It's now ok to strip Grandma for any infraction

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
It's now ok to strip Grandma for any infraction
15
Mon, 04-02-2012 - 7:30pm

More proof that the conservatives won't stop until they have implemented a police state:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

Sickening.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
What was that again about "activist judges"?/
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009

I

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-03-2011
That wouldn't make sense, though, because when one is arrested, they don't go straight into the general prison population. Wouldn't they be held for arraignment, then if charges are filed, they can either get bail or remain in jail? In that case, then they would go into the regular jail population. Once they are convicted, then they go to prison. I think I have that correct...maybe not... Maybe someone can pipe in if they know how that works.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Prison workers are pros. They know that prisons are full of contraband, some of it quite dangerous...some of it made from items taken from within the prison. The intent of this ruling is to allow law enforcement to violate the civil rights of a hundred people in order to catch one person with contraband. And strip searches don't do a thing to deter people who smuggle things inside body cavities, which is how the hard core crowd gets contraband in. Its basic use is to humiliate people who may not even be guilty, and the practice is certainly unconstitutional...activist judges are refusing to protect people against unreasonable search.
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-16-2005
I believe that they have to do the searches in order to keep the general population in the jail as safe as possible, and the workers in the jail. As someone with family working in prisons I would rather see them come home alive over not checking someone entering the general jail population. My understanding is that this is not the same as being brought downtown to jail, but going to an actual prison.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011

A significant amount of contraband in a prison comes from those who work there - they make money on the side, especially with cell phones.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006

From the article:

"According to opinions in the lower courts, people may be strip-searched after arrests for violating a leash law, driving without a license and failing to pay child support. Citing examples from briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, Justice Breyer wrote that people have been subjected to “the humiliation of a visual strip-search” after being arrested for driving with a noisy muffler, failing to use a turn signal and riding a bicycle without an audible bell."

This is jail, not prison.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-16-2005
“Every detainee who will be admitted to the general population may be required to undergo a close visual inspection while undressed,” Justice Kennedy wrote, adding that about 13 million people are admitted each year to the nation’s jails."

I am not scared. To be admitted into the general population of a jail is how the justices see the law. The title and some examples are just too extreme for me. I believe this protects the greater good.

I also don't mind the scans at airports...I have been through them and it is what it is. If I want to fly that's the process..

If they did something illegal to you I would report it.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006

I live in a place where (thanks to calls for law and order) law enforcement has run amok.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011

It troubles me this vote was 5-4, and it carries a political feel to it. Yes, there is a need to protect from introduction of contraband, and in general, *all* who are consigned to a prison will undergo a strip search. It's already SOP.

IMO, there needs to be stringent guidelines, followed. To give carte blanche license... the court in general doesn't care much about those incarcerated. Federal law stipulates 54 days a year good time, but the BOP only gives 47, and the court upheld that shortage. I don't buy it, just as I don't buy privatised prisons, or the focus on punishment over education. The vast majority of these folks will one day be out, and I damn well want to see them ready to function as law abiding citizens, and right now we aren't taking that approach. This ruling is one more vague rule where there needs clear definition of purpose and procedure.

Pages