Not everyone who is charged is guilty; and not all crimes are worthy of the same punishment.
My beef with the whole thing isn't restricted to the pregnant woman issue - or just women (that just happens to be what the articles specifically target and the articles are how I came to this subject in the first place), but rather to the lack of human rights afforded people in US prisons and jails. I don't think a correctional supervising officer has the right to rape a woman, or torture a male, and get away with it just because she or he is in jail and therefore commited a crime and therefore is just scum no matter what.
Furthermore, and this is what REALLY gets my goat, the US signed on to an International agreement to meet a set of standards that all member states would agree to. They even explicitly refused to ratify some of the standards that they really didn't like (for example: anything that MIGHT go further than what is covered in the constitution), but they still do not even remotely care about their part in the agreement. They were required to submit reports on the implimentation of these standards and the success they were having. They had various time limits (each specific report had it's own time when they were due). They still have not submitted a single report.
From what America agreed to, a female prisoner should NOT be supervised by a male officer. She should NOT be restrained under any and all circumstances (if there is a REASON, then some restraining is okay, but America uses it as the default) including when seeking health care, and she SHOULD be entitled to free health care as needed (as should her male counterparts be). America does not afford any of it's prisoners -male OR female- any of those things.
If their human rights are violated, they are supposed to be able to submit a report on an international level when all local attempts have been made and failed. America has explicitly forbidden its citizens from doing this. As in, it's illegal. You CANNOT take it to an international level if America fails to give you your human rights. All the other member states who signed the international agreement have also agreed to this one too. I am not sure if America ratified that one or if they agreed to it at all, but either way they don't allow it.
They don't. Not nationally. Some prisons in California are currently the best America has to offer, and they still don't even meet the standard America itself agreed to.
Those international standards apply not only to civilians, but also prisoners of war.
President Clinton apparently gave his approval to the whole of the treaty, but whomever was actually in charge of the decision didn't. And Bush certainly doesn't care.
Of course, this is no surprise. America is good at signing up for international agreements and then kinda skipping out when actually expected to uphold what they've signed.
My beef with the whole thing isn't restricted to the pregnant woman issue - or just women (that just happens to be what the articles specifically target and the articles are how I came to this subject in the first place), but rather to the lack of human rights afforded people in US prisons and jails. I don't think a correctional supervising officer has the right to rape a woman, or torture a male, and get away with it just because she or he is in jail and therefore commited a crime and therefore is just scum no matter what.
Furthermore, and this is what REALLY gets my goat, the US signed on to an International agreement to meet a set of standards that all member states would agree to. They even explicitly refused to ratify some of the standards that they really didn't like (for example: anything that MIGHT go further than what is covered in the constitution), but they still do not even remotely care about their part in the agreement. They were required to submit reports on the implimentation of these standards and the success they were having. They had various time limits (each specific report had it's own time when they were due). They still have not submitted a single report.
From what America agreed to, a female prisoner should NOT be supervised by a male officer. She should NOT be restrained under any and all circumstances (if there is a REASON, then some restraining is okay, but America uses it as the default) including when seeking health care, and she SHOULD be entitled to free health care as needed (as should her male counterparts be). America does not afford any of it's prisoners -male OR female- any of those things.
If their human rights are violated, they are supposed to be able to submit a report on an international level when all local attempts have been made and failed. America has explicitly forbidden its citizens from doing this. As in, it's illegal. You CANNOT take it to an international level if America fails to give you your human rights. All the other member states who signed the international agreement have also agreed to this one too. I am not sure if America ratified that one or if they agreed to it at all, but either way they don't allow it.
They don't. Not nationally. Some prisons in California are currently the best America has to offer, and they still don't even meet the standard America itself agreed to.
Those international standards apply not only to civilians, but also prisoners of war.
President Clinton apparently gave his approval to the whole of the treaty, but whomever was actually in charge of the decision didn't. And Bush certainly doesn't care.
Of course, this is no surprise. America is good at signing up for international agreements and then kinda skipping out when actually expected to uphold what they've signed.
Reply
Leave a comment