Former Congressman Learns About Streisand Effect

corbettw writes "Ted Alvin Klaudt, a former South Dakota lawmaker convicted of raping his two foster daughters, has sent news organizations what he claims is a copyright notice that seeks to prevent the use of his name without his consent." The story says Klaudt maintains "no one can use his name without his consent, and anyone who does would owe him $500,000."

Comments

Fair Use?

[EraserMouseMan]

I wonder how many times he used the foster girls without their permission.

Re:Fair Use?

[Tetsujin]

I wonder how many times he used the foster girls without their permission.

Well, I think his line of defense there has been that the girls laughed at his penis: therefore the entire act falls into the "parody" category.

Re:Fair Use?

[0100010001010011]

+1 Sad.

Scarring two teenage girls probably for life = Not Funny.

Re:Fair Use?

[Sponge Bath]

Wikipedia says 8 times proven in court. He must have gone to the Larry Craig/Mark Foley School of Family Values.

Re:Fair Use?

[digitalunity]

Indeed, but I think more noteworthy than this copyright claim is that he was sentenced to 44 years for rape.

Seems excessive doesn't it? I read the affidavit describing what he did exactly and it seems very predatory and wrong, but 44 years is a lot...

Re:Fair Use?

[timmarhy]

and how many years will those young girls suffer for what he has done? 44 years isn't enough.

Re:Fair Use?

[megamerican]

While in office, he co-sponsored several bills that took aim at sex offenders,

Ted Alvin Klaudt was simply thinking of the children by making sure no one like him would be around them, ever. That's what is known as a compassionate conservative.

Re:Fair Use?

[selven]

I find it hard to imagine that they're now suffering anything close to the way in which being locked in a 3*3*2 meter cage for half the day is suffering. 44 years is way more than I would give even for a double murder.

Re:Fair Use?

[geekoid]

the act of doing so isn't funny, that doesn't mean someone can't make a joke. Learn the difference.

Re:Fair Use?

[OakDragon]

if he wanted less time, less rape would have been a better plan

Yes, but who's got time to think about that when you're busy raping?

Re:Fair Use?

[digitalunity]

Sex is used as a basis to sell products across the nation every day. The media and advertisers have rammed it down our throats that beauty and sexual attractiveness mean being a skinny 19 year old girl. Whats the difference between a 19 and 17 year old girl? Essentially nothing on average. Our society has chosen numbers arbitrarily as a dividing line between those who can have sex legally.

Mix that with a society that consumes copious amounts of growth hormones in milk and meat products and has girls reaching physical sexual maturity at younger and younger ages and you're bound to have men attracted to younger and younger girls. It's a natural conclusion. For most of human history, sex, marriage and childbirth all followed closely after sexual maturity. Even now, some backwards countries like Saudi Arabia allow child marriage before puberty, but I agree this is wrong.

What this man did was wrong. I'm not trying to deny that. I'm merely saying that 44 years is a lot for succumbing to a desire that advertisers have implanted in his head. This man needs treatment. Incarceration won't give him that.

Additionally, what kind of idiot do you have to be to allow your stepfather to use a dildo on you to see if your eggs are healthy.... Jesus Christ what a moron.

Re:Fair Use?

[selven]

Maybe here people are much more tough-on-crime than I am. In Finland, at least, murder gets you locked in for only 10 years. And yet they're below the US in overall murder rates.

Re:Fair Use?

[Onymous Coward]

Ah, good catch. An important distinction.

But I might nuance that further. Interestingly, Craig and Klaudt do share the hypocritical-persecution-of-similar-others quality. They are jerks of a stripe this way.

This kind of thing seems so common that it's growing reflexive to narrow one's eyes at the more vocal bashers of child molesters and gays.

Re:Fair Use?

[Onymous Coward]

This sentiment may be unpopular with most folks, and Hammurabi, but I don't believe that people should be made to suffer for the sake of some kind of balancing out.

Sentences should be given for deterrence or containment. Not retribution.

I know it sounds kooky. I know it flies in the face of intuition. But that's what I think.

Re:Fair Use?

[pizzach]

So you're saying a temporary nullification of one persons rights is worth a permanent nullification of another's? If you are picturing prison as a man-built hell as I think you are, you are also saying that a man getting raped in prison over and over is not the same as a woman getting raped once.

You are no better than he is if that is what you are condoning.

Re:Fair Use?

[linhares]

thing is the American prison system is like an MIT PhD for turning anyone into an ultra-violent animal. Then after your years, it's back to society, pitbull; go have some fun out there.

Re:Fair Use?

[Ethanol-fueled]

I agree wholeheartedly. Society has become a self-hating dichotomy thanks to ceratin religions, which teache people to hate themselves and their urges which come naturally to them. Instead of recognizing them and dealing with them in a healthy manner, they end up repressing their urges and then snapping and performing acts like child rape. See also: Catholic Priests.

Much of the damage of rape comes not from the actual act (unless it was particularly violent) , but from all of the stigma and media circuses surrounding it. Parents freak out and yell, "OH, MY GOD!" and start screaming and crying, which dosen't help matters for the victim. Sex crimes are sexy - not to you and I, but to the media and to the prosecution who know they will profit from the circus, usually causing considerable anguish to the victim because rape is excessively emotionally-charged in our society.

People loved to foam at the mouth with regard to Roman Polanski, but they don't realize that things like that were widespread in funkier times. Even his so-called "victim", who consented and enjoyed the act, just wanted everybody to drop it and shut up about it. Gore Vidal dismissed the incident in an interview, saying , "Meh. That was the norm, and she was a hussy." Mick Jagger had sex with his friend's 13 year-old daughter and I don't see anybody wanting to cart him to the gallows. Pete Townshend was caught looking at boy porn and his music still graces the introductions of CSI shows! The people who love or hate Michael Jackson may not agree with what he did, but those who understand his childhood also understand why he's a weirdo.

We must end the cognitive dissonance in society and learn to see things for what they are. It makes no sense that we have a lifetime registrant list for rapists and not for murderers!

Re:Fair Use?

[dave562]

The thing is that those girls didn't have a choice about he was going to do with them. He had the choice, and he made the wrong choice. Now he gets to spend a good portion of the rest of his life in jail. He wasn't some 18 year old kid who grew up in a violent home and made some poor decisions with his girl friend and her sister. He was a grown man with the mental capacity to understand the heinous nature of his actions and yet he went through with them anyway. Why anyone is feeling sorry for him is far beyond me.

Re:Fair Use?

[quickOnTheUptake]

I agree that statutory rape is a bit of a crock (19 yr old boy and 17 year old girl scenarios), but look, these are his (foster) daughters. Men are not supposed to look at their daughters, nieces, or other much younger girls in his family or under his care as sexual objects. Doing so is not merely succumbing to a normal drive, it is a pretty fundamental perversion of basic relationships.

Re:Fair Use?

[Caraig]

Mmm... I disagree in some ways. While the ages of consent are somewhat arbitrary, there is a more important condition to be taken into account here: Ted Klaudt chose to put himself in a position of responsibility and authority over two girls whom the law says must have a guardian. If he had any inkling that he would want to molest them, then he would need to recuse himself from that responsibility. Instead, he chose

While I do agree that the American advertising culture is really rather sick, we are not machines. We are not some sort of Pavlov's monkeys, conditioned to screw at the drop of a dress. We are sentient beings, and Ted Klaudt is (ostensibly) an adult who, at various points in his adult life, has been considered capable of making his own decisions for right or for wrong, and for choosing for himself what he should or should not do. Regardless of what Klaudt has seen on television or in magazines, he -- just like everyone -- is responsible for his own actions. At the very least, he is responsible for recognizing himself as capable of molesting females to whom he has a legal responsibility for.

Moreover, he lied to the girls and tricked them into this situation. Again, he abused his position of authority.

The bottom line is that this was not consensual. It was rape. You might call them 'morons,' but there was nothing I saw in the articles that said that his molesting of them was consensual. They didn't want it, he did it anyway: Rape, pure and simple. It was his choice.

All this being said... I do agree that incarceration should be rehabilitative rather than punitive. IN the vast majority of criminal cases, locking someone up does no go whatsoever, and in fact has been shown to make a person even worse. In addition... not to put too fine a point on it, but Klaudt is not a spring chicken. American prison populations have a justly-deserved reputation of being incredibly bad (to put it mildly) for child rapists. I would not bet Vegas odds on Klaudt getting through even one of his prison terms. And for the record, I do not approve.

So, in conclusion: He chose of his own free will to rape his stepdaughters, and he needs to be put away so that, somehow, that can be rehabilitated out of him so that the thought of it never happens again. No magic moving-pictures box put those ideas into his head, nobody forced him to be a rapist. At the same time, locking him away and throwing away the key does society no good. We need better rehabilitative incarceration rather than punitative. How, though, I'm afraid I don't know.

Re:Fair Use?

[randy of the redwood]

the act of doing so isn't funny, that doesn't mean someone can't make a joke. Learn the difference.

Consider the case of Tiger Woods for a current example:

Difference between a Cadillac and a golf ball? Tiger can drive a golf ball over 300yds.

Why did Phil Michelson call Elin? To find out how to beat Tiger

Where was Elin the night Tiger crashed? Out clubbing.

and on it goes. Humor is a way of dealing with the awful. We'd all be happier if it didn't happen in the first place, but if it did happen, we might as well derive something positive from it.

Re:Fair Use?

[roguetrick]

I'm not saying this detracts from what your going for, but Labeling Theory seems to create a self fulfilling prophecy in the whole thing. I've always considered if an interesting thing. You call them hard criminals, you treat them like hard criminals, they become hard criminals.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, right, sorry. Once you have kids, you're allowed to throw all logic and reason out the window. I forgot about that.

Re:Fair Use?

[Eskarel]

To be perfectly honest, murder is probably a lesser crime. You can kill someone in a fit of rage, or by accident. You can be defending yourself. You can't accidentally rape your kids, even foster kids.

These kids were in his care, it was his job to look after them and protect them and instead he raped them. That's pretty much the most despicable thing you can do. He might not have been their father, but he was acting as their father, if you do that sort of thing to kids you're supposed to be caring for 44 years is far too lenient.

Re:Fair Use?

[twostix]

No more kooky than thinking that pink fairies live on the moon. You can think whatever you like, but what you think had better be backed by some solid evidence and reason as to why that's better.

Retribution against a person who has violated another by placing them in cold hard prisons is the only way to quench the primal *need* for retribution by the victim, the victims people and the victims community.

Ignore humanities primal needs at your peril, justice will be done either through the state apparatus in an orderly fashion, or in the style it was largely done before the 1900's; by the victims people metting out quick, harsh, brutal justice (occasionally against the wrong person). You see the state convinces the individuals in it that it's preferable to let it met out justice. But to be sure, if it fails to give a sense of justice to those wronged then the individuals will take the dishing out of justice back into their own hands.

And *I think* that you and the tiny fraction of people that think like you are just western middle class individuals who've been swaddled in cotton wool for your entire lives and have never suffered true violation at the hand of another. Not only that you have been led to believe that criminals are the true victims of the crime that they commit, and the victims are inanimate objects, whose feelings and needs are completely irrelevant to the matter. As you have just inferred.

That's what I think.

Re:Fair Use?

[Khashishi]

How can the grandparent post get modded a "5" and the parent get a "0"? There's nothing insightful at all about the GP. It's just vocalizing the popular opinion. It certainly doesn't make a good argument.

I've noticing more and more that Slashdot mod points are used to express agreement and disagreement rather than quality of post. Slashdot is showing more mob-censorship and conformity of opinion than just about any other site.

The punishment should be proportionate to the crime. It's ludicrous to think that molestation is anywhere near as traumatic as beating, psychological abuse, torture, or imprisonment. I'm not saying any of those are ok, but Americans have some way distorted views of anything sex. I swear, if the kid is still traumatized after many years, it's because the traumatic response was manufactured by counselors and psychologists.

Yeah, parents really sympathize with the whole "tough on crime" philosophy. Two eyes and an arm for an eye. Until, at least, their boys and girls grow up and start getting in trouble and the parents realize that their kids aren't quite the princes and princesses they thought they were. And now the parents get to grow old and die with nobody to take care of them because their kids are in jail for a long, long, time.

Re:Fair Use?

[electrons_are_brave]

Does that change what I said?

No.

Did I even make that claim?

The claim you made was that "Males of any species prefer young females because they're the healthiest."

You said this in the context of a discussion about whether it is natural for men to be attracted to young females in the broader context of a story about about a man who raped his foster-daugeter.

I took it that you agreed that it was natural for a male to be attracted to a young female because young = healthy = attractive.

Perhaps I should have read your post in a narrower context - i.e. as part of a discussion about why girls reach puberty younger these days.

What exactly was the point of your post?

The point of my post was that I doubted that he chose the healthiest/most attractive female. Only the most accessible.

An idea

[enderjsv]

Can I legally change my name to "The".

Re:An idea

[langelgjm]

That'll be $1 million, please.

Re:You said 'it'

[rockNme2349]

I wanted to post it 10 times in a row, but slashdot has a filter on too much repetition... who knew?

Lawyer in a Can

[b4upoo]

Where did this poor fool get his law training? Despair can make a fool out of a man but then again raping one's daughters sort of establishes that he is warped to begin with. It seems to me that we have special places to put people who rape their daughters.

Re: Lawyer in a Can

[enderjsv]

The south? I kid. I kid.

Who is this Ted Alvin Klaudt?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never heard of Ted Alvin Klaudt before, but it sounds like Ted Alvin Klaudt is a grade A jerk. Who does Ted Alvin Klaudt think Ted Alvin Klaudt is to try to claim copyright on Ted Alvin Klaudt's name? I can't wait to see Ted Alvin Klaudt get slapped down for trying to copyright Ted Alvin Klaudt. ...Ted Alvin Klaudt.

Re:Who is this Ted Alvin Klaudt?

[RancidPickle]

Did someone clone wacko lawyer Jack Thompson? It makes me nervous to have a politician with two of the three chipmunks in his name. Maybe he'll owe the trademark owner of Alvin and the Chipmunks 2/3rds of the proceeds.

Re:You said 'it'

[thetoadwarrior]

One more time and he would have appeared in your room.

Four Factors

[langelgjm]

Well, he might have a defense given three of the four factors:

Was the nature of the use commercial, or for non-profit, educational use?

Did he use the entire work, or just portions of it? (I'm guessing just portions.)

Did his use of the work affect its marketability?

Wow. Even I found that tasteless.

Re:Four Factors

[HarrySquatter]

Laura Malone, associated general counsel for intellectual property at The Associated Press, said names of people, companies and products cannot be protected under copyright law. Names can be protected under trademark law, but only in association with goods or services used in commerce, she said.

''Even if there was a valid trademark, the mere use of the name in a news story is not an infringement of trademark,'' Malone said Tuesday.

''There is no legal substance to these claims,'' she added.

Re:Four Factors

[Beardo the Bearded]

Wow. Even I found that tasteless.

Yeah, even for the Internet, that was bad.

Re:Four Factors

[Kjella]

Indeed. Next we'll be seeing pornography on it! Can you imagine?

If it's related to this case I'd rather not.

Re:Four Factors

[Blue Stone]

So what you're saying, if I'm reading you right, is that if someone else went around raping their own foster children, but calling themselves "Ted Alvin Klaudt", he would have a case for dilution of his brand and market confusion?

I bet he feels like a right chump for not registering his brand identity before now.

Re:Four Factors

[Anonymous Coward]

It absolutely does affect marketability. Even if the loss of virginity doesn't affect marketability, the girls' issues forming an initmate relationship with a boyfriend (because they have flashbacks to what their foster-father did) will cause issues with future boyfriends/husbands.

Re:Four Factors

[Dr. Hellno]

He was a Republican, not that I think it's really relevant. But it is kind of funny, given that he was an advocate for the type of hollow tough-on-crime/perversion measures that a certain segment of the Republicans favor. From Wikipedia:

"While in office, he co-sponsored several bills that took aim at sex offenders"

Ha!

Re:Four Factors

[Firehed]

It seems that these days, looking at what congress-critters are most fervently trying to make illegal is the easiest way to find out what kind of activities they partake in on the weekends.

The sad part is that's only about 20% joking.

Son of Sam

[Wireless Joe]

Assuming for a second that he actually has any ground to stand on.

Since his name is related to his crime (and felony conviction), wouldn't newspapers be protected by South Dakota's Son of Sam law, preventing him from profiting from stories/descriptions of his crimes? I guess he could win and give the money to charity, but that would mean even more publicity. The whole thing's ridiculous and he deserves whatever he gets.

From TF New York Times A:

[fahrbot-bot]

To quell any speculation on the legitimacy of Klaudt's claims:

Laura Malone, associated general counsel for intellectual property at The Associated Press, said names of people, companies and products cannot be protected under copyright law. Names can be protected under trademark law, but only in association with goods or services used in commerce, she said.

"Even if there was a valid trademark, the mere use of the name in a news story is not an infringement of trademark," Malone said Tuesday.

"There is no legal substance to these claims," she added.

IANAL, but...

[ghostis]

I thought names and phrases were the purview of trademark law and not covered by copyright law?

Re:You said 'it'

[Pieroxy]

who knew?

All of us that already tried to do something that stupid.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[EndlessNameless]

You cannot copyright a legal name. I.e., if a word or phrase is your official identifier it cannot be copyrighted. There is no precedent being set here; this man is simply stupid.

Whoever decided to make Klaudt a lawmaker is armed with weapons-grade stupidity and should be prosecuted as a terrorist.

Title wrong

[Wyatt Earp]

He isn't a "Congressman". He is a former member of the South Dakota House of Representatives, which would make him a former state legislator.

More Info

[DeadPixels]

The New York Times has a little bit more info on the story. Apparently he sent this notice from prison, where he's serving a 54-year sentence (44 for rape, 10 for witness tampering).

Not a "Congressman"

[MushMouth]

In the United States a Congressman is specifically a member of either the US Senate or US House of Representatives. This guy was a member of the South Dakota House of Representatives, which makes him a State Legislator or State Representative, but not a "Congressman".

Ok, here we go!

[Weaselmancer]

Ted Alvin Klaudt! Ted Alvin Klaudt!

Hm. So that's what it feels like to spend a million dollars.

Less satisfying than I had imagined.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[Fieryphoenix]

Even Disney cannot copyright "Disney". What they have is a trademark.

Ted Alvin Klaudt

[Adrian Lopez]

Sorry Slashdot, but I agree completely with Ted Alvin Klaudt. If I were Ted Alvin Klaudt and had been convicted, as Ted Alvin Klaudt was, of raping my foster daughters, I too would have scrambled for ways to prevent the media from commenting on my transgressions, just like Ted Alvin Klaudt is doing. Some may say employing copyright law in the manner of Ted Alvin Klaudt constitutes blatant abuse of the legal system, but I, as Ted Alvin Klaudt, feel otherwise. Ted Alvin Klaudt hasn't done anything wrong (with respect to the copyright thing, not the rape thing), and I wish him (Ted Alvin Klaudt) the best of luck.

Godspeed, Ted Alvin Klaudt. Godspeed.

Re:Wait, slow this train down

[mea37]

A few things.

1) The domain name disputes are over trademark, not copyright. The rules for trademark are completely different from the rules for copyright.

2) The domain name disputes are not a direct result of any IP law - not even trademark, and certainly not copyright. They are essentially a result of regulatory policies specifically surrounding domain name management. Trademark law would not, on its own, forbid me from registering disney.com (though it would prevent me from using disney.com to compete in any commercial space where Disney is a recognized trademark).

3) In any event, even if the esteemed congressman had asserted trademark over his name, that would not forbid its use by news outlets. Trademark protection is not nearly that broad.

The copyright assertion is not only stupid, it is in direct contradiction to the law.

Link to his sex offender page

[h4rr4r]

http://sor.sd.gov/results.asp?nav=7

You have to do a search for him after agreeing to some terms.

I wonder if he plans to sue the state over this?

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[Falconhell]

Whilst this mans acts are undoubtably horrifying, the pride with which people from the US regard further crimes taking place in gaol disgusts me.

A prisoner once jailed is under the protection of the state and should not be subject to violence.
The obvious enjoyment of this is sickening.

WOW

[greatgreygreengreasy]

Is his listed weight correct? 565 pounds?!!! How could he force the girls to even FIND his penis, let alone use it against them???

anyone wanna buy ....

[Gone84]

tedalvinklaudt.com ???

Do you really believe rape is bad b/c of the act?

[boombaard]

Are you seriously trying to peddle the thought that rape is "just something that happens to you. don't worry about it, you'll get over it"? Ugh. Sure, you can talk people into a PTSD, or whatever, but the problem with rape really isn't that it's happened; the trouble is with trying to cope with the fact that you (as a woman) apparently do not have full autonomy over your body, over the fact that sensations were produced in it against your will by your assailant, etc., and then trying to talk yourself into the fact that that doesn't mean that you wanted it (as you'll be told by those self-righteous conservative christians that call themselves human). The effects that has on a person, especially a (pre-)teen, who is still forming his/her personality, are enormous. How is that not a permanent effect of your "temporarily nullifying someone's right to autonomy"?

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[DoninIN]

Yeah, what's up with that? Americans (I am one, I'm proud of it generally) seem to take a perverse satisfaction in the fact that we have control over our prisons and they're essentially a playground for the worst, most violent despicable of our criminal elements. Prison isn't so bad if you're a monster, all the drugs, sex and violence you want. This really doesn't seem like proper punishment, and it's certainly not rehabilitation. Why is it we have essentially the most severe sentencing policies of any civilized nation, and the highest crime rate of any civilized nation?

When doves cry...

[TiggertheMad]

Perhaps we should start referring to this guy as the asshole formerly named 'Ted Alvin Klaudt'?

Re:When doves cry...

[FatdogHaiku]

Perhaps we should start referring to this guy as the CONVICTED CHILD FUCKER formerly named 'Ted Alvin Klaudt'?

Having been somewhat of an asshole in times past, I thought a bit of clarification was in order. An asshole is someone that cuts you off on the freeway... Now, there's a good chance he will be someone's special asshole every night, but I don't think that's the way you were using the word.

Re:When doves cry...

[FatdogHaiku]

Doesn't Ted Alvin Klaudt charge people 500 grand for using the Ted Alvin Klaudt name? then I guess I'll have to stop using Ted Alvin Klaudt's name or he might try to collect from me . . .

Tell him you're a kid, I hear they get a special deal!
Seriously, the dude is over 550 pounds...
http://freakbits.com/media/Ted-Alvin-Klaudt.jpg
if he comes to collect, wait until he is right up to you and then walk away at a brisk pace.

Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[Valdrax]

Larry Craig is a jerk, not a predator.

So what? That's like excusing someone who kills a guy in a bar fight because he's not a serial killer who keeps his victim's head in the fridge. The difference is only a matter of degrees. Both are wrong.

Craig and Klaudt were "moral values" Republicans who sponsored numerous bills attempting to outlaw acts or discriminate against people that were guilty of things they themselves did. Both ran on campaigns that portrayed themselves as highly moral people on issues of sexual behavior (which inherently imply or explicitly state themselves to be superior to their opponents on these issues) all while engaging in pure hypocrisy. Klaudt backed numerous tough anti-pedophile laws in South Dakota and fought to keep children from getting contraception at schools in a bid to keep children from having sex. Craig has voted consistently against gay rights over the past decade. Both are utter hypocrites.

Just because people might be more sympathetic to gay sex in a bathroom, compared to child molestation, doesn't mitigate the fact that they themselves harped on the immorality of such actions, that they profited from votes gained from "taking the high road," and that they did so while engaging in the very acts they vilified.

(Side note: Craig was rumored as far back as 1982 as having been involved with male, teenage pages, so he might actually be a predator, but that's irrelevant to my point.)

Re:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[drsmithy]

So what? That's like excusing someone who kills a guy in a bar fight because he's not a serial killer who keeps his victim's head in the fridge. The difference is only a matter of degrees.

Actually, the difference in that example is highly likely to be intent - and intent is a non-trivial differentiator.

Back to the original discussion, there's also the fundamental difference between consensual acts between adults, and child abuse - not just differences of "degree".

Re:Mere degrees of sexual hypocrisy

[tftp]

excusing someone who kills a guy in a bar fight because he's not a serial killer who keeps his victim's head in the fridge. The difference is only a matter of degrees.

That would be about 50 degrees F, assuming a common kitchen fridge.

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[ffflala]

Not all people from the US feel this way.

It's a fair guess that most actually do not feel this way, considering that the Prison Rape Elimination Act was passed in 2003, during a time when those whose political ideals seem most likely to approve of retributive prison violence were in control of all major branches of government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_Rape_Elimination_Act_of_2003

Re:Not in Jail long enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let's be as brutal as we can be to the evil criminals. And those people who were wrongly convicted, well, they aren't me, and it's 100% impossible for me to ever be in that position, so I don't give a shit. Sure sucks to be them.

In principle, I'm actually on board with the shoot-them-behind-the-courthouse school of justice. I think some crimes warrant it. But in practice, I find it very hard to accept the argument that our justice system should be dishing out that sort of thing. Too much potential for corruption, for frame-ups, for regular old honest mistakes. Would you be OK with receiving the kind of unplesantless and brutality you advocate for criminals? No? But there are lots of innocent people sent to jail. It happens. If you wouldn't be willing to be one of them, then you should be standing up for humane jails, JUST IN CASE YOU ARE ONE OF THEM SOME DAY. It's the rational thing to do.