I guess she should have considered the ramifications before pulling the trigger.  Personally I think we should save the tax payers the incarceration costs and just shoot her.  The shot gun shell is under $2 for a magnum round.

Well go over to the McDonalds threads and see what kind of girls she will be in prison with, except those girls are only going to get assault 2 and assault 3 charges, not enough to put them in prison - so the girls in prison are much, much, much, more brutal.

Quote from: tekla on April 23, 2011, 12:44:45 AM
Well go over to the McDonalds threads and see what kind of girls she will be in prison with, except those girls are only going to get assault 2 and assault 3 charges, not enough to put them in prison - so the girls in prison are much, much, much, more brutal.

Good point.  The prison girls will probably be a lot more creative with what they rape her with. 

They do have mops and other implements in women's prisons.

I don't feel that the GRS will prevent rape unless this prisoner is in isolation, but I believe that she should have it--and be in a women's prison.

If she needed a heart transplant they would not provide that, why GRS?

Quote from: tekla on April 23, 2011, 11:49:45 AM
If she needed a heart transplant they would not provide that, why GRS?

Good question. I remember reading something about heart transplants in prisons a few years ago. There was a big stink about one guy who wanted a transplant. Prisons are doing them every once in a while now.

I figure that our whole system needs to be changed, but that, of course, will take a long time and a great deal of arguing and many mistakes. My position derives from a forward-thinking perspective that looks to how I think things should be in the future, so my position is pretty incompatible with the current system.

I am under no illusions that most of these prisoners are nice people, but I still believe that giving prisoners the absolute bare minimum health care is a copout. For one thing, if we are going to incarcerate people, we need to take responsibility for them.

Obviously, expensive treatments like heart transplants and SRS need to be carefully weighed for cost versus benefit. Prisoners need to be screened for a variety of factors, including their health, their sentence, how much time they have left to serve, and so on. So maybe I am precipitate in saying that this particular prisoner should get SRS. She should definitely be considered for SRS. And trans prisoners need to be handled differently from the general population.

There is another factor that I have considered but not delved into when it comes to health care for prisoners. It's one of the main issues of incarceration: punishment versus rehabilitation. If we are ONLY punishing these people, then perhaps it is fair to decide that whatever happens in prison happens, and the taxpayers will not be held responsible for health care because prisoners have given up their rights to all but the most basic treatments and preventatives. If we are rehabilitating, things should be different. If we are punishing some prisoners and rehabilitating others, maybe we should provide different levels of health care to different types of prisoners. I'm sure that would go over big.

Actually, I feel that the punishment vs rehabilitation dichotomy is overly simplistic. Can't we do both? Don't we do both? And often, we are also keeping dangerous prisoners from getting out again and performing more acts of violence; in addition to punishing, we are also weighing the needs of the public against the needs of one aberrant individual, and deciding in favor of the larger community. That's about public protection as well as punishment vs rehab.

How much can you rehabilitate someone who took a shotgun to someone over some clothing?  I can see rehabilitation for someone who does auto theft, you know, teach them a skill so they can make money without boosting cars, but somethings don't get better.

Quote from: tekla on April 24, 2011, 01:26:39 PM
How much can you rehabilitate someone who took a shotgun to someone over some clothing?  I can see rehabilitation for someone who does auto theft, you know, teach them a skill so they can make money without boosting cars, but somethings don't get better.

I'm not saying that we can rehabilitate this particular person, especially since I don't know the particulars of her case. I'm saying that we can't seem to decide exactly what our purpose is, and that's a problem.

There are two primary issues that need to be addressed.  First is whether they were under medical care prior to committing their felony offense.  If not, then the State has no obligation IMO to provide ANY gender-related care.  If they were, then the State, again IMO, has an obligation to continue care at the level that was being provided in the community. 

The second issue speaks to housing and custody issues.  EVERY correctional agency has practices in place to provide 'safekeeping' status housing.  Some inmates never make the request.  Some abuse the process, effectively trying to game the system.  This is nothing new.  It was like that years ago and will be like that in the years that follow. 

Prison rape, while it does go on, is not the pervasive problem some make it out to be.  I've been involved with litigation with agencies on some of those issues. 

As a taxpayer, I would be highly miffed to find out that an elective procedure was being given to someone who could not otherwise have managed it at State expense in the community.  If the inmate has the funds on their inmate trust fund or in community-based accounts, then PERHAPS the availability of surgery within the confines of the penitentiary becomes an option for the State to look at.  Otherwise, the surgery becomes a reward for committing a felony offense. 

And yes, as a taxpayer, that IS something that I should get to have a say about if it were taking place in my State.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on April 24, 2011, 03:35:01 PM
Prison rape, while it does go on, is not the pervasive problem some make it out to be.  I've been involved with litigation with agencies on some of those issues. 

Nice points, BTW. I have read that prison rape is fairly uncommon but that it happens MUCH more to trans inmates. I don't know if that has been verified, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Unless this inmate seeks special protective housing, I don't think that SRS will reduce her chances of being raped, even if she is moved to a women's prison. She just won't be raped by penises anymore. And I don't think hers is a very persuasive rationale for granting her request for SRS.

I do think that if trans people claim that transition is medically necessary for them, then it's not fully consistent to say that it's not medically necessary for someone else.

Protective custody inmates are held in isolation 22.5 hours per day in small cells and get one hour alone in a small exercise yard.  They are often never allowed outside.  Your talking years without ever seeing the sun or sky.

Quote from: tekla on April 24, 2011, 03:54:00 PM
Protective custody inmates are held in isolation 22.5 hours per day in small cells and get one hour alone in a small exercise yard.  They are often never allowed outside.  Your talking years without ever seeing the sun or sky.

This is not always the case...the safekeeping wings in Texas and other States simply provide an isolated housing area away from the balance of the general population with activities during the day being blended (ie. education and work) with the GP.  In this State, there are SK wings even for all three primary custodies (what used to be viewed as Minimum, Medium and Close). 

The few people statewide in a PC described like tekla puts forth are those who have very pronounced hits out for them (ie. ranking gang members who rolled in trial or former members of security who have been incarcerated).  There is another class that is celled 23 hours a day, but those are disciplinary threats or members of identified security threat groups.

Quote from: Arch on April 24, 2011, 03:41:16 PM
Nice points, BTW. I have read that prison rape is fairly uncommon but that it happens MUCH more to trans inmates. I don't know if that has been verified, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Texas houses post-ops in gender-appropriate facilities.  Pre-ops were housed in safekeeping.  No discernible differences in rates of claimed assault. 

QuoteI do think that if trans people claim that transition is medically necessary for them, then it's not fully consistent to say that it's not medically necessary for someone else.

WHen you commit a felony offense and are sent to the penitentiary, you have (IMO) given up many of the elective options that might otherwise have existed for the non-felon.  It is arguably no different than the cigarette smoker that chooses to commit a felony in a State in which convicted felons are not permitted access to tobacco products while incarcerated.  They made a choice that limited their ability to act on what would otherwise have been a personal choice. 

Policies generally exist for the medical management of those who were legitimately under care in the community prior to entering the penal system.  It is my opinion that a person not under care in the free-world has no right to demand the State provide them HRT, transition or surgery while in the correctional environment.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on April 24, 2011, 05:01:58 PM
WHen you commit a felony offense and are sent to the penitentiary, you have (IMO) given up many of the elective options that might otherwise have existed for the non-felon.  It is arguably no different than the cigarette smoker that chooses to commit a felony in a State in which convicted felons are not permitted access to tobacco products while incarcerated.  They made a choice that limited their ability to act on what would otherwise have been a personal choice. 

I don't see these as quite parallel. Smoking is merely a (bad) habit, and giving up tobacco improves health. Transition can, and often does, mean the difference between life and death. People choose to smoke; they do not choose to be born trans.

Quote from: Ann Onymous on April 24, 2011, 05:01:58 PM
Policies generally exist for the medical management of those who were legitimately under care in the community prior to entering the penal system.  It is my opinion that a person not under care in the free-world has no right to demand the State provide them HRT, transition or surgery while in the correctional environment.

Yeah, demanding transitional steps and stating that one has the right to transition while a prisoner do seem pretty shaky--I guess they are among the key issues here. It all depends on what rights we think prisoners do have and what obligations we have to them.

She is serving 50 years to life for killing someone with a shotgun over a $400 dispute.  It's not like she was cooking meth or dealing, or stole a car, she took a shotgun to someone for $400 dollars and is not likely to get out anytime soon.  So, kill someone for $400, get a $50K operation at tax payer expense.  Such a deal.

Quote from: tekla on April 24, 2011, 09:22:53 PM
She is serving 50 years to life for killing someone with a shotgun over a $400 dispute.  It's not like she was cooking meth or dealing, or stole a car, she took a shotgun to someone for $400 dollars and is not likely to get out anytime soon.  So, kill someone for $400, get a $50K operation at tax payer expense.  Such a deal.

She also gets housing, clothing, three squares, recreation, and lots of other bennies at taxpayer expense. But, hey, if she ever gets suicidal about her gender dysphoria, we could save a bundle if she offs herself. Problem solved.

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.  She's getting far more of a chance than the person she murdered.

Whatever happened to, "don't do the crime. If you can't do the time."?

My biggest argument against SRS for prisoners is this. Let's say I commit a felony that lands a 2-3 year stint in a minimum security prison. A real Club Med type of place, no pun intended. In a system where all transition costs are covered.

They pay for the best FFS, SRS, BA, hair removal, voice, clothes etc etc etc. A good 200k.

Where does this money come from? Does every member of society get a magic 200k?

How many of you would sacrifice 2-3 years of freedom for the above?

That's why I say hecks naws. A fair number of free loaders would take this kind of deal.

Federal court rulings hold that if you are on HRT going in, they have to keep on providing it.  If you are not taking it, they have no obligation to start.

HRT going in would be a medical necessity in some cases. Plus has a very low cost. An M2F icould do the whole thing thru WalMart for $30 or less a month.