Comments on Condoms in Prison

Okay, normally I agree with you about abstinence-based malarkey and the whole "If we don't give them condoms they won't have sex" argument. At least when that logic is applied to horny but otherwise law-abiding teenagers. But I can see the point that providing condoms to prisoners so that they can more safely rape their cellmates is problematic.

I'm not sure "safe rape" is a practice worth promoting.

And no, I'm not saying that all sex that takes place in prison is rape. Just a lot of it.

wow, this is a cool trick: just substitute "high schools" for "prisons" and then add, pregancy and other STD's to the HIV mentions and you've got another grand idea!

I suppose this is a crude question, but
would you rather be raped safely or not?

I really wonder if they had condoms in prisons if they would use them? In a rape situation I doubt most rapists are thinking to themselves "Gee, I should use a condom".

Considering the high rates of HIV in prison, a lot of prison rapists would be motivated to use condoms—to avoid infection themselves.

And while it may sound like "facilitating prison rape" to you right now, but if you wound in prison for, say, a year or two... would you rather be raped by someone wearing a condom or by someone not wearing a condom? Distributing condoms in prison would "facilitate" HIV prevention during consensual and non-consensual sex acts.

Ugly, yes, but so is prison.

perhaps they would just use the condoms to transport and smuggle contraband within the prison.

I just don't believe the public will support this - sadly. But it points out why we need to stop wholesaling prisoners.

Maybe they won't use them, but maybe they will. Why not provide them? And sure, they could use them for smuggling, but what can't be used for smuggling? Public health outweighs any problems that the prison administration might have.

RE: Catalina

"why not provide them?" good question. apart from the "moral" and "legal" issues, there is the "financial" aspect. WA votes love to bitch about roads and education, but then vote not to pass mill levies or tax hikes to pay for them. Would you be willing to shell out an extra $0.05 a year so a convict can safely take it in the butt from the convict across the way? most in this state would say no....

They should be provided, and most( not all) prison sex is rape, most gangs prey on the weakling and punks who have no sleeves, are not part of any crew, gang or anything and just cant handle themselves. The younger and better looking you are, the higher the chances that you will be punked, and it will not be by a silly tv show. In the tougher prisons like Walla Walla and Mcneil (sp?), the guards really can not be bothered with protecting you and most of the guards start acting like cons in no time at all. I doubt that condoms will reduce anything because most of it is acts of agression carried out by predators, and most of em dont really care. I would be interested to see if it makes a difference. I sure hope so.

ddv, you are probably right. We do have a lot of stupid people in the population who are incapable of thinking in terms of the bigger picture. That's the main reason we still labor under our moronic private insurance system: Too many stupid people afraid of change, and too many people tied up in the insurance industry who know they probably couldn't get a job in another industry.

But yeah, I'd be willing to pay.

I think it's more complicated than simply "get raped safer." While I agree that prevention of the spread of HIV and AIDS is unfuckingbelieveably important and that the argument of prisoners returning to the outside is a strong one, there's more to it. For example, the nature of the crime of rape itself isn't the same as consensual sex - it's a violent act, not an act for pleasure. I can't see a prisoner who's planning on raping the new guy on the block caring enough about him to use a condom, even if they are available. Rape is about control, harm, theft, etc, not about caring about someone, and usually the thought that goes into using a condom is one of caring not only about yourself, but about the people you're about to screw. It doesn't fit with the psychology of the rapist. I think it would be great to have condoms available in prisons, if only for those guys who are having consensual sex, but I think it's pretty idealistic to think that a rapist would give a shit enough to put one on. I can only think that the reason they'd want to is to avoid getting caught out for the crime by the residual semen - why would someone who's already locked up give a rat's about that?

>>Ugly, yes, but so is prison.

And therein is my problem with this idea. I find Americans' willingness to sign off on a penal system (love that name!) that includes rape by fellow prisoners as an accepted consequence of incarceration to be troubling, to say the least. I don't believe particularly strenuous efforts have been undertaken to stop it, and I suspect the main reason why this is so is that most of us tacitly accept this as part of the rationale that "prison isn't supposed to be a ski resort."

Rape with a condom or without a condom seems like a Hobson's Choice if I've ever heard one.

This condoms-for-prisoners proposal is a harm reduction tactic. It is accepting that risky behavior is going to occur no matter how much you wish that it would not occur and attempting to mitigate the risk. It's pragmatism.

To those who fear that some-harm-reduction-tactic will lead to an increase in some-risky-behavior, I say, imagine that we were already practicing some-harm-reduction-tactic and someone suggested that a good way to reduce the level of some-risky-behavior was by stopping the practice of some-harm-reduction-tactic. Does it seem like a sensible and humane thing to do?

If we were already making condoms available to prisoners, would it seem sensible and humane to stop making them available in order to deter prisoners from having sex? Would it send the right message? Of course not.

Surely prison clinics provide treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, right? Does that send the wrong message?

Would you be willing to shell out an extra $0.05 a year so a convict can safely take it in the butt from the convict across the way?

I don't think that even with a condom, "taking it in the butt from a convict across the way" is going to be safe. But the condom would make it a little less dangerous.

So yes, asshole, I would be perfectly willing to do so. We're spending tens of thousands of dollars per year housing these people, and you want to squabble over a couple dollars' worth of latex?

Hi Phil,

first of all, thanks for the "asshole" moniker. not sure if you were trying to keep with the whole prison rape theme or what...

and let's put "you" in "you want to squabble" in some quotes. I prefaced my entire comment by stating the masses of WA have a history of bitching about problems, and then refusing to fund them, even when the cost per person is very slight. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem help fund this program--if it would work. but as so many people (who didn't call me names) brought up, there doesn't seem to be much indication the program would succeed.

hugs and kisses,
ddv

I find Americans' willingness to sign off on a penal system (love that name!) that includes rape by fellow prisoners as an accepted consequence of incarceration to be troubling, to say the least.

Absolutely! Punishment is imposed by a judge, not by a rapist prisoner from across the way, and not by prison guard who chooses to look the other way. When a judge -- on our behalf -- imposes a sentence of imprisonment on someone, he is not imposing a sentence of rape.

Yet in practice, we Americans do have an implicit policy of punishing people by having them raped. There's something to wave the fucking flag about.

flamingbanjo:

"Americans' willingness to sign off on a penal system (love that name!) that includes rape by fellow prisoners as an accepted consequence of incarceration"

Maybe a good chunk of North Americans are saying that, but no one is saying that on this thread from what I can tell. To be fair it is DOC in most states that is not interested in reform, it is a multi billion dollar industry and theyre just interested in bodies, thus mandatory sentencing. Prison reform is necesary and is something society needs to take seriously since most people will be released some day. No one on this thread is arguing that man.

I see no valid reasons why condoms can not be distributed. The ' condoning rape argument makes no sense" Its basic public health and youre not saying, "Yo, here you go, now go rape some of your fellow inmates."

Personally, I dont think it will make a dent in the rates because prison rape is about dominance and some twisted predatory notion of manhood, power and respect. But its better than doing nothing.

Also, I can gurantee you that the so called Shot callers in prison, will use them and some of the smarter predators who plan on getting out will use them and if you can save somebody, than why the hell not? It basically comes down to caring about those people enough to give them a chance at living. Rape in prison is a fact and no one is going to be marching in the streets any time soon to stop it. No one. Most elected officials are not interested in taking on the DOC, though beleive it or not Washington State is probably better than most. So to me is a non argument and I have been advocating prison reform all my life man.

Sorry, ddv. That was misdirected name-calling.

Washingtonians to whom ddv referred, quit being such assholes!

"Would you be willing to shell out an extra $0.05 a year so a convict can safely take it in the butt from the convict across the way?" - ddv

Hmm. Let's see... $0.05 for a condom, or $15,000 or so per year for medical treatment and drugs for each HIV infected prisoner for life?

Buying condoms seems like a bargain for tax payers to me.

SeMe: I know, that's why I used the broad term "Americans." I think most people in this country do lend their tacit support to prison brutality.

I'm all for harm-reduction when we're talking about people who are hurting themselves. Absolutely, give those junkies clean needles. Makes sense to me.

I am also not sure that there is a right answer to this question. But I am saying this is one of those rare cases where the opponents of condom distribution may actually have a valid point.

Also, I agree with the posters who question whether making condoms available to rapists (who presumably would be wearing them to prevent contracting HIV rather than transmitting it) would have a significant public health benefit. Are there any test programs in place? Any statistics?

Several thoughts on all of this.

First, I think people are overestimating the amount of forced sex in prisons and underestimating the amount of consensual sex. Not denying that rape in prison is common and brutal and ugly (and allowed/used by guards as a way to keep inmates in line), but there is a fair amount of consensual sex also.

Second, going to back to Phil's comment about harm reduction. This is a perfect example of good harm reduction: there is no reason to believe that condoms in prison would lead to any increased harm, but there is ample reason to believe that it would lead to a reduction in harm. Elimination? No. But a reduction -- most especially for those who want to reduce their harm.

Third, cost. I think this is the way to sell the idea actually. Most Americans seem impervious to moral arguments or appeals to the common good, but respond well to the logic of cash. The lifetime cost of care of someone with HIV is now over $200,000. Spending a few thousand dollars per year on condom (and needle) distribution in prisons is a drop in the bucket compared to the medical costs generated by just a handful of inmates with HIV (and the people who get infected when they return to the community).

i dont even understand why condoms cost money at all. there needs to be some sort of government subsidy that provides condoms for free everywhere. we should be crop dusting them across the country. they money they save from publishing one shit abstinence only brochure would surely cover the cost. anyone who even questions giving inmates access to condoms is an idiot. even if it saves a few people its worth it. i also think there is a fair amount of consensual sex. its not an issue of enabling rape, thats a lame argument. also, jeannie darnielle is the shit.

gnossos :
First, I think people are overestimating the amount of forced sex in prisons and underestimating the amount of consensual sex.

Nope. That is an over romantic view of prisons that some people have. Most of it( sex) is forced. Most of the time, the weaker inmates will do it to keep themselves from being violently raped. I am of course speaking for the toughest prisons like Walla Walla and a few others in WA, most of the rest of the country has tougher prisons. Because you are not beaten and violently raped does not mean is not rape. Weaker inmates have the option of PCing ( going into protective custody) which means they will be locked up 22 hours, if youre in the general population and you can not fight, you can not defend yourself than chances are someone will offer to protect u.
It is still rape.

blehpunk:
anyone who even questions giving inmates access to condoms is an idiot.

I completely agree. I dont know how effective it will be, but its better than doing nothing. It is a public health thing.

I support the condom cropdusting. At the very least it'd brighten up the landscape -- hundreds of children dancing under a latex rainbow.

The American Association for Health Education serves health educators and other professionals who promote the health of all people. WBR LeoP

The American Association for Health Education serves health educators and other professionals who promote the health of all people. WBR LeoP