Josh and Anna 55: Settling in at Seagoville

[Giraffe]

It’s been a while since I’ve gotten a pedicure. The last time I got one I ended up with a mild infection in one of my toes. Considering getting one again though. Can’t decide on t he color though. I’m thinking something garish. I’ll consult my cat, too. 

[Antimony]

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

As for DV--when police arrive and find a woman a broken arm and chunks of hair missing, and a drunken angry husband ----they do not arrest the woman with the broken arm. She hasn't committed a crime. They arrest the batterer, who has committed a crime. That's how it works.  Actually the difficulty is getting her to press charges. (The batterer rarely gets much time in jail, which should please you). 

Certainly the prison system has problems, but *making up problems* does not make a convincing argument for change.

I don't know why I bother but...(for the rest of people who, actually, you know, give a shit...)

It's called a "dual arrest" where both parties are arrested on a DV call and the rates of it vary heavily by state and local jurisdiction, but it's a real thing. It isn't made up. Connecticut addressed their dual arrest laws in 2019, before which they had a roughly 20% dual arrest rate. Not a majority, but pretty concerning to somebody who wants to call. It's clear that even the CT police considered this to be a problem contributing to under reporting.

Quote

The issue with these dual arrests is that they often “re-victimize victims,” Lieutenant Renee Dominguez, head of the department’s Family Service Unit said.  She said that if the victim of domestic violence had finally called the police, with old procedures in place, the victim may say, “Oh, I am not going to call the police because I finally took a stand against being abused, and now I end up getting arrested.”

Some places are higher, some are lower. You're rolling huge dice in an officer-to-officer situation, not helped by the fact that ~40% of police officers are domestic abusers themselves. (Measurements tend to float around 30-40% but as always this is subject to underreporting -- the linked source analyses these statistics conservatively and skeptically). 

My first month of training at a domestic violence center, one with a history from the 70s, the one that supported my mother, we had one (1) police officer come in. He was the only police officer on the force that was on good terms with us. He came in to talk to us about the problems with dual arrest, the risks of police, and explicitly that we cannot trust the rest of the force with DV issues because many of them are committing it, or covering for each other. He told us about how, in some cases, restraining orders were escalating factors that were linked to murders -- and they weren't preventing it. I'm sure he did this, every month, every training session, to a certain level of personal and professional risk. I remember, even, I was the youngest trainee in the room, not yet out of high school, and he looked at at my mother and said, "Is she old enough to hear this?" and my mother just looked at him and was like, "She's old enough to have lived it, so I think so." 

You keep coming at me and at first it's "Antimony doesn't have enough experience as a victim for her to have these opinions, so that invalidates her" and if I say I have that experience...then what? I'm making shit up? 

Edit: Got the decade the shelter was founded like...very wrong. 1970s. Sorry. It's been a while since I lived in the area!

Edited July 3, 2022 by Antimony

[FiveAcres]

16 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

It’s been a while since I’ve gotten a pedicure. The last time I got one I ended up with a mild infection in one of my toes. Considering getting one again though. Can’t decide on t he color though. I’m thinking something garish. I’ll consult my cat, too. 

Let me know what color your cat chooses. I asked Bandit, the Boston Terrier, but he didn't have an opinion.

Edited July 3, 2022 by FiveAcres

[Giraffe]

7 minutes ago, FiveAcres said:

Let me know what color your cat chooses. I asked Bandit, the Boston Terrier, but he didn't have an opinion.

Will do. Maybe dogs don’t care as much?? They’re certainly less judgmental than cats so maybe that’s why. Perhaps Bandit is channeling his inner Switzerland. 

[Antimony]

50 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

The prisons are not filled with battered women or moms who sought parenting help. The prisons are filled with Josh Duggars. That's who you are advocating for. Child molesters and people who enjoy watching child molesters doing their thing.

Are...are they not?

Firstly, women's incarceration rates have risen extremely. 
 

Quote

Between 1980 and 2020, the number of incarcerated women increased by more than 475%, rising from a total of 26,326 in 1980 to 152,854 in 2020.

Quote

The number of women incarcerated in the United States has skyrocketed in the last four decades, increasing 700 percent in 40 years. In 2019, there were more than 231,000 women and girls held in prisons and jails across the country. It’s hard to believe that 50 years ago, almost 75 percent of counties held not a single woman in jail.Women have become the fastest-growing segment of the incarcerated population. Although men’s jail populations actually fell 9 percent from 2008 to 2018, women’s jail populations grew 15 percent. Women's incarceration rates are also climbing at double the rate of men’s in state prisons across the country. It’s clear that decarceration efforts are leaving women behind.Research to explain this phenomenon is limited, but what we do know is that jails and prisons—which have historically been designed exclusively for men—fail women in distinct ways. Women are more likely to enter incarceration with a history of abuse, trauma, and mental health conditions—86 percent of women in jail have experienced sexual violence and 77 percent have experienced intimate partner violence—but jails and prisons do little to address their needs. 

Is one to believe that Women became more violent by 475-700% between the 80s and now? 

But what do we know about these women? Everything we do know...sucks. It sucks.

Quote

• It is estimated that 92% of all women in California prisons have been battered and abused in their lifetimes
• As many as 90% of the women in jail today for killing men had been battered by those men. (Allison Bass, “Women far less likely to kill than men; no one sure why,” The Boston Globe, February 24, 1992, p. 27)
• According to data release in 1992 by the Georgia Department of Corrections, of the 235 women doing time for murder or manslaughter in Georgia, 44% killed a husband or lover. 96% of the women revealed the presence of domestic violence in the relationship. (J.O. Hansen, “Is Justice Taking a Beating?” The Atlanta Constitution, April 26, 1992, A1-A7)
• The Murderess: A Psychosocial Study of Criminal Homicide (1978) examined incarcerated female homicide offenders at one institution and found that, of 43 women convicted of murder or voluntary manslaughter, 30 had killed their male partners, 28 of whom had been abusive.
• 75% of women are in prison for non-violent crimes (prostitution, theft, drug use, etc.).

(Break to say that the criminalization of prostitution is has objectively misogynistic outcomes in our criminal justice system.

Quote

• 85% of women in prison in California are mothers. Their children have the highest infant mortality rate in the state. Women prisoners with children three years or under can lose their parental rights forever after six months, and the children adopted out.
• The average prison sentence of men who kill their women partners is 2 to 6 years. Women who kill their male partners are sentenced on average to 15 years, despite the fact that most women who kill do so in selfdefense (National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1989).

So...there's that...to consider...about the incarceration of women.

[Mama Mia]

1 hour ago, Antimony said:

Are...are they not?

Firstly, women's incarceration rates have risen extremely. 
 

Is one to believe that Women became more violent by 475-700% between the 80s and now? 

But what do we know about these women? Everything we do know...sucks. It sucks.

(Break to say that the criminalization of prostitution is has objectively misogynistic outcomes in our criminal justice system.

So...there's that...to consider...about the incarceration of women.

Look at the dates of the rise though. Virtually EVERY thing relates back to the war on drugs under Reagan and then the crime bill in the early 90’s. It’s a tough subject. Incarcerating people for drugs has clearly been a miserable failure, on every level - But on the other hand getting your stuff constantly stolen by someone who is using, or beat up by your strung out relative is ALSO bad.  What are the alternatives? Jail doesn’t cure addiction. But you also can’t “make” someone get clean. And good recovery programs aren’t only in short supply - but the success rates aren’t great.  I think I’m between the two opposing views here. It’s all so complicated and nuanced and you can’t solve gang issues the same way you address serial molesters and dv is different than either of those. And property crimes aren’t violent, but if it’s your car that is stolen and you can’t get to work and you lose your job…. It certainly has a hugely negative impact on you. 

[ILoveJellybeans]

3 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

The prisons are not filled with battered women or moms who sought parenting help. The prisons are filled with Josh Duggars. That's who you are advocating for. Child molesters and people who enjoy watching child molesters doing their thing.

Citations please?

According to the Bureau of Prisons website, sex offenders only make up 11.6% of the prison population (it does not say how many of these sex offenders are in for sex crimes relating to children). Less than 3% are murderers. The vast majority of prisoners (44.8%) are in for drug offences (being caught with drugs, dealing drugs, growing pot etc,) Most of these arent bad people, they've just become addicted to drugs (usually self medicating mental health issues or dulling the pain of a tough life), and locking them up in prison is not helping them with their drug addiction or fixing the problems in their life what turned them to drugs.

Prisons are not "filled with Josh Duggars". They should be, because people like that are the kind of people who do need to be kept away from other people for the safety of others, but they arent as the war on drugs means the prison population is full of people who have only harmed their health and their relationships with their loved ones.

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

[Bastet]

51 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

It’s a tough subject. Incarcerating people for drugs has clearly been a miserable failure, on every level - But on the other hand getting your stuff constantly stolen by someone who is using, or beat up by your strung out relative is ALSO bad.  What are the alternatives? Jail doesn’t cure addiction. But you also can’t “make” someone get clean. And good recovery programs aren’t only in short supply - but the success rates aren’t great.  I think I’m between the two opposing views here.

There’s another option: legalizing drugs. Problems will remain, as they do with alcohol, but many of the problems we have now are precisely because drugs are illegal. Legalize them and people will not need to steal or engage in prostitution to support a habit. What we have now is worst situation—easily available drugs and high rates of incarceration. 
  Yes, we need more recovery programs. (We will always need recovery programs because we will always have drugs, just as we always have alcohol. It is time to acknowledge that.)

[Antimony]

2 minutes ago, Bastet said:

There’s another option: legalizing drugs. Problems will remain, as they do with alcohol, but many of the problems we have now are precisely because drugs are illegal. Legalize them and people will not need to steal or engage in prostitution to support a habit. What we have now is worst situation—easily available drugs and high rates of incarceration. 
  Yes, we need more recovery programs. (We will always need recovery programs because we will always have drugs, just as we always have alcohol. It is time to acknowledge that.)

Very Harm Reductionist! We love them!

For reference, for those worried about drugs but want to imagine something better, the principles of Harm Reduction are below in the spoiler;

Spoiler

• Accepts, for better or worse, that licit and illicit drug use is part of our world and chooses to work to minimize its harmful effects rather than simply ignore or condemn them
• Establishes quality of individual and community life and well-being — not necessarily cessation of all drug use — as the criteria for successful interventions and policies
• Ensures that people who use drugs and those with a history of drug use routinely have a real voice in the creation of programs and policies designed to serve them
• Recognizes that the realities of poverty, class, racism, social isolation, past trauma, sex-based discrimination, and other social inequalities affect both people’s vulnerability to and capacity for effectively dealing with drug-related harm
• Understands drug use as a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon that encompasses a continuum of behaviors from severe use to total abstinence, and acknowledges that some ways of using drugs are clearly safer than others
• Calls for the non-judgmental, non-coercive provision of services and resources to people who use drugs and the communities in which they live in order to assist them in reducing attendant harm
• Affirms people who use drugs (PWUD) themselves as the primary agents of reducing the harms of their drug use and seeks to empower PWUD to share information and support each other in strategies which meet their actual conditions of use
• Does not attempt to minimize or ignore the real and tragic harm and danger that can be associated with illicit drug use

I don't, really, think anybody wants to be strung out. I find that many arguments people propose as being in support of prison end up, in their roots, to be condemnations of our healthcare system (or lack thereof), or condemnations of our social support services (or lack thereof), or condemnations of the poverty we allow to continue in a place where we could truly do so much better. 

Others have rightly pointed out that our law enforcement system is a blunt tool. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. There is good reason we expect one system to address domestic violence and drug abuse and murder and blahblahblah, when all of those issues that are most important to us deserve their own tailored tools meant to help people, instead of isolate them all in prisons and push the problem away. Angela Davis has a quote on this -- "Prisons do not disappear social problems, they disappear human beings. Homelessness, unemployment, drug addiction, mental illness, and illiteracy are only a few of the problems that disappear from public view when the human beings contending with them are relegated to cages."

[Bastet]

2 hours ago, Antimony said:

Homelessness, unemployment, drug addiction, mental illness, and illiteracy are only a few of the problems that disappear from public view when the human beings contending with them are relegated to cages."

I’m sure you have answered this before, but I must have missed it: do you see any role for holding people against their will—be it in a prison or a mental health facility? What do we do with serial murderers, for instance? 

[GuineaPigCourtship]

@Giraffe I went with a nice, cheery pink last week. It brightens my mood a little looking at my toes every day. I hope your feline headship selects something suitable.

[patsymae]

15 minutes ago, Bastet said:

I’m sure you have answered this before, but I must have missed it: do you see any role for holding people against their will—be it in a prison or a mental health facility? What do we do with serial murderers, for instance? 

Unless something has changed recently, NJ does this with sexual offenders. After they  serve their terms they are remanded for "treatment" at the sex abuse unit and not released until somebody pronounced them cured.

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2020/aug/1/commitment-new-jerseys-special-treatment-unit-potential-death-sentence/

 

I have mixed feelings, because I don't think much "treatment" goes on and in the case of CSA I'm very skeptical there even is such a thing. For example, I think that even if Smuggar serves his full time and all the conditions of his 20-year probation, which I highly doubt, he will be just as dangerous at 63 as he was at 13 and 33. some people really do need to just be removed from society.

But they don't need to be tortured. I guess as with most things, the system is so fucked up no good solutions are on the table.

[Bastet]

1 minute ago, patsymae said:

Unless something has changed recently, NJ does this with sexual offenders. After they  serve their terms they are remanded for "treatment" at the sex abuse unit and not released until somebody pronounced them cured.

So you do think some people should be in jail for a period of time? 

[patsymae]

1 minute ago, Bastet said:

So you do think some people should be in jail for a period of time? 

I do? Where did that come from?

what I think is immaterial. I was describing the reality of the NJ system for sex offenders. I do have strong reservations about committing people for "treatment" that IMO is all but nonexistent and then releasing them into society when they are Josh Duggar.

[GuineaPigCourtship]

I think there are 3 broad categories (I think) available for people who have committed heinous crimes.

1. Imprison/contain for a period of time up to life.

2. Treatment programs and the releasing back into the general population.

3. Execution.

We currently seem to pick from the list or mix and match a bit in the USA. I am absolutely opposed to capital punishment, but it does exist in some states and, unfortunately, is still used. 

Statistics say what we're doing isn't working, and to me that means we are putting money towards the wrong things.  Putting people in prison doesn't stop them from reoffending. Killing them does, of course, but that's neither humane nor practical.  We should be working to create more/better treatment protocols.

Sure, the adult in prison did something to put themselves there if you assume everyone is rightfully imprisoned. But the trauma their families - who are innocent of wrongdoing - suffer is significant enough that it is not okay to throw our hands up and shrug.

Edited July 3, 2022 by GuineaPigCourtship

[Bad Wolf]

My toenails are a red glitter. I'm pretty conservative about the way I dress (except that I mostly wear clothes that pertaineth to a man), but I love sparkly toenails. My fingernails don't often reach the point where I can get a manicure, but when they do the bling is on. Oh, and I'm an old grandma.

[patsymae]

7 hours ago, Giraffe said:

It’s been a while since I’ve gotten a pedicure. The last time I got one I ended up with a mild infection in one of my toes. Considering getting one again though. Can’t decide on t he color though. I’m thinking something garish. I’ll consult my cat, too. 

I rarely got pedicures until I lived in the tropics and wore sandals all the time. Back in NJ I went to one of those parlors where everyone is Vietnamese. Got cut and bled all over and the woman just sat there and looked nervous. I got irate and demanded a bandage and walked out. A few weeks later the NY Times report about women trafficked to these parlors came out. I still feel like shit.

[anjulibai]

Some general thoughts:

If we stopped incarcerating people for minor things like drug possesion we'd have more money for treatment of more serious offenders. A lot of things need to be decriminalized or a way found to for the offenders to make restitution to the community without be incarcerated.

There are people out there that can't function in society, for whatever reason. They are too much of a danger to others, and they absolutely need to be removed. Attempt to treat them, definitely; use whatever data we can get from them to develop better treatments and better ways of recognizing problems in others before they reach the point they are no longer helpable. 

Community support doesn't always work on those that can't function in society. My cousin is in jail for attempted murder, likely for life. He had a lot of chances to make something from his life and a large, supportive family willing to help him along the way. He made choices I am sure he now regrets, but knowing him, I don't think if he were let out he'd make any better choices, even given the fact that our family would continue to support him. I don't particularly care to go into it more than this, but trust me when I say, he should not be let out of jail, both to protect others and to protect himself. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by anjulibai

[Mama Mia]

4 hours ago, Bastet said:

There’s another option: legalizing drugs. Problems will remain, as they do with alcohol, but many of the problems we have now are precisely because drugs are illegal. Legalize them and people will not need to steal or engage in prostitution to support a habit. What we have now is worst situation—easily available drugs and high rates of incarceration. 
  Yes, we need more recovery programs. (We will always need recovery programs because we will always have drugs, just as we always have alcohol. It is time to acknowledge that.)

I agree that legalizing / decriminalizing drugs would certainly help - but I’m not understanding the thought that people wouldn’t steal to get money for drugs. You would likely have slightly more people using cocaine or ecstasy recreationally, and not becoming addicted - the same way not addicts use alcohol or marijuana where it’s legal. But that is more just increasing social options without decreasing chronic substance abusers. There are - presumably- vastly more accidents and fights and domestic abuse caused by alcohol than other drugs simply because it’s so easily available. Legalizing also wouldn’t prevent the huge issue of overdosing. I don’t think we make alcohol ( or marijuana) illegal - but just don’t see how other mind altering substances being legal is going to decrease the individual impacts? Except for the criminal part, obviously.

[Pecansforeveryone]

@Mama Mia, drugs would almost certainly be cheaper when they are no longer being sold on the black market. Thus less likely to steal to afford the habit. Plus no longer being sold by gang members and "Al Capone" types but by law abiding citizens greatly reduces the violence of selling drugs. Repealing prohibition reduced the violence  and "seediness" of acquiring alcohol almost immediately.  There are cities that allow safe spaces for people to "shoot up." Which if there are potential overdose issues people can have a monitor call for help immediately. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Pecansforeveryone
Add a thought

[anjulibai]

It decreases the individual impact by decreasing the criminal part. That criminal part leads to all sorts of other problems, like inability to find a job, homelessness, breakup of families, etc. 

But if we aren't spending money prosecuting minor drug offenses, then we can spend that on social programs to address the issues related to alcohol and drug abuse. 

[Bastet]

2 hours ago, patsymae said:

do? Where did that come from?

what I think is immaterial. I was describing the reality of the NJ system for sex offenders. I do have strong reservations about committing people for "treatment" that IMO is all but nonexistent and then releasing them into society when they are Josh Duggar.

Sorry. I had originally asked antimony whether she believed prisons should exist at all for anyone, prompted by her earlier comments. (I’m curious about the prison abolition movement.)

  I am, like you, concerned about less than well established treatment for sex offenders.

Edited July 4, 2022 by Bastet

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, Mama Mia said:

I agree that legalizing / decriminalizing drugs would certainly help - but I’m not understanding the thought that people wouldn’t steal to get money for drugs. You would likely have slightly more people using cocaine or ecstasy recreationally, and not becoming addicted - the same way not addicts use alcohol or marijuana where it’s legal. But that is more just increasing social options without decreasing chronic substance abusers. There are - presumably- vastly more accidents and fights and domestic abuse caused by alcohol than other drugs simply because it’s so easily available. Legalizing also wouldn’t prevent the huge issue of overdosing. I don’t think we make alcohol ( or marijuana) illegal - but just don’t see how other mind altering substances being legal is going to decrease the individual impacts? Except for the criminal part, obviously.

  If drugs were legalized you could get a prescription for it and if things were handled correctly you could get it covered by insurance. So why would you steal? 
   Many of the health dangers of illegal drugs are due to their being illegal. They are cut with another substance —fentanyl for instance—that, among other problems, make the dosage unpredictable.  Overdosing should plummet with pure and reliable drugs.  People could live pretty normal lives with heroin from a pharmacy. They do so now with methadone which is really just another opiate.
   I don’t think there is evidence that addiction would skyrocket. After all, pushers would all but disappear because they’d lack repeat customers if drugs were legal. 

I’m not saying it would be heaven on earth if drugs were legal. It most certainly wouldn’t. It would just be better than it is now. 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

12 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

The prisons are not filled with battered women or moms who sought parenting help. The prisons are filled with Josh Duggars. That's who you are advocating for. Child molesters and people who enjoy watching child molesters doing their thing.

This is where the prison abolition argument breaks down for me. There are certainly people in prison as the result of criminalization of poverty and homelessness. There are people who have broken the law but don’t really need prison as much as they need aid and rehabilitation. Then there are rapists, molesters, murders, mobsters, and violent criminals who need to be put away for the safety of the public.

About 10 years ago there was a brutal murder of a child near where I grew up. I’ve never heard of such a heartless murder before or since. Her killer is in prison where he needs to be. I don’t really care if that evil man is inconvenienced by paying for prison email or has his life ruled by inane structure. An innocent child is dead, she’s never coming back. Compared to that what does a murder’s discomfort or suffering even matter? 

Josh Duggar got off on child torture; he sought out and experienced pleasure from the death of a child’s innocence. There is no punishment too severe for such a heartless monster. In my opinion, he has forfeited his humanity by behaving in such an inhumane manner. I do not care how such an animal is caged, only that he is behind bars away from vulnerable members of the public. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Father Son Holy Goat

[Melissa1977]

4 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

I agree that legalizing / decriminalizing drugs would certainly help - but I’m not understanding the thought that people wouldn’t steal to get money for drugs. You would likely have slightly more people using cocaine or ecstasy recreationally, and not becoming addicted - the same way not addicts use alcohol or marijuana where it’s legal. But that is more just increasing social options without decreasing chronic substance abusers. There are - presumably- vastly more accidents and fights and domestic abuse caused by alcohol than other drugs simply because it’s so easily available. Legalizing also wouldn’t prevent the huge issue of overdosing. I don’t think we make alcohol ( or marijuana) illegal - but just don’t see how other mind altering substances being legal is going to decrease the individual impacts? Except for the criminal part, obviously.

Decriminalize the use of drugs? Definitely! But in the places where alcohol and weed are legal (or at least the use of it is not a crime), problems persist. The use of weed is coming more and more common in my country and it has social consequences (the worst of it, teen and young people with mental issues caused by it). People still think weed and alcohol are soft drugs. A lot of new varieties of cannabis are being grown, and some of them are very damaging. 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Melissa1977
Spelling