Strange new application of Florida's "armed and dangerous" laws.

[theweaselking]

A gunfight broke out this morning in a federal prison here between federal agents and prison guards, as the agents tried to arrest six guards on charges that they traded alcohol and drugs for sex with female prisoners. When the shooting ended, two people were dead. One was a federal law enforcement agent, whose name has not been released, and the other was Ralph Hill, one of the six men who was to be arrested.

Prosecutors asserted in the indictment that the guards brought contraband into the prison, possibly including drugs and alcohol, "to sell and to use as payment in exchange for sexual conduct" from up to 15 female inmates, beginning as long ago as 2002.

The indictment also charges that the guards used the drugs and alcohol to buy the inmates' silence about all the ways that the guards were violating prison rules to get what they wanted, or they threatened to plant the contraband on them if the inmates did not cooperate with them.

Further, the indictment says, the guards persuaded or intimidated the inmates and their family members and associates to transmit money in payment for the drugs and alcohol via the mail, or wire transmissions or hand delivery. They also are accused of listening in on the inmates' telephone conversations, which is allowed by prison rules, and threatening to disclose details about conversations unless they cooperated with the guards. In addition, the court document states, the guards threatened some inmates into cooperating with them by saying they could have them shipped to another prison farther from their families. They did this by showing some of the inmates information about themselves on the prison computer system, the document says, "as proof that the inmates could be tracked anywhere" within the prison system.

=================================

The really sick part?

The six guards were indicted on Tuesday on charges of conspiracy to commit acts of bribery, witness tampering, mail fraud and interstate transportation in aid of racketeering. Those charges carry maximum sentences of 20 years in prison.

Do YOU see any rape charges there? Sexual assault? I don't, either. Apparently female prisoners who are coerced and threatened into having sex with the guards aren't ACTUALLY being raped. Maybe it's that new South Dakota Government "It's not rape unless the girl is a Christian virgin and there's sodomy involved" initiative again. Or, maybe, this being Florida, they just figure it's a standard Fundamentalist Marriage Proposal.

Comments

I'll try not to be offended by the generalization about Americans.

[gothpanda.livejournal.com]

It would be difficult to get a rape conviction based on the testimony of a convicted felon. This is sad, but it's difficult to get a conviction based on the testimony of a woman who has had multiple sexual partners, so an inmate would hardly fare better. Besides, for all we know the prisoners were so intimidated that they are still afraid of speaking up, so there isn't anyone willing to testify.

On the one hand I'd like to see the charges added to the roster, but on the other hand I don't want hundreds of thousands of dollars to be wasted on prosecuting a case that simply won't lead to a conviction. Hopefully some hard evidence or some really reliable witnesses will come to light and they can pursue the rape charges.

Re: I'll try not to be offended by the generalization about Americans.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, I should specify that the "it's not rape unless she's a Christian virgin and there was sodomy involved" is damn near a direct quote from one of the writers of South Dakota' total abortion ban.

I've clarified the reference. No offense was intended to the few thousand sane Americans.

Re: I'll try not to be offended by the generalization about Americans.

[gothpanda.livejournal.com]

Don't worry, I wasn't really offended. I don't consider myself to be an American anymore, so I knew you weren't referring to me or mine. I don't know what the hell I am, I wish "Anglophile" was a nationality. *pout*

Re: I'll try not to be offended by the generalization about Americans.

[torrain.livejournal.com]

> It would be difficult to get a rape conviction based on the testimony of a
> convicted felon.

Can't they hammer them for sexual misconduct or something? Christ, the "goods for sex from convicts" and "intimidation of convicts" is part of the indictment.

> On the one hand I'd like to see the charges added to the roster, but on
> the other hand I don't want hundreds of thousands of dollars to be wasted
> on prosecuting a case that simply won't lead to a conviction.

Yeah, really. I mean, if anyone wants to press charges, the best it could do is suggest that the justice system will listen to the testimony of a convicted felon who claims she has been sexually assaulted. You can't hope for anything better. Surely the money (which doubtless not be spent if such charges are not pressed, so it will actually be saved rather than redirected, I am sure) will be better off not going to such a lost cause as an attempt to legally enforce consequences for the sexual coercion of inmates by guards.

Re: I'll try not to be offended by the generalization about Americans.

[gothpanda.livejournal.com]

Okay, that last paragraph was a bit roundabout but I think I understand what you mean.

In a perfect world, I would support prosecuting every crime that occurs. But the fact is that sometimes it is just not feasible. It's not just about the money--which presumably could be used to prosecute rape cases that might actually have a chance of conviction--it's also about witnesses, prosecutors, and other factors. Like I said, I hope that they do bring these disgusting guys up on rape charges, because as far as I'm concerned they should be in prison forever, but there could be circumstances here that we are not aware of preventing that from happening. It seems likely to me that either the prosecution has decided that they don't have a strong enough case for rape charges, or the women involved have been so intimidated (or hate the system so much, since they were put in prison by the same people) that they won't testify.

I'm just saying that I would rather they put together a strong case before bringing charges. It's not just about the money, because a rape trial can be horribly traumatic for the victim--especially if the rapist is acquitted.

Related reading

[giza.livejournal.com]

The Stop Prisoner Rape (http://www.spr.org/) website.

Re: Related reading

[corruptedjasper.livejournal.com]

"You're going to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison! "


Argh.

[corruptedjasper.livejournal.com]

It's hard enough in the 'normal' course of things to prove rape, as opposed to 'it was consensual, really!', or for that matter even 'yes, well, we're into S&M!'. When you can't even use testimony of the victim (assuming they're willing to testify in the first place), because convicted felon and testimony, not such a good match, and there is presumably no physical evidence in the first place unless they were caught more or less in flagrante, I'd say it'd be damn near impossible.

Also, a simple straight exchange of goods for sexual services, without coercion, that'd be prostitution, rather than rape. I'd guess that was how it started, before it got *really* ugly.