« Illumiwhati? | Main | A plug for good, old-fashioned morality »
Everybody in the whole cellblock was dancing to the jailhouse rock
by anna at 05:58 PM on August 26, 2003
A couple news stories caught my jaundiced eye. One was the brutal strangulation of defrocked priest and serial boy buggerer John Geoghan, who was moved from one prison to another out of fear for his safety. Prison guards claim Joseph Druce used a book, fingernail clippers and a toothbrush to thwart their attempts to protect him. One was conveniently "assigned elsewhere." My ass. I'm not buying it.
This young Jim Morrison look-alike may have pulled off the perfect murder. He's already serving a life sentence. So what can they do to him now, impose another? Or force him to watch the played-out Drew Carrey Show?
Don't get me wrong. Just as with Jeffrey Dahmer, it's no skin off my back that Geoghan's dead. He never answered for most of his crimes due to some statute of limitations loophole. And there's nothing more heinous than what he did. If his mom had aborted him Boston would have been a better place.
But he was a feeble old man whom the state had a sworn duty to protect and they failed to do so. Don't even try to tell me they couldn't have shot Druce dead if they'd wanted to. I mean, he had time to tie the ex-priest up, gag him and then strangle him with a bedsheet. Begging the question: What are inmates doing with bedsheets? What's next, their shrill demands for pillow shams or high-speed internet access few of us law-abiders enjoy? (Ahem, they've already got that thanks to the ACLU.)
The other is a Federal law that seeks to curtail the time-honored tradition of rape behind bars. Wardens will have to track prison rapes, which currently affect about 20% of inmates. (With 2 million Americans incarcerated that comes out to 400,000 persons forcibly sodomized.) They'll also have to take steps to stop it.
I saw one felon on 20/20 complaining about his 1st night in prison. Seems his fellow prisoners saw fit to pass him around like a joint. When his bunghole grew tattered and bloodied, a hoosegow dentist knocked his teeth out with a hammer. Perhaps mindful of the fate that befell a Chicago rapist who got his penis gnawed off, everyone partook of gum action. Such is the horrific nature of behind bars lovin', I'm afraid. Jodie Foster had it better in The Accused. Yet his complaints garnered about as much sympathy as her character's. Even the interviewer seemed blase about his ordeal.
It's almost as if people think this extra-judicial mistreatment is part and parcel of the criminal lifestyle.
One of my coworkers insists that in due time both pedophilia and murder will come to be viewed as alternate lifestyles. I almost have to agree with him when it comes to child molestation. After all, the ACLU once sided with NAMBLA in a lawsuit brought by the parents of a child raped and murdered by these scum. All in the name of its treasured free speech, no doubt. I think we need less free speech and more free silence.
But I disagree with regard to the serial murder lifestyle. Surely society will never come to embrace that. Then again, time after time we see wily lawyers seeking to justify this behavior. Just look at the Menendez brothers. Their attorney sought to justify their murderous acts based on alleged abuse that supposedly occured many years prior. The victims in that case posed no more immediate threat to their sons' well-being that Saddam's seemingly illusory WMD program ever did to Americans. They were just lounging around minding their own business and got their heads blown off by fiends.
Which is something the ACLU needs to do a lot more of. As for its beloved convicts, they should have to deal with frustrating and unreliable dial-up service just like me and possibly you.
I meant minding their own business, not getting their vacant heads blown off. Then again...
comments (23)
Here's some food for thought: Turns out Geoghan's killer sought to board the Federal correctional gravy train via getting charged with a "hate crime." He figured Geoghan was a gay and if he killed him it would be a "hate crime." Except he's not gay, he's a pedophile and killing them isn't a "hate crime" cuz everyone hates them. Unless he could argue that it's a matter of intent, i.e. he thought Geoghan was a gay and hence it's a "hate crime," he'll remain in the state system.
But a "hate crime" is really a thought crime so why shouldn't he qualify for cozy Federal incarceration?
by anna at August 27, 2003 4:52 PM
I don't recall there being much, if any, hue and cry when Dalmer was killed either.
At a certain point those people that are housed for what Canada calls "incapacitation" (away as long as possible since we don't have the death penalty) cease to arouse any public sympathy. In many people's eyes they cease to be human being, and just become a ongoing burden on the taxpayer.
Not to say the officer involved for keeping this particular offender safe from his fellow prisoners shouldn't "swing" metaphorically speaking. Part of a Guard's duty is to ensure the safety of those in custody, and those responsible should be relieved of their responsibilities (ie fired)
When it comes right down to it, tears may be shed for this particular pedophile, but not by me.
by chuckwoolery at August 27, 2003 10:08 PM
First of all, I should mention that I work at the ACLU and believe wholeheartedly in the missions of the organization. That said, I would like to address your comments on the NAMBLA thing. I'm used to people who don't know diddlysquat about that lawsuit going off about it, but I've come to expect a bit more critical thinking from the writers here on Bad Samaritan, so it really irks me to see the same sort of cluelessness being perpetuated here.
The national ACLU had nothing to do with that lawsuit. It was done by the Massachusetts affiliate; the affiliates are all separate organizations from national and have been known, at times, to do things that national doesn't necessarily agree with. The NAMBLA thing is definitely one such case.
But anyway, about that lawsuit. The two men who committed the crime in question were convicted and sentenced in criminal court. They were then sued in civil court by the parents of the victim, who won $328 million in their suit. The parents then sued NAMBLA for the content of one of its websites. That was when the ACLU of Massachusetts got involved.
Over the past few years, the ACLU has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Oliver North, and the National Socialist Party. That does not mean that the ACLU advocates Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA, the Massachusetts affiliate was in no way advocating sexual relationships between adults and children. What the ACLU does advocate is freedom of speech for everyone. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibilty not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the internet. The principle is as simple as it central to true freedom of speech; those who do wrong are responsible for what they do. Those who speak about it are not. It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
I find NAMBLA as reprehensible as the next person. But I also think that free speech IS something to be treasured, and that taking away the free speech of the worst and ugliest portions of society only sends them further underground.
Of course, someone who'd say something like "I think we need less free speech and more free silence" may not be willing to consider such details at all.
by c at August 28, 2003 4:14 PM
Well, I'm always willing to consider such details. And it goes without saying that free speech should be treasured. But ya know, some free speech simply has no possible redeeming value and has the potential to do great harm. Appreciate the input from someone who obviously knows more about these matters than me though.
Critical thinking from the writers at Bad Sam? As Vinny Barbarino used to say, "When?"
by anna at August 28, 2003 5:02 PM
Oh and C, could you explain why inmates need high-speed Net access? It's not like they're going anywhere. They could wait for hours to sign on.
by anna at August 28, 2003 5:40 PM
My understanding of First Amendment law - and I should point out that while I might have a little more knowledge about this stuff than the average bear I'm not a lawyer myself - is that dangerous speech is not always protected. I don't know what case law has defined as dangerous speech, though, and I don't know what specifically was on the web site that the boy's parents were suing over. But I think for speech to be considered dangerous, the danger has to be very clear and pretty immediate - yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the classic example.
To be honest, I don't know where you're getting the thing about high speed Internet access for prisoners, because prison issues are handled by a special project at the ACLU, and I work in a totally different part. It's a big organization, especially when you factor in the affiliates (what I was talking about earlier might give you some idea how what they're working on can be pretty disconnected from what we're working on at headquarters) and it's sometimes (at least for me) impossible to keep on top of everything going on in other parts of the organization. I couldn't find it on the ACLU website, though, for what it's worth (which isn't much 'cause our site search engine is terrible!!).
by c at August 28, 2003 6:37 PM
Um, not to dodge your question about why they should or shouldn't have high-speed access. I don't know what the reasoning is, though.
by c at August 28, 2003 6:39 PM
Fair enough, C. And of course there is some element of satire, however lame, in most of my posts. But let me say this: You've got mad reasoning/writing skillz going on, like Chris. You should pipe up more often.
by anna at August 29, 2003 6:39 AM
I'm sorry C but I can't see how any good could come from defending NAMBLA's free speech. In my opinion, if there ever was a group that needed to be gagged it would be them right with the KKK and Louis Farrakahn. I understand that your structure and the way duties are delegated gives autonomy to individual organizations that are just under the umbrella of the national entity. I don't, though, understand why the greater entity wouldn't ostracize any chapter who would back an organization such as NAMBLA. I agree that we need free speech but where is the line? Do we allow people to say whatever they want and to hell with the innocent people it affects? Freedom of speech is a great thing when used responsibly but when it is used to spread hate or criminal sexual deviance then there should be a policy in place to deal with these circumstances. I know everyone says "If we take that away then where will it end?" Why not put it before a fair and impartial jury or cover it under harassment laws?
by Ezy at August 29, 2003 10:27 AM
The jailhouse is rocking tonight.Isn't murder a crime?Isn't rape a crime.I feel that if you are in jail and you commit a heinous offense that you should be rushed to the front of the line...for the electric chair that is.Why do juries even give life sentences anyway?Is it because they want another asshole draining more tax dollars away from worthwhile programs.A .45 round only costs $0.15 way less than $35.000.00 to house,feed,secure,medicate some asshole that all of you wouldn't let in your home.I say screw all those idiots,turn off their cable and their high speed access.Thankfully the prisons took away the weight rooms it's a wonder that the aclu didn't take the prisons to court and say that the prisons were hindering the futures of inmates ability to pose in Blueboy and Adonis.
by Windex at August 31, 2003 12:21 AM
Why don't the prisons give the prisoners saltpeter?If you can't get it up you can't rape...and by the time a would be rapist does get it up he isn't horny any more.The aclu would probably say that taking away a persons right to rape is unconstitutional.I failed to mention that $35.000.00 is yearly,so if someone gets life at age 18 and dies at 65 thats $1,645,000,00 I'd say take that to the bank but you can't that money has been wasted.So how many years has Charlie Manson been in prison?
by Windex at August 31, 2003 11:14 AM
Windex, I deleted part of your comment because you were being an ass, and for really no reason. Do it again and you wont be saying anything else around here.
by mg at August 31, 2003 3:51 PM
Well I don't see any change to my comments.Are you the site police?I didn't mean to irritate you MG...however maybe the way I see things isn't your way.What,did your parents ask you to move out of the basement?In closing I will never visit this site again!MG you SUCK!!!
by Windex at September 1, 2003 1:06 AM
go away for one lousy week and i miss rape, defamation and saltpeter. figures.
c your comments, if true, are enlightening. not to say they aren't true, it's just that i could tell you all about papal responsibilties, and you might think i was in cahoots with the pope, but i'd be lying. nevertheless, i believe you. though nambla, to me at least, means yelling 'fire!' in a theatre. assuming of course that the theatre is full of under-twelve boys in underpants, with all available exits blocks by smirking men with ball-gags an hard-ons. and that theatre qualifies as the whole world to pedophiles. its a scary place, this planet.
by lajoie at September 1, 2003 1:57 PM
I favor the death penalty so long as it is uniformly applied for a very specific list of defined offenses nationwide. My wife opposes it categorically so we get into all manner of debate about that.
Having said that, I know MG tends to tolerate all kind of stuff in the comments on his site. I can't help but wonder what he deleted; and have to think it was something that would have just stirred up a big hassle. This has gone down before.
Good to hear from you again LaJo, I'd thought we'd driven you away.
by anna at September 1, 2003 7:01 PM
no sir. i was just out scaling mountains in colorado for fun. and there were no computers out there, unless you count the one buffoon who broke out his cellular on top of a mountain and announced that he could check his email at 13,000 feet.
by lajoie at September 1, 2003 7:15 PM
Windex here,MG did not delete anything!!!That space on my 08.31.03@1221am comment was me dropping my Mont Blanc pen on my laptop.I did not know that the buttons on my laptop were that sensitive.I also did not know that Badsamaritans software would not recognise an ecsessive gap.MG is a wannbe...he thinks he can bully people.I guess he is an advocate of men raping men. I know I stated that I wouldn't visit this site again...however ANNA's thanking me for my comments on one of his stories compells me to continue.Look out Elongatedbadger.P.S.I draft everthing I post so I know MG didn't delete anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by Windex at September 1, 2003 10:02 PM
Timothy Ring may be getting out of prison.This individual shot an armorered truck guard.An armed person is a likely target.I have a certificate to carry a weapon in my state.A 20 hour course is all it takes!!!Well my house is up for sale 'cuz I'm moving to Vermont. No paperwork to fill out,just carry a concealed weapon there!!! No pussies in Vermont saying you can't carry!!!If the British had they're way in the 1700's we would all be speaking the Kings english.
by Windex at September 2, 2003 5:46 PM
I bet that Mr. High Altitude Laptop also emailed sone unlucky soul in much the same way that people used to call you on their new cell phones just to let you know they were calling from their cell.
by anna at September 2, 2003 6:16 PM
i kind of wished i had pissed in his mouth, just so he knew i had eaten asparagus.
by lajoie at September 2, 2003 7:05 PM
I saw what Windex originally wrote, and I agree with what MG did. My two cents.
by jean at September 3, 2003 2:30 AM
Jean if you see what is on the comment page now you see what has always been on the comment page.MG...DID NOT DELETE ANYTHING,STOP LYING!!!What is this...Survivor where the person who isn't the most popular get's voted off?Or,in this case blocked from leaving comments.P.S. My desk is cleared off so that will not happen again!!!Who is Mr.High Alltitude???
by Windex at September 3, 2003 3:07 AM
See Lajo's remarks seven comments up.
by anna at September 3, 2003 6:52 AM