Hacker News Reader

Comment by JumpCrisscross | Hacker News Reader

Let’s back up: what do we need to do to keep these (and other) inmates safe?

They can call themselves a man, woman or air fryer, it’s almost irrelevant. What’s essential (and being lost in the hair-picking exercise of trying to solve for a universal theory of gender and sex) is that they not be shanked while Twitter has an incel side panel on sex ed.

We divide inmates by more than just sex. We put sex offenders, literal rapists and pedophiles, in separate accommodation for their safety. Why can’t we do the same for trans folk? Even if you believe they’re deranged, what right does anyone have to extend their disgust to damnation?

The situation is complicated. But not tough.

View on HN

Im curious how the status quo compares with respect to the safety angle.

Is the primary safety concern sexual violence, or hate crimes? I imagine pregnancy would also be a concern.

If the main concern is sexual assault, can imagine there are risks either way, status quo and ex-post. If the concern is hate crimes, I could imagine trans people also suffering under either case. Prison is a high risk place.

If we can’t derisk prison, it’s a human rights violation to incarcerate in them. It’s high risk because of choices.

What is the alternative? Corporeal punishment only? No law enforcement?

Solitary confinement would also be a rights violation.

Putting criminal offenses under a microscope vis a vis their penalties would be a good start. A fair number of offenses should probably carry shorter prison sentences or none at all, having been overly influenced by decades of "war on drugs" and "tough on crime" policies.

It is a black mark on our society that the US continues to lead the world in both per capita and absolute prison population.

Funding corrections systems at an appropriate level where violence is an exception, not the norm. If you can’t afford to do it, you can’t afford to incarcerate.

American prisons are about making humans suffer though (vs rehabilitation) as inexpensively as possible, so I don’t see this changing in the near future.

I understand you are making a moral argument, not a physics argument, but it still doesnt seem to be self evident.

Dont get me wrong, I think there is a lot of room for improvement in the "corrections" system. Incarceration itself is a loss of rights. Which rights and how much is clearly a gradient, not binary.

How much would you personally pay to keep a murderer or rapist off your street before you compromised on their safety? Would you really let them go if you and your family were at risk?

Your argument already breaks down when you ask me personally. The argument is “how much are we willing as a society to keep people we incarcerate safe?” The answer should be “as much as it costs” instead of “that is not my problem.” It is our problem if the incarcerated are not safe when incarcerated, because we are incarcerating them.

I pay >$100k/year in federal income tax alone, I am not allergic to paying taxes to buy civilization. I’ll pay more, and I would expect others at my economic strata to do the same. My problem is with the people who argue to lock up “dangerous criminals” and don’t want to pay the true costs. Their danger doesn’t cause them to not be entitled to safety vs violence in imposed captivity.

Would you give up every single thing you have? If that wasn't enough, would you really let them go free?

If that's your absolutist moral position, then I think that is consistent with what you said.

I don't think most people would agree. I think that tolerable costs are finite.

The cost to ensure a reasonable amount of safety may in fact be tolerable, but that is a separate position from the absolutist one.

I'm pretty skeptical that someone would sacrifice their entire wealth to de-risk prisons, and I'm naturally skeptical that they would sacrifice the lives of their children before they put a prisoner in a risky position. This is what your rhetorical claims boil down to.

My rhetorical claims are that we have the necessary wealth to ensure the safety of those we choose to incarcerate. That is objectively true, based on all available evidence, even if you disagree.

I don't disagree with that at all.

I thought I was pretty clear that I was taking issue with the absolutist ultimatum:

>If you can’t afford to do it, you can’t afford to incarcerate.

That is an entirely different position than saying we can easily afford it and should.

> We divide inmates by more than just sex. We put sex offenders, literal rapists and pedophiles, in separate accommodation for their safety. Why can’t we do the same for trans folk? Even if you believe they’re deranged, what right does anyone have to extend their disgust to damnation?

That seems like a super reasonable compromise: a separate, segregated unit in a men's prison.

It's what is already done for other classes of vulnerable inmates. They just need to put them there instead, problem solved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com