Talk:Prison rape

In this article, we will explore various facets of Talk:Prison rape, delving into its importance, implications and relevance in the _var2 field. From its origins to its current evolution, Talk:Prison rape has played a fundamental role in _var3, greatly influencing _var4. Throughout this analysis, we will examine the different perspectives that have emerged around Talk:Prison rape, considering its effects on _var5 and its impact on _var6. With a critical and detailed look, we will delve into the most relevant aspects of Talk:Prison rape, discovering its connections with _var7 and its potential for _var8. Through this journey, we seek to expand the understanding about Talk:Prison rape and its implication in today's world.


140,000 prisoners raped yearly?

I think the Human rights watch article is being misquoted. following the link it mentions 140,000 but this could be during the prisoner's lifetime. Indeed elsewhere on their site they have this quote:

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/12/15/us-federal-statistics-show-widespread-prison-rape

"Given a national prison population of 1,570,861, the BJS findings suggest that in one year alone more than 70,000 prisoners were sexually abused"

78.86.146.15 (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but the author of this article is comparing a single study to a meta-analysis that includes that study. Why single out the first study at all? Also note that the first study is actually citing a different study done 5 years earlier! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.28.103 (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I was confused by this bit:

"Just Detention International estimate that young men are five times more likely to be attacked and that the prison rape victims are ten times more likely to contract a deadly sexually transmitted disease."

"More likely" than who or what? 174.111.242.35 (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

must be meaning "as opposed to (the pool of) those who haven't been raped in prison".176.63.176.112 (talk) 17:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC).

Discussion Prior to Article Re-write:

Viewpoint of prison rape perceived by authorities as part of punishment

Does anyone have any real proof that this has actually happened? It all sounds like anti-gay rhetoric to me.

Would it be considered inflammaory or advancing the neutrality of this article to include a point of view pertaining to the following:

“prisoners are convinced that prison rape is an integral part of the prison punishment system,” adding that inmates frequently contend that “…prison rape is sanctioned by prison authorities. They view it as the ultimate method of control and punishment” (1974, p. X). It is in this manner that the prison staff essentially serves to perpetuate and exacerbate the labeling process for “homosexuals” within the prison."

Source being: Weiss, C. & Friar, D. J. (1974). Terror in prisons: Homosexual rape and why society condones it. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merril, Inc.

Excerpt obtained from: http://www.shsu.edu/~piic/summer2002/Hanser.htm

Reporduction permission unknown / unstated. Xiaou 23:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Garbage

The mother of a rape victim who committed suicide in prison testified in Congress that a prison warden told her before her son’s suicide that, “This happens to everbody. Learn to deal with it. It’s no big deal.”

Proof? Citation? This sounds like B.S. tripe to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.29.110 (talk) 07:31, November 2, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that there is no citation is troubling (and thus the connection between prison rape and suicide should likely be covered in a different way), but the rates of suicide for survivors of rape are higher in the "free world," so it would come as no surprise to think the same for those in prison as well. As the folks at Human Rights Watch point out in their report below, the statistics for suicide in the context of rape are likely to increase when the victim feels as if there is no chance that the victimization will come to an end, and that his or her safety remains in danger. This is certainly the case for victims of rape that remain incarcerated with their victimizers. Blondlieut 16:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you think it "sounds like B.S. tripe." A 2002 Cincinnati Enquirer column at http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2002/11/20/loc_bronson20.html gives more info (I found it by Googling the quote):
"During testimony in Congress, Linda Bruntmyer told about her son Rodney Hulkin - a little guy, sent to prison at age 16 for vandalism. He was repeatedly raped and beaten. Before he hanged himself, his mother asked the warden for help. She says she was told, 'This happens to everybody, learn to deal with it. It's no big deal.'" 174.111.242.35 (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Bias Towards Race

"Black-on-black rape is by far the most common aggressor/victim combination in that State." Citation? Proof? Statistics? 209.195.139.131 16:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

On bias as a whole, let's remove most of the uses of the word "gay" from this article. It's true that imates who rape other inmates often call them gay and that this is a projection of their own fear over their actions. It's also true that they feel threatened by new inmates who refuse to rape for similar reasons. That being said, they are in general not gay and the constant use of the word in this article is both questionable and appears foolish. - Kuzain 07:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I tend to disagree with Kuzain's analysis. It may very well be the case that the "gay" in the prison context means something different than in the free world. Then again, "sex" means something different in the prison context than in the free world. To the extent that so many young men, particular young men in the so-called "underclass" are inculcated into the sex mores of anti-female and anti-gay world of prison sex (where gay and female are conflated, and degraded, and thereafter victimized, regardless of the victims' pre-prison sexual identity), talking about sexual orientation is relevant. It's also worth noting that in the context of prison, being (actually) gay, for both prisoners and guards, seems to make the victim of sexual aggression impossible to categorize as a victim of "rape," given the strange and bizarre ways in which prison sex is imagined and categorized. Of course, even to speak of someone who is "actually" gay is somewhat of the mark, as in prison culture, once someone is "turned out" (i.e., forcibly sodomized, and "made" gay), he becomes the virtual equivalent of someone who in the outside world we might otherwise recognized as someone would be otherwise gay. It may be that a more nuanced and a more thorough explanation of the issue is merited, however.Blondlieut 16:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, my understanding is that this is not in fact the case, that white inmates are more likely to be victims of rape, and that the agressor is far more likely not likely to be white. While there are many whites in prison who likewise are preparators of prison rape, their victims tend to be other whites. The reasons for this are unclear. I'll try to find a reference. Blondlieut 20:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed whites do tend to be victims far more often. Here is a citation to a report by Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/report4.html#_1_27 A very thorough, professional report that covers many questions, including those regarding sexual orientation. Blondlieut 00:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
"the reasons are unclear" Isn't it obvious? Whites are disproportionally targeted by minorities for rape in prisons rather then the other way around. It is obvious that whites a purposely sought after, disproportionally by nonwhites. I guarentee you if the statistics were the other way around (minorities are more likely to be targeted by whites), people would scream racism without a pause. The issue would also get a lot more coverage. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/29/uprisons.xml Instead, due to political correctness, people are afraid to call prison rape for a what it is, that many are black-on-white hate crimes. Just call a spade a spade, we all know why these statistics are the way they are. --Jtd00123 (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Stormfront??

Do we really need an external link to a well-known hate group? Keep in mind that having it casts a different light on the race section in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.102.180 (talk) 16:40, June 8, 2006 (UTC)

Down-Low

"There appears to be significant variation in the rates of prison rape by race, as documented by Human Rights Watch . Usually in US male prisons, perpetrators seem to be mostly African Americans. ]. Victims tend to be weak or isolated white men."

I don't see what the down-low has to do with prison rape. I see that this statement seems to suggest that only black men are on the down-low so I'm removing the link from this paragraph. While both topics may deal with sexual activity among memebers of the same sex, prison rape is a brutal crime that has to with particpation in sexual activity that is against the will of another, that can be perpetuated by a person of any racial group. Where as being on the down-low merely enatils secretly engaging in sexual activity with memebers of the same sex regardless of racial identity. Even though it is possible that there are prisoners on the down-low who may be involved in prison rape, neither activity precludes, nor requires the other. If anyone diagrees, I'm listening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.35.20 (talk • contribs) 14:52, July 30, 2006 (UTC)

This article blows

That and it's incredibly biased (the part where the article states that comedians who joke about homosexuals enjoying rape are bigoted). Also, there are no citations and the entire artice seems to be based on original research/one persons opinion.

No pun intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.65.190 (talk) 08:07, August 22, 2006 (UTC)

Really crappy article

This needs a complete re-write with sourced material. This is a lot of BS. Very bad article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fourdee (talk • contribs) 12:23, August 27, 2006

Start of a gutted rewrite

I took at stab at gutting out the unsubstantiatable or non-encyclopedic stuff from this article and re-ordering it a bit so that information falls under the heading it belongs. I actually ripped out all the race stuff because I figured it could be added back in more deliberately if references or anything like that were found. Eh, I dunno, revert me if you want. Or, use this as a starting block. What is there now and unreferenced I'm pretty sure could easily be, and I'll probably come back and do that tomorrow! --joeOnSunset 06:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I took off the disputed tag since I took out the, I think superfluous, race section. --joeOnSunset 06:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I've come back and added end references (not numbered inline, someone else might want to do that though) and done a litle more cleaning. I've taken off the "complete rewrite" template since I think this is a starting block to build on now. Along those lines, I've added the "expand" template. There's a lot more info in the cited references that could be added, and also to be gleaned from the 'see also' articles. --joeOnSunset 18:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I reviewed the changes, reorganized the layout, and removed the expired / defunct tags for citations. It is basically now a stub of main article Rape. it is still heavilly biased toward United States demographics. All US-specific content will be moved to main article for Prison Rape in United States. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Donaldson

Should there be a mention of Stephen Donaldson, since he spearheaded so much of the group? Rsm99833 06:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about SPR? If so, mention of him would belong (in my mind) in the Stop Prisoner Rape article. --joeOnSunset 18:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoops. My bad. I thought I was on the SPR article. Rsm99833 19:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Prison sexuality?

It seems to me there is alot of overlap between prison sexuality and prison rape. They essentially are talking about the same thing. Shouldn't a merger be in order? Justinmeister 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, and the idea is so absurd as to be almost offensive. Deleuze 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
whoooooaaa. Let's not get upset. I'm not saying that prison rape is synonymous with sex in prison, but the majority of the prision sexuality article IS talking about non-consensual sex. I'm just proposing having just one article called prison sexuality, with different sections about consensual and non-consensual relationships. cheers. Justinmeister 01:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Not upset, I just think the idea is more trouble than it could possibly be worth. Centralization is a minor benefit compared to the problems of conflating consensual and non-consensual sexual activity especially when the two are already popularly perceived as one. Deleuze 09:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It's just that one article is talking about non-consual sexual activity specifically while the other is just about general prison sexuality. My problem is that the prison rape article mostly repeats the prison sexuality article. if two articles are in order, then they should be called Consensual prison sexuality and non-consensual prison sexuality. If it's deemed through consensus that only one is neccesary, the article should make it clear that the difference between the two types of sexual activity. At the present, the prison sexuality article gives the impression that prison sexuality and rape ARE synonymous. Just a thought. Justinmeister 00:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I second Deleuze above when he says merging would be a "minor benefit compared to the problems of conflating consensual and non-consensual sexual activity." Imagine searching for prison rape, only to find a page that discusses consensual acts in prison... it just confuses the discussion. --chodges 06:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
So logically, the article named prison sexuality should be renamed consensual prison sexuality (or whatever) and the content that belongs in the prison rape article should be removed. Justinmeister 19:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It makes no difference whether it is merged with "prison sexuality" or not. In fact it should exist in both places -- as a stand alone article, and as a part of an article called "prison sexuality." It is a very important subject, and it should be handled with complete thoroughness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bus stop (talk • contribs) 22:25, November 19, 2006
The word "rape" has to be included in an article about prison rape. Most people looking for information on the subject are not going to think to look for "Non-Consensual Prison Sexuality." I know I wouldn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bus stop (talk • contribs) 22:31, November 19, 2006
Searching for something along the lines of "prison rape", will still direct you to the prison sexuality article anyway. My suggestion would be to rename the article "prison sex" (in many cases rape has little to do with sexuality, particularly for the victim), then in the opening paragraph detail the various levels of consensuality to the reader. It's really not just a simple case of they're being both rape and consensual sex in prisons, sure there's outright rape - which is what I'm guessing most people in this discussion mean by the term - but there's also sex between between prisoners which doesn't quite fall into this definition, but clearly isn't fully-consensual sex either (sex due to intimidation, blackmail, for protection, etc.). - 81.179.155.182 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Prisoner rape vs prison rape

It was Donaldson's contention that the phrase "prison rape" was a bad construction meaning literally the rape of a prison. He recommended "prisoner rape" as the proper construction. Hence the article "prison rape" should redirect to "prisoner rape". Since there is a distinction between "prisoners" and the more general class of those in "custody" the question of whether "prisoner rape" should redirect to "custodial rape" reduces to whether those should be separate articles. Jim Bowery 06:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't "prison rape" an established term that most, if not all, people would recognize as signifying what the current article deals with? __meco 16:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. But that is independent of the question I raised, which is what should be the priority among the redirects?Jim Bowery 19:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well if the argument is only that the article should be re-titled because "prison rape" in an imprecise term, consider that prison rape means "rape in a prison," not "rape of a prison." (Just as 'home exercise' would mean exercise in the home, not exercise of a home.) Also, I think the title of the article should determined from more of a descriptivist, not prescriptivist perspective. That is, the title shouldn't be what one thinks people should be using for the term, but what people actually are using. Just my $0.02. --joeOnSunset 07:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

In Pop Culture

Should there be something about prisoner rape in pop culture? I know that over the last ten or fifteen years the concept of rape has become one of the dominant themes in popular conceptions of prison life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.221.152 (talk) 22:26, April 25, 2007 (UTC)

Yes there should be. The information exists and it has been linked to the issue in other fora. --Wonder J (talk) 23:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been some interesting academic work published on Oz, as well as some other aspects of prison rape in pop culture. This will be added, hopefully as work progresses on this article. --Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 10:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Global tag addition

I've added the US-centric tag to the article because nearly the entire thing refers only to US examples, organisations, statistics, etc. Perhaps it is because of a lack of sufficient examples from other countries, but the article uses only the US Justice Department, only US figures, etc, as evidence of the wider "prison rape" (which I'd assume would happen nearly everywhere). Bronzey (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I have been working hard on prison rape related articles, undertaking a major expansion of PREA and creating NPREC. In my research I have seen several scholarly papers on prison rape in other countries, most notably parts of the United Kingdom. Since the passage of the act in the United States there has been an intense upswell in the amount of academic research being committed to this, this, violent crime. Perhaps I will stop by this article and do some work after I finish up there. :) --Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that this article be moved to or a new article be created called Prison rape in the United States) or Prison rape (United States) incorporating relevant text from this article, and a new article be created here, utilizing, as much as possible, summary style. I have come across articles on the topic in Australia and the United Kingdom. I am not sure how exactly to structure it but I think the least biased way would be to use the country names as sections to refer to main articles such as Prison rape in the United Kingdom or Prison rape in Australia when they are needed. Subsections of specific national relevance could be included in the new Prison rape article as well as, eventually in the country main article. Thoughts?--Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm for it!--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Wonder if anyone else is active on this article. Would you be interested in working on something like this, the current article is such a mixed bag, some referenced, some not, some confusing and out of context, etc. Thoughts?--Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I also went ahead and created Category:Prison rape, as there are several related articles now that belong in that category more than Category:Prison sexuality. I put this article in the new cat too, since no one reverted I assume it is okay, if not the merits of whether individual articles belong to it can be discussed.--Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I was about to suggest the exact same thing. I see no reason why this article should not be moved to Prison rape in the United States, since there is hardly a word here that doesn't relate to the US. The name now is simply misleading. Then, if someone in the future should decide to write an article on the subject from a global perspective, the page could be recreated. Lampman Talk to me! 14:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I made the move. *crosses fingers*--Heyitspeter (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me, I am going to begin compiling some stuff below, feel free to dive right into it, I will be trying to slowly add more to the list below. --Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Other countries

  • World Stories: Prison Rape]; not sure what to title the above red link, seems like we may not find too many sources on just one nation. The source above talks about Kenya and Zanzibar (a island portion of Tanzania)

--Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. At the moment, prison rape redirects to the United States article, which is absurd and almost implies that the problem does not exist outside the US! The redir is, I think, an auto-created one as a result of the earlier move of the article, but it still looks terrible. 86.149.132.157 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
i really have to wonder how much point there is in having all those separate articles. The underlying concept of "prison rape" is the same in whichever place, and i can't foresee there being a lot of distinctively regional material that would justify regional articles either. I say move this page back to prison rape now and, if any worthwhile region-specific information comes to light, just fold it into that article under a new sub-heading. As it stands, it's a masterclass in pre-emptive disambiguation. tomasz. 17:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Obviously the material can be added here, seperate articles should only be created if their needed. Sheesh.--Aujourd'hui, maman est morte (talk) 05:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. In the meantime, I have done as 70.55.85.122 suggested and created Prison rape with the intro of this article. Continue as consensus so chooses. JPG-GR (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

i think we should write the general "prison rape" article first, then deal with detailed region-specific forks as and where appropriate. This article may be hopelessly US-centric at the moment, but that's a reason for a {{global}} tag and rewrites, not a narrowing of the article's whole focus to the over-represented area. tomasz. 09:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. There is no prison rape article - other than this one, which at 11,505 bytes should be expanded to include other countries. 199.125.109.52 (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, see my later comment in this section for explanation.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, create a stub from the intro of this article at Prison rape and tag it with {{expand}} and the appropriate stubs. The stub should have a section called "United States" with a {{main}} pointing to this article, and a {{globalize/US}} at the top. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
But what's the advantage of creating a regionally-specific fork of a phenomenon before there's even a general overview of it? Cart before the horse if you ask me. tomasz. 12:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. It doesn't matter whether the chicken or the egg came first, we need both articles on Wikipedia, in whatever order they appear. E.g., if an article on Jean-Paul Sartre is developed before an article on Existentialism is created, this doesn't mean that we should delete the former in anticipation of the latter.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • But JP Sartre isn't a more detailed examination of the area "existentialism" in the way that prison rape (US) is just a more detailed examination of "prison rape". The former are entirely distinct topics (a man vs. a philosophy); the latter are merely different levels of focus on the exact same topic. Also we don't currently have both articles, just the more specific one. Surely that's backwards. tomasz. 08:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moving for Capitilization

I think that Prison rape should be moved to Prison Rape to make it capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.222.73 (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the title is fine the way it is... Although a redirect from Prison Rape to Prison rape would be nice. 74.196.84.182 (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 Done But what was the reasoning behind capitalizing the word "Rape"? -- œ™ 22:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Updating this entry

It seems there hasn't been much action on this for a while, but I think this entry sorely needs to be improved. I am going to work on a new version, if anyone else would like to help, that would be great.

Justdetention (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No sexual motivation?

I think that there's still an ongoing debate about that subject, but I don't think that ALLWAYS (as the article implies) the rape in jail is for power and domination rather than sex, specially because of the severe limitation of the inmates for sexual partners and their sexual needs. Of course that the need for power and domination is also a factor but the only? or the main? I'm not sure of that and shut be references for that declaration. --Lucifer2000 (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This page should be titled Prison rape in the USA or the Americas

There is no prison rape in Scandinavia and perhaps not in continental Europe. This is probably related to the concept of homosexuality. In hyper Christian societies, like USA and El Salvador, the view of homosexuality seems to be related to the Biblical definition. Effeteness. If a masculine male rapes an effeminate male, only the effete male is gay. In Europe both are gay. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay. The idea to have sex with another male just never enters the mind of a straight European male. Not because they are more male or masculine. It is a cultural thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It could happen anywhere, and the chances of it happening in Europe are not zero percent. Since prison rape is not restricted to the Americas, the article change is meaningless. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21Repørts
It does occur in other countries, and the article should be beefed up with new sections. Here are some sources:
  • UK – Lytton, Charlotte (17 September 2014). "There's No Ignoring New Prison Rape Statistics". Daily Beast.
  • Brazil – Braunschweiger, Amy (19 October 2015). "Witness: The Horrors of Brazil's Prisons – Jorge's Story". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 4 November 2017.
  • UK – Doward, Jamie (1 May 2010). "My son was raped in jail – the crime was ignored". The Guardian. Retrieved 4 November 2017.
Mathglot (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia