When reading last night’s post about separating races in jail and race riots, please don’t snap back at me until you click the links — especially the one for my previous post criticizing last year’s editorial. If you didn’t read that post already, please do so now. I make the case more completely there than my Treo allows me to do now.
Pronounced "Patter-EE-koh"
E-mail: Just use my moniker Patterico, followed by the @ symbol, followed by gmail.com
Disclaimer: Simpsons avatar may resemble a younger Patterico...
The statements made on this web site reflect the personal opinions of the author. They are not made in any official capacity, and do not represent the opinions of the author's employer.
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | |||||
Powered by WordPress.
Obviously the only compassionate position to take on this issue is that incoming inmates should be separated according to race, for their own safety as well as for the safety of other inmates and guards.
To do otherwise is not only craven, but also shows a depraved indifference to the plight of potential victims. It’s an example of what happens to real people when idiot nonsense becomes public policy.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/7/2006 @ 10:57 amWhy would I snap at you, Patterico? Even when I was doing death penalty appeals pro bono I agreed with my state’s segregation and transportation policy to, among other reasons, break up the gangs. Unlike people who are likely to snap at you, I was visiting my clients in prison and paying attention to their concerns for survival in “C-grade”. And I am not talking about myself this time, Dana — I am relating my experiences to make a point.
nk (9495ab) — 2/7/2006 @ 5:00 pmWhat does the LA/NY Times think of how Mrs. Coretta King looked in her coffin today??? She looked quite young, in my humble opinion. i had thought that she was much older…
KårmiÇømmünîs†
KarmiCommunist (9f9d9a) — 2/7/2006 @ 6:20 pmBlack Jack: It is also segregation formally sanctioned by the state. Which is hardly idiot nonsense. It’s making racism part of public policy.
To call it ‘craven’ and ‘depraved’ is really over the top. Inaccurate, too. Or, did you just find thesaurus.com?
I’m hardly an expert on how to safely manage violent prison populations, but it seems there should be better solutions than making this kind of segregation a formal part of state policy.
jmaharry (74c3ec) — 2/7/2006 @ 7:08 pmjmaharry, racism is not part of public policy. Racism is part of prisoner policy.
The state is separating prisoners for their own safety. Gangs and criminals identify friends and enemies by race. Please take up the matter with gangs and prisoners, and when you get them to see things your way come back and we’ll make the state stop the (now unnecessary) segregation.
TimesHater (48b6c2) — 2/7/2006 @ 7:28 pm“It is also segregation formally sanctioned by the state.”
There’s no easy answer, only an uncomfortable set of facts: either segregate incoming inmates, or see innocent people unnecessarily victimized. I don’t think there’s a lot of room for “nuance” in this equation.
The choice is yours, you can deal with the reality of the situation, and segregate, or enforce your social preferences on people for whom the consequences can be devastating. And, don’t neglect to consider the victims are people who have no choice but to depend on you for their safety.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/7/2006 @ 7:52 pmTimesHater: Racism is defined as discrimination or prejudice based on race. Which is exactly what this is.
Welcome to the world where words have specific, clear meaning. I can tell by your writing that you’re just visiting here.
BTW, I think your solution of relying on me to work this out with the criminals leaves a lot to be desired.
jmaharry (74c3ec) — 2/7/2006 @ 7:52 pmJmaharry,
it seems there should be…
Yes, it seems that way, doesn’t it? So … what, then, might be your own specific recommendations?
If you wish to include the detailed pros & cons of each, that’d be fine, too.
ras (f9de13) — 2/8/2006 @ 1:03 am“segregation” and “discrimination” are not intrinsically bad or evil or even illegal concepts. One must look at the means, ends, and results. The evil discrimination and segregation in this picture are practiced by the inmates. It would be against the common good to fail to correct The situation.
At worst this is a lesser of two evils choice – where the solution is a no brainer. Keep the killers from their victims.
quasimodo (edc74e) — 2/8/2006 @ 7:46 amjmaharry: Patterico’s proposed policy is not “discrimination or prejudice based on race”. It is discrimination based on reality. No one in government cares what race the participants are. The racial angle is imposed by the situation, not by racial theories of the government.
If you had two white gangs trying to kill each other in prison, wouldn’t you separate them? If you had war between the muggers and the burglars, wouldn’t you separate them? If you had war between the people from Orange County vs. Los Angeles County, wouldn’t you separate them? What if the Muslims were a small minority and they were being systematically murdered by the rest of the population? Would you want them seperated for their own safety? But by your logic, that would be government-sanctioned seggregation by religion. What if the small minority were black and they were being murdered by a large majority of whites?
The policy that we are advocating is to separate two groups on the basis that they are trying to kill each other, not on the basis that they are different races. To be government-sanctioned segregation basd on race, the policy would have to be _based on race_ and no one is advocating that. No one is saying that blacks and hispanics should be separated for racial reasons, we are saying that they should be seperated for practical reasons. The fact that these practical reasons revolve around the racism of the inmates does not mean that responding to the situation implies racism on the part of the government.
Doc Rampage (f06a6e) — 2/8/2006 @ 11:47 amDoc,
In the Gospels, Jesus taught: Cast not pearls before swine. He warned his disciples not to waste good efforts on an unappreciative (or disingenuous) audience. It’s good advice and I hope to follow it more closely. Doubtless, others will helpfully point out any slip ups.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/8/2006 @ 12:20 pmThe pearls before swine admonition notwithstanding, I’ll make one more attempt to explain this to jmaharry. If it doesn’t get this time, I’m done with him. Ok, jmaharry, try to think beyond your own preconception of how this should play out, and try to apply rules and facts as the really . . . it’s possible that segregation on the basis of race isn’t necessarily for the purpose of making racism public policy. Not in many situations, and perhaps in no situation other than the one at hand. Anyway, in the prison situation, the purpose of the segregation is to protect wards of the state from violence that would be inevitable but for the segregation. Because the violence, or a significant amount of it, would be motivated by hatred directed at victims because of their race, the solution chosen by the state, separating inmates by race in circumstances in which failing to do so would endanger inmates (principally where concealment of an attack, even for a short time, is possible or response time of correctional officers would otherwise be too slow to offer sufficient protection to a victim of racial violence, such as in the cells), is very closely tailored to the state’s compelling interest in protecting those in its custody. On the part of the state, it’s not “racism” even though it’s racial segregation. Just because separate but equal doesn’t generally meet constitutional requirements doesn’t mean that it never does. Of course, the state couldn’t just presume that different races couldn’t peacefully co-exist, but would have to base the decision on evidence, which it has done here.
TNugent (6128b4) — 2/8/2006 @ 1:59 pmThe fact is that racism is defined as discrimination or prejudice based on race. That is incontrovertible. Which means the state is formally sanctioning racism.
The cause or intent, as Doc Rampage was mewling on about, has nothing to do with it. You conservatives should have the moral backbone to own up to the reality of the policies you’re advocating.
There are many instances in which we have to compromise an ideal or principle (in this case, equality among people) for the sake of the consequences (in this case, inmates turning a prison into an abattoir.)
Again, I’m not an expert in the mangament of violent prison populations (so I don’t knw why you’d demand solutions from me). But I do know what segration is.
Hey, perhaps state racism may be the only way to go. I just get a laugh tweaking the sanctimonious blowhards on this blog, and seeing what transpires.
jmaharry (3991f5) — 2/8/2006 @ 4:00 pmjmaharry said:
” . . .Again, I’m not an expert
in the mangament [sic] of violent
prison populations (so I don’t
knw [sic] why you’d demand
solutions from me). But I do know
what segration [sic] is.”
Preview is your friend, dude. Other than that, we agree–you’re not an expert.
Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84) — 2/8/2006 @ 4:27 pmI see that jmaharry has begun to realize how shaky his position is; hence the gratituitious insults and the pretense that he wasn’t serious.
That’s always an easy out when you lose an argument: insult the other guy and say that you were just yanking his chain. If you are lucky, he will respond to the insult with another insult, the argument will degenerate into name calling, and everyone will forget that you lost the intellectual part of the argument.
I refuse to get drawn in, you big, fat poopy head.
And for future reference: on some sites you might be able to intimidate the people by misuing big, scary words like “incontrovertible” and “sanctimonious”, but it won’t work here because we know what they mean. Your definition was not incontrovertible and as the one who was arguing for an absolutist moral position, you were the only one in this debate who could reasonably be accused of sanctimony.
I wouldn’t do that though, since I think it is adequate merely to observe that you are a poopy head.
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 2/8/2006 @ 4:44 pmNice. Busting a post for a few typos is the easiest trick in the blogging book.
“we agree–you’re not an expert”
It’s good to know I’m going against a collective ‘we.’ The image of all you paranoid conservatives locked in agreement, fervidly supporting each others’ half-baked fantasies, and marching in lock-step seems somehow — how shall I say this — appropriate.
jmaharry (3991f5) — 2/8/2006 @ 4:55 pmSure, we may all be paranoid conservatives locked in agreement, fervidly supporting each others’ half-baked fantasies, and marching in lock-step, but you are a big, fat poopy head.
Frankly, I’d rather be a drone than a poopy head.
Apologies to Patterico. I just couldn’t resist :-).
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 2/8/2006 @ 5:58 pmHello. You aren’t going against anyone but yourself. Every comment here is indicative of your intelligence and of your character. And, it ain’t bean bag, folks are paying attention, evaluating what you say and how you say it.
So far, your lame arguments, propensity for lowbrow insults, and obvious grasping for convenient put-downs, produces only a substandard record. If you have a contribution to make, make it. If you are only here to “get a laugh,” do so quickly and kindly leave us to our own follies.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/8/2006 @ 6:02 pmOh, come on, Black Jack, you didn’t think the “poopy head” thing was funny?
It may have been a little lowbrow, but I was trying to illustrate the silliness of resorting to insults in a debate.
And it wasn’t all that low. Real low lowbrow includes things like crunchy underwear.
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 2/8/2006 @ 6:58 pm“Southern California Hispanics and Northern California Hispanics don’t get along, and you can’t put them in a cell together,” Margot Bach, a spokeswoman for the California Department of Corrections, said.
http://realcostofprisons.org/blog/archives/2005/02/supreme_court_r.html
Sen. Napoli (60cec6) — 2/8/2006 @ 7:27 pm18. Wow, sounds like you’re a big he-man playing this thing for real. No bean bag blogging for you. Plus, you and your pallies are watching me. Not only watching, but grading me! I can almost feel the testesterone coursing through your cable modem. Thanks for the threat.
As for your claim that I’m not facing down your little clique — trace the pronouns in each post. You and your little pallies fill your posts with “us,” “we,” “our,” the telltale conviviality of a true Lord of the Flies situation. I stand on my own.
15. That definition of racism I used was drawn from three dictionaries. Like I’ve said three times, this is incontrovertible.
As for moral absolutism, I actually pointed out (in 13) how most solutions to issues like this are a compromise or balance between principles and consequences. That is the antithesis of absolutism. (Antithesis means the direct opposite; and, yes, I am using it correctly. My use of language is unerringly precise, even though I mess up on spelling from time to time.)
If you care to notice, other than identifying the policy as state-sanctioned racism, I never staked out a position for or against. Just suggested there was probably a better solution to the problem.
jmaharry (3991f5) — 2/8/2006 @ 11:15 pmSeems the inmates aren’t listening to the wisdom of your “incontrovertable” definitions expressed in “unerringly precise” although sometimes misspelled language. Neither do they seem impressed with the sort of nuanced “compromise or balance between principles and consequences” you recommend.
And, although you aren’t shy about acknowledging your lack of expertise, you are willing to use loaded language like, “segregation formally sanctioned by the state” and “It’s making racism part of public policy” to describe efforts to prevent race and gang riots.
Yes, you’re long on fancy language and self congratulation, and awfully quick to criticize, but somehow can’t quite bring your magnificent self to come to grips with the problem, but then again, you’re only here for the laughs.
Racial Brawls Prompt L.A. Jails’ Lockdown
2/9/06, AP writer Jeremiah Marquez
All seven Los Angeles County jails were on lockdown Thursday after another brawl broke out between Hispanic and black inmates, continuing a week of deadly rioting, authorities said…
…The fighting began inside a group dorm, where more than 100 inmate separated themselves along racial lines. That violence was quickly put down, but similar fights broke out at three more dorms, leading deputies to fire sting balls on inmates to gain control, said sheriff’s Sgt. Diane Hecht.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/9/2006 @ 9:50 am22. Why would inmates listen to what I have to write on an obscure blog? What a ridiculous, pointless post.
jmaharry (3991f5) — 2/9/2006 @ 10:59 amJody Kent, coordinator of the ACLU’s Jails Project has an LAT Op-ed today.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-kent12feb12,0,5166207.story?coll=la-news-comment
Kent first acknowledges that, “Segregating inmates by race may work as a short-term measure to protect the safety of inmates and deputies in an emergency situation…” But goes on to deliver the ACLU’s gospel in the same sentence as he reminds us “but it will never solve the underlying problems in L.A. County’s jails.”
Predictably, Kent falls back on the usual Lefty excuses rather quickly. According to ACLU dogma, it’s those darned old “underlying problems” again causing all the upset and discord.
ACLU solutions are always the same. Identify the same problems identified hundreds of times previously, and then adopt the same failed response again: spend more money.
Kent’s calls for expanded safety instruction, GED classes, drug education, and anger management skills so inmates won’t have to fight over “who should get the bottom bunk, who should retrieve their food first, who uses the phone and who controls the dispensing of toilet paper.”
But, Kent adds in conclusion that it’s really all Sheriff Baca’s fault anyway. Kent says that conditions would improve if only the Sheriff’s Department would listen to him and the ACLU, and “focus its resources on better securing the inmates in custody and expanding programs to inmates of all security levels to reduce tension….”
I get the impression that in Kent’s world it’s still the summer of 1968.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 2/12/2006 @ 8:46 amThe underlying cause of all prison riots is prisoners.
Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84) — 2/12/2006 @ 10:00 am