Welcome to the Women-Friendly Jail

[lesket]

DAVAO, Philippines, Nov 24 , 2010 (IPS) - "I was shocked when I saw them," says 18-year-old detainee Chona (not her real name) of the first time she saw the duplex-style bungalows painted in pastel colours that make up her ‘home’.There are windows to let sunlight into the bungalows and a veranda where the women residents can chat with each other

Comments

[mybluesunset]

Love this. It targets rehabilitation at just the right demographic for it.

But should the 5 women charged with homicide and murder be housed there with the rest of them?

[donnaidh_sidhe]

If they have been evaluated to pose no danger to the people around them, I don't see why not. It's quite possible that a) they're charged for something they didn't do, or b) if they did do it, it was out of self-defence or due to a circumstance other than "I totally planned it" or "they looked at me funny."

[kaowolfie]

Seriously. There's been how many cases in the U.S. alone where women were charged with murder for killing abusive spouses/family members? There's no reason to assume that these women are going to be violent towards strangers. People don't generally kill strangers.

[mybluesunset]

I don't assume that they're going to hurt anyone at all. They're probably not. But look, even if I were to give them a 90% chance of not hurting anybody, that 10% chance is too much of a risk. Even if they're 95% certain not to hurt anyone, that 5% chance is too much of a risk.

[kaowolfie]

Uh, yes, you are assuming that they are more of a threat than individuals not charged with violent crimes. That's screwy.

[lesket]

Why is there always someone who goes "omg but they killed someone" in posts like this? Unless you know something of the circumstances under which they committed their crimes that the rest of us do not, I don't really see what you're basing these percentages on and I'm really at loss as to why your first instinct is to further stigmatise these women. Are you really saying that someone who committed involuntary manslaughter, for example, is too dangerous to be around other people?

[mybluesunset]

Are you really saying that someone who committed involuntary manslaughter, for example, is too dangerous to be around other people?The problem is that these women haven't been tried yet. If all five of these women are found to have killed people involuntarily, then yes, that would decrease the threat they pose to the other women in the detention center. But they haven't been, and chances are at least one of them is potentially dangerous in some way. It doesn't mean they should be put in solitary confinement away from all people, but I question whether they should be put in a communal holding center with little to no security

[lesket]

I think the problem is that you keep trying to equate the general population of homicide offenders with these five women, saying that murderers are more dangerous than the general population, so the same must be true for these women - but this hypothesis doesn't necessarily translate into reality as nicely. I'd say it's far more likely that the nature of their crimes or their circumstances made the officials think they were unlikely to reoffend and could be placed in a low-security facility than that any of these women is going to go around stabbing people with knitting needles in the night or whatever.

[mybluesunset]

That is true. It really depends what evaluation process has been used to figure out the likelihood of re-offense, and since we don't know that we can't evaluate it. In the hypothetical case where the cases have been reviewed and they were cases of self-defense or unique family circumstances with no other criminal history then I would revise my position to be ok with this holding arrangement.

[mybluesunset]

It's quite possible that a) they're charged for something they didn't do, or b) if they did do it, it was out of self-defence or due to a circumstance other than "I totally planned it" or "they looked at me funny."

It is definitely possible; it may even be probable. But in this case I would err on the side of caution. Any non-negligible risk that they might kill again is enough that they shouldn't be put in a communal minimum-security prison.

[donnaidh_sidhe]

So the next step is to evaluate the pre-incarceration screenings, and not automatically assume that anyone charged of homicide is a threat to everyone around them...or that anyone not charged of it isn't.

[mybluesunset]

automatically assume that anyone charged of homicide is a threat to everyone around them...or that anyone not charged of it isn't.

We definitely shouldn't assume that, I agree. But I think we can agree that someone charged with homicide is generally more of a threat than someone charged with a nonviolent crime.

[donnaidh_sidhe]

No, I'm afraid I can't agree with that. That would involve more faith in any justice system than I can muster up.

[mybluesunset]

You can't agree with that regarding every single person, or you can't agree with it even on average?

[kaowolfie]

I absolutely, categorically could not agree with that on average, not knowing what I know about "justice" systems and the treatment of women, world wide.

[mybluesunset]

I am confused. Do you think the justice system is more likely to target innocent women for violent crimes than nonviolent ones? We're talking about relative rates of accuracy-- even if the justice system is equally unfair in both situations (as measured by rate of unfair arrests) that would still make women accused of homicide or murder on average more dangerous. In fact, I would argue that even if the justice system was twice as unfair in cases of violent crime compared to nonviolent, that would still leave enough actual killers in the "accused of killing" group to make that group on average more dangerous than the average woman accused of selling drugs.