violent criminals should be put to death on the spot...no waiting...everyone else should pay for their crimes. Like Madoff, put him to work to generate the money he stole, reimbursing those he stole from and at the same time taking care of his own needs.
      It's not my fault he went off the deep edge so why should I have to pay to keep him.
      To be the keeper of another is a choice not a requirement...if you did harm to another...You pay!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 6 years, 8 months ago
        I don't think that is a realistic proposal. We are increasingly discovering that criminals on death row have been put there - or not - by good lawyers, not by truth. Reassessment of their cases comes up to a high number of reversals. The death penalty does not have an Undo button.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 6 years, 8 months ago
          There are many caught red handed that we are still paying for...how many years did we pay for charles manson?...

          Yes, we need to also execute the "Good ole boy" court system...

          There are waaaaaay too many creatures on my payroll that I am not allowed to FIRE!

          If the cops, detectives, witnesses, prosecutors or judges screw up...they should pay TOO!...not me/us!!!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ pixelate 6 years, 8 months ago
        Yes, I agree. Justice should be both swift and consistent. Once the death sentence is issued, there are so very many efficient means to carry out the sentence. Were I the executioner, I wouldn't so much as blink in the carrying out of my task, double-bag the corpse and toss it into the large green bin that is collected each Thursday morning. There will be no further cost to "society" plus there is the absolute guarantee that the perpetrator will never harm again.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 8 months ago
          That sounds nice, but the facts show that of the three components to punishment - time, severity, and certainty - only certainty is a deterrent. The greater the estimate of the chance of getting away with it, the more likely the perpetrator is to act. However, if getting caught.- no matter how long it takes - a more certain, the less likely the criminal is.to act. It is why most "honest" people do not break the law: they are afraid of getting caught, not necessarily afraid of the putative "prison time" or whatever. We also know that horrible punishments are not a deterrent.

          While it is true that justice delayed is justice denied, the other side of the coin is that a "kangaroo court" proceeds by leaps and bounds. We accept without question that we are entiitled to swift trial. Without that, people can be incarcerated indefinitely without trtial. That's a problem. But the rapid injustice of a summary execution is the greater problem. That is why juries deliberate i.e., weigh the evidence. That takes time and we want that.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 8 months ago
      "Right now, governments are abandoning aging prisoners, releasing them before their sentences are completed, rather than caring for them."

      I believe that there is a myth underlying both sides of this argument: that time changes peoples' minds. It simply isn't true. Only replacement ideas change peoples' minds. At best time can help people calm down and control their emotional side (which is usually what got them into trouble in the first place) so they can see the logical side of their predicament.


      "Prisons are a consequence of mysticism and collectivism, not realist-rationalist objective legal philosophy founded on individual rights."

      Prisons have been around for millenia - they were hardly a product of the Quakers. Good grief - Florida, Georgia and Australia all started as penal colonies - prisons. Do tell: what is objective legal philosophy going to do about murderers, rapists, and thieves if not throw them into prison? Execute them?

      The question comes down to the role of a prison, and I think that there are two mindsets about that. One is to simply remove misbehavers from society. The other is to attempt to rehabilitate those incarcerated and educate them on proper behavior. The penal colony mindset is the former. Our legal system has drifted far away from the latter, which in my opinion is unfortunate.

      I have a friend who is a prison counselor. His job is probably one of the most depressing and dangerous there is: he has to counsel with prisoners of all stripes - from child rapists to petty thieves. He sees primarily two kinds of criminals: those who already know that what they did was wrong and those who refuse to admit it. In the case of the former, they do their time and have a very low recidivism rate - but it isn't the prison system that is helping them reform. It is their own conscience. In the case of the latter, they mouth their platitudes and play the game so they can get released, but never change their minds. Unsurprisingly, their recidivism rates are very high.

      To me, the larger tragedy is that prisoners in our society today are simply escorted to prison for a time while society pretends that somehow this will "solve the problem". What we have to do as a society is understand our own core beliefs enough - and believe in them - to teach them to convicts. And if those convicts reject those principles, they aren't fit to rejoin society.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jlc 6 years, 8 months ago
        I will add that time does change minds in the context of 'maturity'. You can also argue that 'maturity' is a replacement idea - and I would not argue except to point out that it is one that can come with little intervention other than time passing.

        I would also agree that prison is not the best place for maturity to occur. I think that Sundowning is probably a great idea in such instances.

        Jan
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 8 months ago
        It used to be that the purpose of prison was just to hold you before the actual punishment. It was in fact the Quakers in Philadelphia who created the pentitentiary. That is a fact. A penitentiary is not just a prison. The rest of your post was reasonable and factual, but in that opening, you confused my initial comment by conflating "prison" and "penitentiary."

        As for your friend's fireside chat, it was largely correct. In technical terms, you can put offenders in two groups, both of them deniers: excusers and justifiers. Excusers would be your first group, who know that they did something wrong, but limit (in their own minds; and want you to agree) that they were not responsible for some putative "reason" or other. Justifiers generally blame the victim in some way, often directly.

        One treatment mode that seems to work well is Moral Reconation Therapy. It takes time and effort. And it is not a panacea or a silver bullet. It works well because it does what you do indeed suggest: teach the offender to think differently,
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 6 years, 8 months ago
    It's just something that is pretty well necessary. Some incarcerated women may not be able to buy the extra ones as needed. The alternative (going around with bloody clothes, etc.) is really not acceptable. Maybe they have done wrong and deserve to be there, but the punishment could be something like penal servitude (such as making license plates,etc.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ puzzlelady 6 years, 8 months ago
    It's highly amusing that this subject is being discussed mostly by the men here, who get so easily distracted into shifting to other topics. So, do prisoners also have to supply their own toilet paper? Are they limited to so many sheets a day?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 6 years, 8 months ago
    I think they should provide what the women need when they need them. Of course, those little strings could be tied together to make a 300 foot escape rope, so you might want to control them and NOT give them enough to make a garrote.

    The problem becomes that EVERYTHING ends up with value. So if you can score a few extra you might be trading for something else, and it can get out of control.

    I was amazed at how the inmates in one prison were so CREATIVE in how to cheat the system.

    ==
    Allosaur will like this. While leaving a High Security Prison (as a computer person), the guy I came to help out looks at me, and says "You look like you are in pretty good shape... I've got $20 that says I can race you to the gate and win!".

    As I started to think about it, he said: "Before you take me up on that offer, you MIGHT want to notice the guys in up there with the guns!"... It never even crossed my mind that I'd be running for the gate of a prison... LOL. Evil People!

    So, I bought him lunch all week. At the end of the week he said I didn't have to. I told him "yeah, but now you can wonder which of your meals I messed with!"... LOL
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by giallopudding 6 years, 8 months ago
    I think supplying 12 tampons per month is more than reasonable. After all, tampons aren't the only method for soaking up blood. Yes, prisoners are entitled to reasonable food, shelter and attire, including personal hygiene products. But there has to be limits on all those things. 12 tampons seems reasonable from my experience.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 6 years, 8 months ago
      You have light periods, apparently, and regular, too. You don't need the extra tampons. Fair enough for you, but you really cannot decide what is best for all of other women.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo