 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / September 2006Condoms in prisons...
There's a fuss over a bill in the California legislature that would require prisons to distribute condoms to inmates in an attempt to prevent the spread of HIV. Proponents claim that preventing HIV is important while opponents say that simply enforcing the existing regulation prohibiting sex between prisoners would solve the problem. My question is why HIV+ or other infectious people are placed among the general prison population. Nevada routinely tests everyone entering the prison system and segregates those with HIV, but here in enlightened California that would be considered a violation of their precious civil rights. I think it's ridiculous that there is no mandatory testing and segregation, and everyone else's rights are violated to accomodate the privacy concerns of a minority group that really should have no such privilege because they are in prison. Supposing I was sentenced to even a few months for some minor crime, that turns into an almost certain death sentence as I am gang-raped by Tyrone and his homies. Does the state enjoy sovereign immunity in this case? If their failure to ensure a sanitary prison environment causes me to contract a deadly disease, can I sue them for either monetary damages and/or cruel & unusual punishment? > My question is why HIV+ or other infectious people are placed among > the general prison population. Nevada routinely tests everyone > entering the prison system and segregates those with HIV, but here > in enlightened California that would be considered a violation of > their precious civil rights. Nonsense - it is not "their precious civil rights" but an overcrowded prison system (due in part to the "three strikes" law California has, which lengthens some prison terms considerably). To see why, you need to read up an arcane branch of mathematics called queueing theory. If you segregate the prisoners based on some criteria or other, then you have have to reserve seperate areas or maybe separate prisons for each class, and you end up using your resources (e.g., jail cells) less efficiently. You'll have to read up on the mathematics to see why, and you'll find that it applies equally well to the allocation of prison cells, lines of customers waiting for a teller at a bank, usage of computer memory, and a host of other areas. So basically, overcrowding is the real reason - it is a critically serious problem and segregating prisoners would make it even worse, so you need a very good reason before you can segregate people. Apparently the powers that be have decided that HIV status is not a sufficiently compelling reason. Bill Z. wrote... >>My question is why HIV+ or other infectious people are placed among >>the general prison population. Nevada routinely tests everyone [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > prison cells, lines of customers waiting for a teller at a bank, usage > of computer memory, and a host of other areas. So using resources most efficiently is more important than keeping the captive prison population from contracting a deadly contagious disease that costs a million dollars a year to treat? Assuming a prison full of prisoners all serving 20-year term, if you start with even a single HIV+ prisoner, you pretty much guarantee that ALL of them will be HIV+ by the end of the 20 years. I see no solution other than segregation. The ban on sex is completely unenforcable, the expectation than violent, sociopathic criminals will have enough self-control to use condoms is ludicrous, as is the expectation that victims of gang-rapes will be able to persuade their rapists to use condoms. BTW, who pays for the medical care of AIDS-infected prisoners? I'm betting the feds pay for it, so state prison systems really don't care how many of their prisoners get infected. Cut off the federal funding immediately and force the state prison systems to either stop the spread of HIV or pay for it. > Bill Z. wrote... > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > captive prison population from contracting a deadly contagious disease > that costs a million dollars a year to treat? I'm merely describing reality to you. Read up on queueing theory to see why. As I said, it's expensive to partition inmates into various classes and keep them in separate areas based on that. You have all sorts of issue to worry about - gangs that don't get along, etc. With a fixed budget, you can't do everything, so someone has to set priorities and do the best they can. > Assuming a prison full of prisoners all serving 20-year term, if you > start with even a single HIV+ prisoner, you pretty much guarantee > that ALL of them will be HIV+ by the end of the 20 years. Not true - you are assuming your single HIV+ prisoner is going to engage in sexual activity with other inmates. Maybe he doesn't like doing that and got sick due to drug use (infected needles). > I see no solution other than segregation. Would you be willing to raise taxes to pay for the additional spare cells you'll need? Well you can come up with the $$$ or we can do the sensible thing and reform the three-strikes law to let people out when they are obviously not a threat to society anymore (you seemed to have completely missed that part of my post). I mean, some 75 year old guy who needs a walker to get around and whose third strike at the age of 33 was a strong-arm robbery is not likely to go back to his former criminal career if released. So obviously the three-strikes law needs some tuning. Bill Z. wrote... >>Assuming a prison full of prisoners all serving 20-year term, if you >>start with even a single HIV+ prisoner, you pretty much guarantee [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > engage in sexual activity with other inmates. Maybe he doesn't like > doing that and got sick due to drug use (infected needles). Yes, I am assuming that. Since a single HIV+ individual in the outside world can easily infect thousands of people a year, I can only assume that the situation among a captive prison population is much worse. It might be possible for someone to survive a 20-year sentence without getting infected, but it seems unlikely. Oh, and just like sex, heroin use is also banned in prison, and of course nothing prevents an inmate from shooting up and sharing his needles. >>I see no solution other than segregation. > > Would you be willing to raise taxes to pay for the additional spare > cells you'll need? Will people be willing to raise taxes to pay for the additional billions of dollars needed to pay for prisoners' AIDS treatment? And I still would like to know who pays for their HIV treatment - if the feds are paying for it (under Ryan White), then state prisons have no incentive to prevent new infections. If the state prison system had to pay for their medical treatment, you can be sure that screening and segregation would be implemented immediately in spite of the left's protests. > Well you can come up with the $$$ or we can do the sensible thing and > reform the three-strikes law to let people out when they are obviously [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > career if released. So obviously the three-strikes law needs some > tuning. The three-strikes law is irrelevant. Whether you are a vicious serial rapist or a white collar criminal caught embezzling, even a few days in an unsegregated prison means you are likely to catch HIV. Since the penalty for embezzlement or even serial rape is not death, incarceration in an unsegregated facility is cruel & unusual punishment. > Bill Z. wrote... [note how "crack baby" snipped the technical explanation regarding resource allocation - he obviously knows he can't address the real issues, so he now wants to rant about things he made up]. > > Not true - you are assuming your single HIV+ prisoner is going to > > engage in sexual activity with other inmates. Maybe he doesn't like > > doing that and got sick due to drug use (infected needles). > > Yes, I am assuming that. Prove that your assumption is valid. You know, like provide some statistics from an official government source. > Since a single HIV+ individual in the outside world can easily > infect thousands of people a year, I can only assume that the > situation among a captive prison population is much worse. You got the biology wrong. To infect 1000 people a year, an HIV+ individual would have to engage in the highest-risk type of sex, completing said sex act in about 5 minutes, and would have to do that 24 hours a day 7 days per week. He'd need a staff of people to keep a queue of prospective partners available because he wouldn't be able to afford even a minute of down time. You'd have to feed him intravenously because he wouldn't have time to eat. I.e., your assumptions are idiotic - they have nothing to do with the real world. If you want to be taken even slightly seriously, at least try to get the numbers approximately right. > >> I see no solution other than segregation. > > Would you be willing to raise taxes to pay for the additional spare > > cells you'll need? > > Will people be willing to raise taxes to pay for the additional billions > of dollars needed to pay for prisoners' AIDS treatment? As I said, are you willing to raise taxes to pay for it (or cut other programs)? If you raise the prison system's budget, you have to cut something else to keep a balanced budget. So, how are you going to juggle the numbers? If you want to change budgeting priorities, I suggest you talk to your elected representative and convince him/her that your issue is more important than the issues that large blocks of voters (or the people who fund his re-election campaign) have. > The three-strikes law is irrelevant. No, it is highly relevant. It contributes to the current overcrowding. To do what you want, you have to either add more cells or free up cell space, and we now have cells occupied by geriatric prisoners serving life sentences for relatively minor offenses (the last one in a chain of crimes for which they were convicted). If you can't raise the budget to build more prisons or expand existing ones, you'll have to let some prisoners out. > ... I.e., your > assumptions are idiotic - they have nothing to do with the real world. Oh. It's just another Diablo/Death sock--over in mha, we're well familiar with it. Pay it no attention. B/ > > ... I.e., your > > assumptions are idiotic - they have nothing to do with the real world. > > Oh. It's just another Diablo/Death sock--over in mha, we're well > familiar with it. Pay it no attention. Thanks - I'm on another newsgroup that this was cross posted to and didn't know about the guy. >> > ... I.e., your >> > assumptions are idiotic - they have nothing to do with the real world. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thanks - I'm on another newsgroup that this was cross posted to and > didn't know about the guy. I thought so; his laundry basket is quite full of his dirty socks--he changes them quite often. You're not going to get much sense out of him. I'm afraid. B/ Bill Z. wrote... > You got the biology wrong. To infect 1000 people a year, an HIV+ > individual would have to engage in the highest-risk type of sex, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If you want to be taken even slightly seriously, at least try to get > the numbers approximately right. If my numbers were off, it was that they were too conservative. >>>>I see no solution other than segregation. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > that your issue is more important than the issues that large blocks > of voters (or the people who fund his re-election campaign) have. Lots of things can be cut, perhaps some money can be siphoned from one one the fancy $20 trillion commissions headed by Rob Reiner. >>The three-strikes law is irrelevant. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can't raise the budget to build more prisons or expand existing ones, > you'll have to let some prisoners out. Overcrowding is irrelevant, because even if prisons were restricted to the most violent criminals, most of those criminals would not have been sentenced to death and by putting them together with HIV+ prisoners you ensure a death sentence. crack baby wrote..., On 08/29/2006 19:40: > Bill Z. wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > If my numbers were off, it was that they were too conservative. Sorry to reply to myself, but I just remembered where I got the "thousands" estimate from. It was from an article from around 1992, before the new protease inhibitors were available and the existing treatments just being shown to extend life by several months if aggressive treatment was begun early enough. So the article described some disco slut puppy who picked up a dozen or so random strangers at the gay bar EVERY NIGHT for sex, but it was okay because he made sure to get an HIV test every week so he could begin treatment as early as possible (and thus ensure several extra months of partying at the bar). He seemed resigned to catching the virus, apparently unable to control his penis. Anyway, 12 * 365 = 4,380, and assuming the virus has a minimum incubation time of 3 years, that gives us 13,140 new infections before he tests HIV+, and of course he doesn't care enough to alter his behavior after testing positive, so that's another 5,000-10,000 new infections before he would finally succumb to AIDS. Today he wouldn't succumb, the new protease inhibitors extend "life" for 20 or more years, long enough to infect 87,000 or more. Toss in some crystal meth so he doesn't need to sleep, and you can easily double the number of infections. > crack baby wrote..., On 08/29/2006 19:40: > > Bill Z. wrote... > Sorry to reply to myself, but I just remembered where I got the "thousands" > estimate from. It was from an article from around 1992, before the new [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 87,000 or more. Toss in some crystal meth so he doesn't need to sleep, > and you can easily double the number of infections. As I said, you got the biology wrong. First, the probability of infecting someone per sex act is under 1 percent, so your 4380 (if this alleged Lothario could actually do what you claim) amounts to ~44 cases. Second, it does not take 3 years for an infection to be detectable in a lab test. It is more like 6 months, less for the really sensitive (and more expensive) tests. Third, crystal meth will not reduce your need to sleep to zero over a three year period - you'll simply collapse well before the three years are up. Oh, and you were talking about prisons originally. Your estimate has nothing to do with that. They don't provide pickup bars in prison. This is my last reply - you are obviously an idiot and are just making things up. Bill Z. wrote..., On 08/29/2006 20:37: >>crack baby wrote..., On 08/29/2006 19:40: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > not reduce your need to sleep to zero over a three year period - > you'll simply collapse well before the three years are up. If it's so difficult to transmit, then perhaps we should cut spending on the disease. Anyway, assuming he "only" infects 44 people per year - and each one of them infects 44 people per year - a captive prison population would quickly approach a 100% infection rate in several years. As for testing, well the California prison seems to have no intention of performing it, and most gays don't bother to be tested until symptoms like nasty anal warts appear. > Oh, and you were talking about prisons originally. Your estimate has > nothing to do with that. They don't provide pickup bars in prison. The entire prison is a pickup bar. Most gays in the outside world still have to work a few hours a day, while the prisoners have nothing else to do except f.ck all day and night. > This is my last reply - you are obviously an idiot and are just making > things up. I enjoy making numbers up, and I've discovered that my numbers are just as accurate as the numbers promoted by the AIDS advocates. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.