view the rest of the comments
News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Ahh, gotcha. I see now, I originally thought she was being put straight into solitary from the start. That definitely changes things then.
This is one of those tough stories that really challenges your morals. Part of me wants to take her side, because no woman should be forced into a men's prison, trans or not. But then there's another part of me which feels a bit indifferent to the suffering of a murderer. Part of me thinks "just put her in solitary back in the women's prison", but then another part of me thinks "actually we shouldn't have solitary confinement in any prisons in the first place". It's just an awful situation from every angle.
We live in a society where the law is decided as much by precedent as by policy. Whatever punishment we as a society can be inflicted upon the worst scum of society, will be inflicted upon the innocent. Upon the wrongly convicted, those whose crimes harmed nobody, and those who were right to do what they did. If we don't fight injustices against the deserving, that will be used to justify injustice against the undeserving.
They refused to respect her legal rights in three different ways. We have to believe this is an injustice when it is committed against anyone. There's no ambiguity here.
Motive matters. She killed her abusive parents. It's highly likely she was a victim of society failing her. That doesn't excuse what she did, it just means she's not the same as someone who killed for money or fun.
The sex was not officially allowed, but there absolutely could be consensual sex in prison. The reason they don’t allow it is because in many (but not all) cases it is coerced.
Lolwut? Inmates can consent with each other. Not everything in prison is a scene from Oz.
Being against prison rules does not make it rape.
Being an inmate doesn’t mean you lose your ability to consent. They could have very well been in a relationship. Just because it was against the prison rules does not mean it was non consensual.
You are the only one calling it rape - there is nothing else implying it was non consensual.
Between guards and inmates. Inmates are on a level playing field and can have consensual sex. Unless of course you're talking about legal technicalities in which case, the suffering is the point.
So the suffering is the point. Got it.
And they couldn't move her to another women's facility? or another unit in the same facility? They had to go straight to men's genpop? I also don't buy that sex among peers causes too many issues. Unless it's criminal, in which case you'd deal with it on that front. Because if that was true we'd have to make sex among peers a crime in normal society too.
Overall they let rape slide? Or is it not rape now?
So we're not aware of any issues, just the ridiculous rule, and cruel transfer. Have I got that right?
Okay so casual sex is banned for everyone then right? We all have to get married and have weekly reports to HR to make sure there's no problems?
Oh? Orgies? They can't just have normal sex. It has to be orgies?
Lmao
Doing drugs is prohibited. Doing drugs isn't rape.
I agree, something being prohibited has nothing to do with consent.
The law doesn't call it non-consensual or rape either. Just says it's not allowed.
Also:
Technically true, but you're just further showing your misunderstanding of language.
If the government declared two men could not consent to having sex with each other would you call gay men rapists? Or would you say that's not how those words work?
I agree. Just because the law says something is ethical (like murdering gay people) that doesn't mean it's actually ethical.
Similarly, just because the law says something is unethical (like two prisoners consenting to having sex) that does not make them rapists.