Thursday, May 19, 2011

Last two weeks of Writing 2 2011

Writing 2 Tim Fitzmaurice Spring 2011
Final weeks

Final Project Essay is Due June 8th
The project includes a presentation and an essay. What you say in the oral presentation does not have to be the content of your essay.

The essay should be between 5 and 7 pages long with six or more citations from articles, encyclopedia entries, books, and or other media. Beware of weak (wiki-type) supporting websites. We want to use scholarly supporting evidence. I also encourage you to seek out interviews with people who k now about the issue.

The essay is based on your survey of an issue of violence in the community. You need to decide the parameters of the research question as you develop it for the group project. The oral presentation should give you more ideas about what needs to be included. The final essay is due during finals week.

Due Wednesday May 25th
Write a two-page essay using the film (“Lock Up Lock Down”), the book Violence, and/or your visit to the jail, in which you take a position and support your view with material from the sources we have. Three or more citations.

The Calendar in brief:
Monday, May 23
Due a list of sources you have found for your essay.
Please give me a list of 5 articles, 1 book, and 1 encyclopedia entry and, if possible, a reference to CQ Researcher that relate to your presentation

Wednesday May 25
The final meeting before presentations.
Due a two-page essay on incarceration.

Friday May 27
Presentations

Monday May 30 HOLIDAY

Wednesday June 1
Presentations

Friday June 3 Last Day of Class
Presentations

Wednesday June 8
Final essay due
Final revision due

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Essay 2

Writing 2 Tim Fitzmaurice Essay 2 assignment Due April 25
Read the Chapters 7 & 9 in 75 Arguments that discuss issues of identity and marriage. You can include essays from other Chapters as well. No Web Sources please.
Write a four-page essay with references to at least three essays from our text. You have choices for this essay:

1. On Identity and Race: based on essays in Chapter 9.
You can discuss the situation of race and ethnicity in American culture at the present times, where “the existence of racially mixed persons challenges the long-held notions about biological, moral and social meaning of race” (428). Are we in a new phase of this discussion, beyond race? Maria Root says race and ethnicity has not disappeared:

At a personal level race is very much in the eye of the beholder; at a political level, race is in the service of economic and social privilege. Similarly, ethnic identity is relevant only in an ethnically heterogeneous environment…. Our confusion of race and ethnicity indicates that it will be difficult to abandon the smoke screen that hides our ‘caste system’ surrounding theory politics, health care, education, and other resources. (428)

The confusion does seem challenging. How has it been sorted out in your experience—or further confused. Don’t neglect the Staples’ essay and his comment about how these issues are expressed everyday in our lives.

2. On Marriage: Based on readings in Chapter 7.
Look at marriage as a feature that may shape your identity. Judy Brady says famously “who wouldn’t want a wife?” (320) Certainly people have been hobbled, exploited, by the demands of marriage. Have they been liberated by it in any way? Marriage is for some people an embattled arrangement and for some a meaningless tradition. This political tumult and cultural controversy seems relatively new, even though the problems of divorce, equality, perplexity about arranging marriages, and fidelity are very old. Maybe we are just getting to a point where we can talk about these matters with some openness.
Does the institution still have a part to play in the way we create our lives and identity? From the equal rights proposal of Stanton to Sullivan’s case for gay marriage, we can see that the institution has been used to keep people in social places. It is still a strong social force. But can the institution still function to bring fulfillment to people or is it too battered by politics and cultural forces? It is on the ballot for next fall—Should marriage be limited to man and woman? Does marriage require defining—for certain people? Should it never be “arranged” but always unfettered? Does the vow of commitment have meaning? Is divorce an “individual right” or does it have “stakeholders” (339)? What should marriage mean to us?




3. On Morality and Capitalism

Please read Milton Friedman’s essay, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits.” Please write a comment on the blog when you have read it. The address is timfitz.blogspot.com. Do Businesses have a duty to act morally and in fact do they have a duty to be socially responsible and invest in the community? Read our Chapter 8 and devise an essay that presents your view of capitalism and moral duty. This essay can take many directions depending on the essays that you decide to use. I want to see several quotes from different essays

Capitalism and Morality 1

The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
Milton Friedman
The New York Times Magazine
September 13, 1970
When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the "social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system," I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned "merely" with profit but also with promoting desirable "social" ends; that business has a "social conscience" and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are--or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously--preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.
The discussions of the "social responsibilities of business" are notable for their analytical looseness and lack of rigor. What does it mean to say that "business" has responsibilities? Only people have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but "business" as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities, even in this vague sense. The first step toward clarity in examining the doctrine of the social responsibility of business is to ask precisely what it implies for whom.
Presumably, the individuals who are to be responsible are businessmen, which means individual proprietors or corporate executives. Most of the discussion of social responsibility is directed at corporations, so in what follows I shall mostly neglect the individual proprietors and speak of corporate executives.
In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to their basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Of course, in some cases his employers may have a different objective. A group of persons might establish a corporation for an eleemosynary purpose--for example, a hospital or a school. The manager of such a corporation will not have money profit as his objectives but the rendering of certain services.
In either case, the key point is that, in his capacity as a corporate executive, the manager is the agent of the individuals who own the corporation or establish the eleemosynary institution, and his primary responsibility is to them.
Needless to say, this does not mean that it is easy to judge how well he is performing his task. But at least the criterion of performance is straight-forward, and the persons among whom a voluntary contractual arrangement exists are clearly defined.
Of course, the corporate executive is also a person in his own right. As a person, he may have many other responsibilities that he recognizes or assumes voluntarily--to his family, his conscience, his feelings of charity, his church, his clubs, his city, his country. He may feel impelled by these responsibilities to devote part of his income to causes he regards as worthy, to refuse to work for particular corporations, even to leave his job, for example, to join his country's armed forces. If we wish, we may refer to some of these responsibilities as "social responsibilities." But in these respects he is acting as a principal, not an agent; he is spending his own money or time or energy, not the money of his employers or the time or energy he has contracted to devote to their purposes. If these are "social responsibilities," they are the social responsibilities of individuals, not business.
What does it mean to say that the corporate executive has a "social responsibility" in his capacity as businessman? If this statement is not pure rhetoric, it must mean that he is to act in some way that is not in the interest of his employers. For example, that he is to refrain from increasing the price of the product in order to contribute to the social objective of preventing inflation, even though a price increase would be in the best interests of the corporation. Or that he is to make expenditures on reducing pollution beyond the amount that is in the best interests of the corporation or that is required by law in order to contribute to the social objective of improving the environment. Or that, at the expense of corporate profits, he is to hire "hardcore" unemployed instead of better qualified available workmen to contribute to the social objective of reducing poverty.
In each of these cases, the corporate executive would be spending someone else's money for a general social interest. Insofar as his actions in accord with his "social responsibility" reduce returns to stockholders, he is spending their money. Insofar as his actions raise the price to customers, he is spending the customers' money. Insofar as his actions lower the wages of some employees, he is spending their money.
The stockholders or the customers or the employees could separately spend their own money on the particular action if they wished to do so. The executive is exercising a distinct "social responsibility," rather than serving as an agent of the stockholders or the customers or the employees, only if he spends the money in a different way than they would have spent it.
But if he does this, he is in effect imposing taxes, on the one hand, and deciding how the tax proceeds shall be spent, on the other.
This process raises political questions on two levels: principle and consequences. On the level of political principle, the imposition of taxes and the expenditure of tax proceeds are governmental functions. We have established elaborate constitutional, parliamentary and judicial provisions to control these functions, to assure that taxes are imposed so far as possible in accordance with the preferences and desires of the public--after all, "taxation
2
without representation" was one of the battle cries of the American Revolution. We have a system of checks and balances to separate the legislative function of imposing taxes and enacting expenditures from the executive function of collecting taxes and administering expenditure programs and from the judicial function of mediating disputes and interpreting the law.
Here the businessman--self-selected or appointed directly or indirectly by stockholders--is to be simultaneously legislator, executive and jurist. He is to decide whom to tax by how much and for what purpose, and he is to spend the proceeds--all this guided only by general exhortations from on high to restrain inflation, improve the environment, fight poverty and so on and on.
The whole justification for permitting the corporate executive to be selected by the stockholders is that the executive is an agent serving the interests of his principal. This justification disappears when the corporate executive imposes taxes and spends the proceeds for "social" purposes. He becomes in effect a public employee, a civil servant, even though he remains in name an employee of a private enterprise. On grounds of political principle, it is intolerable that such civil servants--insofar as their actions in the name of social responsibility are real and not just window-dressing--should be selected as they are now. If they are to be civil servants, then they must be elected through a political process. If they are to impose taxes and make expenditures to foster "social" objectives, then political machinery must be set up to make the assessment of taxes and to determine through a political process the objectives to be served.
This is the basic reason why the doctrine of "social responsibility" involves the acceptance of the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to determine the allocation of scarce resources to alternative uses.
On the grounds of consequences, can the corporate executive in fact discharge his alleged "social responsibilities"? On the one hand, suppose he could get away with spending the stockholders' or customers' or employees' money. How is he to know how to spend it? He is told that he must contribute to fighting inflation. How is he to know what action of his will contribute to that end? He is presumably an expert in running his company--in producing a product or selling it or financing it. But nothing about his selection makes him an expert on inflation. Will his holding down the price of his product reduce inflationary pressure? Or, by leaving more spending power in the hands of his customers, simply divert it elsewhere? Or, by forcing him to produce less because of the lower price, will it simply contribute to shortages? Even if he could answer these questions, how much cost is he justified in imposing on his stockholders, customers and employees for this social purpose? What is his appropriate share and what is the appropriate share of others?
And, whether he wants to or not, can he get away with spending his stockholders', customers' or employees money? Will not the stockholders fire him? (Either the present ones or those who take over when his actions in the name of social responsibility have reduced the corporation's profits and the price of its stock.) His customers and his employees can desert
3
him for other producers and employers less scrupulous in exercising their social responsibilities.
This facet of "social responsibility" doctrine is brought into sharp relief when the doctrine is used to justify wage restraint by trade unions. The conflict of interest is naked and clear when union officials are asked to subordinate the interest of their members to some more general purpose. If the union officials try to enforce wage restraint, the consequence is likely to be wildcat strikes, rank-and-file revolts and the emergence of strong competitors for their jobs. We thus have the ironic phenomenon that union leaders--at least in the U.S.--have objected to Government interference with the market far more consistently and courageously than have business leaders.
The difficulty of exercising "social responsibility" illustrates, of course, the great virtue of private competitive enterprise--it forces people to be responsible for their own actions and makes it difficult for them to "exploit" other people for either selfish or unselfish purposes. They can do good--but only at their own expense.
Many a reader who has followed the argument this far may be tempted to remonstrate that it is all well and good to speak of Government's having the responsibility to impose taxes and determine expenditures for such "social" purposes as controlling pollution or training the hard-core unemployed, but that the problems are too urgent to wait on the slow course of political processes, that the exercise of social responsibility by businessmen is a quicker and surer way to solve pressing current problems.
Aside from the question of fact--I share Adam Smith's skepticism about the benefits that can be expected from "those who affected to trade for the public good"--this argument must be rejected on the grounds of principle. What it amounts to is an assertion that those who favor the taxes and expenditures in question have failed to persuade a majority of their fellow citizens to be of like mind and that they are seeking to attain by undemocratic procedures what they cannot attain by democratic procedures. In a free society, it is hard for "evil" people to do "evil," especially since one man's good is another's evil.
I have, for simplicity, concentrated on the special case of the corporate executive, except only for the brief digression on trade unions. But precisely the same argument applies to the newer phenomenon of calling upon stockholders to require corporations to exercise social responsibility (the recent G.M. crusade, for example). In most of these cases, what is in effect involved is some stockholders trying to get other stockholders (or customers or employees) to contribute against their will to "social" causes favored by activists. Insofar as they succeed, they are again imposing taxes and spending the proceeds.
The situation of the individual proprietor is somewhat different. If he acts to reduce the returns of his enterprise in order to exercise his "social responsibility," he is spending his own money, not someone else's. If he wishes to spend his money on such purposes, that is his right and I cannot see that there is any objection to his doing so. In the process, he, too, may impose
4
costs on employees and customers. However, because he is far less likely than a large corporation or union to have monopolistic power, any such side effects will tend to be minor.
Of course, in practice the doctrine of social responsibility is frequently a cloak for actions that are justified on other grounds rather than a reason for those actions.
To illustrate, it may well be in the long-run interest of a corporation that is a major employer in a small community to devote resources to providing amenities to that community or to improving its government. That may make it easier to attract desirable employees, it may reduce the wage bill or lessen losses from pilferage and sabotage or have other worthwhile effects. Or it may be that, given the laws about the deductibility of corporate charitable contributions, the stockholders can contribute more to charities they favor by having the corporation make the gift than by doing it themselves, since they can in that way contribute an amount that would otherwise have been paid as corporate taxes.
In each of these--and many similar--cases, there is a strong temptation to rationalize these actions as an exercise of "social responsibility." In the present climate of opinion, with its widespread aversion to "capitalism," "profits," the "soulless corporation" and so on, this is one way for a corporation to generate goodwill as a by-product of expenditures that are entirely justified on its own self-interest.
It would be inconsistent of me to call on corporate executives to refrain from this hypocritical window-dressing because it harms the foundation of a free society. That would be to call on them to exercise a "social responsibility"! If our institutions, and the attitudes of the public make it in their self-interest to cloak their actions in this way, I cannot summon much indignation to denounce them. At the same time, I can express admiration for those individual proprietors or owners of closely held corporations or stockholders of more broadly held corporations who disdain such tactics as approaching fraud.
Whether blameworthy or not, the use of the cloak of social responsibility, and the nonsense spoken in its name by influential and prestigious businessmen, does clearly harm the foundations of a free society. I have been impressed time and again by the schizophrenic character of many businessmen. They are capable of being extremely far-sighted and clear- headed in matters that are internal to their businesses. They are incredibly short-sighted and muddle-headed in matters that are outside their businesses but affect the possible survival of business in general. This short-sightedness is strikingly exemplified in the calls from many businessmen for wage and price guidelines or controls or income policies. There is nothing that could do more in a brief period to destroy a market system and replace it by a centrally controlled system than effective governmental control of prices and wages.
The short-sightedness is also exemplified in speeches by businessmen on social responsibility. This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the pursuit of profits is wicked and immoral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives; it will be
5
the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and wage controls, businessmen seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse.
The political principle that underlies the market mechanism is unanimity. In an ideal free market resting on private property, no individual can coerce any other, all cooperation is voluntary, all parties to such cooperation benefit or they need not participate. There are not values, no "social" responsibilities in any sense other than the shared values and responsibilities of individuals. Society is a collection of individuals and of the various groups they voluntarily form.
The political principle that underlies the political mechanism is conformity. The individual must serve a more general social interest--whether that be determined by a church or a dictator or a majority. The individual may have a vote and say in what is to be done, but if he is overruled, he must conform. It is appropriate for some to require others to contribute to a general social purpose whether they wish to or not.
Unfortunately, unanimity is not always feasible. There are some respects in which conformity appears unavoidable, so I do not see how one can avoid the use of the political mechanism altogether.
But the doctrine of "social responsibility" taken seriously would extend the scope of the political mechanism to every human activity. It does not differ in philosophy from the most explicitly collective doctrine. It differs only by professing to believe that collectivist ends can be attained without collectivist means. That is why, in my book Capitalism and Freedom, I have called it a "fundamentally subversive doctrine" in a free society, and have said that in such a society, "there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud."
6

Monday, March 28, 2011

PREA Comment Announcement

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, January 24, 2011
Justice Department Releases Proposed Rule in Accordance with the
Prison Rape Elimination Act
Proposed Regulation Contains Four Sets of Standards Aimed at Combating Sexual
Abuse in Prisons
WASHINGTON - The Justice Department today released a proposed rule that aims to
prevent and respond to sexual abuse in incarceration settings, in accordance with the
Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). Based on recommendations of the National
Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC), the proposed rule contains four sets of
national standards aimed at combating sexual abuse in four types of confinement
facilities: adult prisons and jails, juvenile facilities, lockups and community confinement
facilities.

A 60-day public comment period will follow publication in the Federal Register, after
which the department will make revisions as warranted and the standards will be
published as a final rule. The department expects the final rule will be published by the
end of the year.

“Sexual abuse is a crime, not punishment for a crime,” said Attorney General Eric
Holder. “The Department of Justice’s goal is to eliminate these acts of violence by taking
deliberative and concrete steps to ensure the health and safety of prisoners. In crafting
our proposed rule, we have aimed to build a durable set of standards that are attainable,
effective and consistent with the Prison Rape Elimination Act’s requirements and goals.”

In developing the proposed rule, the department convened listening sessions with key
stakeholders, performed an extensive analysis of the anticipated costs and benefits of the
standards, and reviewed more than 650 comments that were submitted in response to an
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The standards are based on
recommendations by the NPREC, which was created by PREA to study sexual abuse in
confinement settings and disbanded in 2009 after issuing its final report, which included
recommended standards. The department’s revisions aim to make the standards more
effective, clarify the responsibilities imposed on correctional agencies, and comply with
relevant law, including PREA’s requirement that the new standards not “impose
substantial additional costs compared to the costs presently expended by federal, state
and local prison authorities.” In addition, the department attempted to ensure that
correctional agencies will be able to implement these standards without jeopardizing
other programs vital to protecting inmates and ensuring their eventual reintegration into
society.

The standards seek to prevent sexual abuse and to reduce the harm that it causes when it
occurs. Each of the four sets of standards consists of 11 categories: prevention planning;
responsive planning; training and education; screening for risk of sexual victimization
and abusiveness; reporting; official response following an inmate report; investigations;
discipline; medical and mental care; data collection and review; and audits.

Among other things, the proposed standards would require correctional agencies to:
• Ban cross-gender strip searches, and for juveniles, cross-gender pat-down searches;
• Check the backgrounds of new hires and not hire past abusers;
• Establish an evidence protocol to preserve evidence following an incident and train
investigators to act promptly and diligently;
• Screen inmates through a process that takes into account their safety and assign them
to housing in a way that best protects them;
• Provide multiple methods to report sexual abuse;
• Provide inmates access to outside victim advocates for emotional support services
related to sexual abuse;
• Provide appropriate medical and mental health care to victims;
• Prepare a written policy mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse and
sexual harassment;
• Discipline staff and inmate assailants appropriately, with termination as the
presumptive disciplinary sanction for staff who have engaged in sexual touching;
• Train employees on their responsibilities in preventing, recognizing and responding to
sexual abuse;
• Allow inmates a reasonable amount of time to file grievances so as to preserve their
ability to seek legal redress after exhausting administrative remedies; and
• Conduct audits to assess compliance.
The Justice Department’s complete rule can be found online
at:www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/pdfs/prea_nprm.pdf . Following publication in the
Federal Register, the proposed rule will be available at www.regulations.gov , through
which comments on the proposed rule may be submitted.

Once published, the standards will be immediately binding on the federal Bureau of
Prisons. States that do not comply with the standards are subject to a five percent
reduction in funds they would otherwise receive for prison purposes from the
department unless the governor certifies that five percent of such funds will be used to
enable compliance in future years.

First short assignment on PREA

Writing 2 Tim Fitzmaurice Due April 1, 2911
Comment on the enactment of PREA
all the information in this prompt is based on
The FEDERAL REGISTER Vol 76, No 23, 2/1/2011/proposed rules (50pp)
http://community.nicic.gov/blogs/prea/archive/2011/02/10/proposed-standards-comparison-charts-available.aspx

In 2003 Congress enacted the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). A report was written by a Commission to determine what to do next. That was finished in 2009. Now the Department of Justice is formulating the regulations. They want input from the community on whether or not the rules are good enough and should be enacted. The comments on these rules are due by April 4 at midnight.
Soon the government will make rules that every lock-up, prison, juvenile hall, and jail must spend money to eliminate rape in their facilities. If they do not, they could be fined 4% of the federal money they get. This unfunded mandate is often seen as objectionable. Locals want the feds to pay for what they require. Is this true in this case? Or should a prison be by definition safe from sexual abuse? The proposed rules state that some stakeholders may question whether economic analysis is even relevant to the implementation of a civil rights statute. (p.6267)
One study states that in 2008-9 200,000 adult prisoners suffered some sort of sexual abuse while incarcerated. There are 2.000.000 people in prison in the U.S. In juvenile halls 17.100 were abused or 12% of the total population. (p. 6249) In some facilities it was 36%. Should there be special concern/rules for juveniles in adult facilities? Should Juveniles, violent felons, ever be transferred into adult prisons or jails?
The new rules include: Not hiring people with sexual abuse histories; improving reporting and forensic exams to prosecute abuse; giving victims protective custody; educating inmates; training employees; screening inmates for their potential for victimization—e.g., mental disability, physical build, age, nonviolence; sexual orientation, the inmates self-identified risk, or inmates held for immigration charges alone. The rules on reporting were expanded to include the ability to speak to people not in the system. Someone has to be the reporting officer. There was disagreement about the coordinator position. Should they be only doing that one job? Or can they be part time? Or should the job be done by someone not in the chain of command?
Do you think that inmates and others should be protected from sexual abuse? Is this abuse to be expected in systems of punishment? Most people see it as almost a joke. How have you seen this described or explained? Were you aware that such abuse exists?

Please write a comment in less than one page, giving your reaction to the promulgation of these regulations.

Address it to Robert Hinchman, Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Room 4252, Washington D.C., 20530
This letter must be postmarked by April 4th. So I want the letters to be completed by April 1st. I will provide the envelopes and stamps. Please do not write personal identifying information.



www.wcl.american.edu/nic/prea.cfm

an end to silence
Charts to compare the stats

http://community.nicic.gov/blogs/prea/default.aspx
PREA
Prison Rape, the PREA, and the PLRA
MARCH 7, 2011
tags: Department of Justice, Eric Holder, Just Detention International, PLRA, PREA, Prison Litigation Reform Act, Prison Rape Elimination Act, prisoner lawsuits
by SOLITARY WATCH GUEST AUTHOR
Guest Post by Jennifer Wedekind
Editor’s Note: Jennifer Wedekind is a journalist whose work has appeared in Mother Jones, In These Times, and the Multinational Monitor. She is a 2011 JD Candidate at Georgetown Law.
The public comment period for the PREA regulations extends through April 4, 2011. To submit a comment or read the full text of the proposed standards, go to this page on the website of Just Detention International, an organization devoted to exposing and eliminating the epidemic of prison rape.
_____
The Department of Justice in early February opened a comment period for proposed regulations under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). Passed in 2003, the Act requires the Attorney General to promulgate national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction and punishment of prison rape. While its ultimate aim is to stem the rampant sexual abuse that occurs in prisons and jails across the country, up until now PREA has largely been an aspirational and fact-gathering statute.
The proposed regulations are structured around recommended standards put forth by the Prison Rape Elimination Commission, established by PREA, in a comprehensive 2009 report on the “the penological, physical, mental, medical, social, and economic impacts of prison rape in the United States.” However, subsequent comments by interested parties citing concerns about prison security and inmate “gamesmanship” have resulted in some of the recommendations being largely neutered. Additionally, a statutory mandate that no regulation impose substantial additional costs on prison authorities may limit the types of programs the regulations can implement. However, the comment period will allow for criticism and revision of the proposed regulations and provides an open forum for prisoner-rights advocates to be heard.
The problem of prison rape that PREA is attempting to address is nothing short of staggering. An estimated 88,500 adult inmates — 4.4 percent of prison inmates and 3.1 percent of jail inmates — reported at least one instance of sexual victimization in the previous year, according to a 2010 Bureau of Justice Statistics report. At a Hughes Unit prison in Texas, the facility with the highest rates of reported victimization, 8.6 percent of inmates reported being sexually assaulted by another inmate. Sexual victimization by guards is equally as prevalent. In the Crossroads Correctional Facility in Missouri, the male facility with the highest rates of guard sexual misconduct, 8.2 percent of inmates reported being victimized. At the women’s Bayview Correctional Facility in New York, 11.5 percent of inmates reported sexual victimization by guards.
When a prisoner comes forward and reports a sexual assault, he or she is more likely to face retribution than redress. Complaining prisoners frequently face retaliatory harassment, discipline or further abuse. A full 25 percent of inmate victims are summarily sent to solitary confinement, according to the Department of Justice’s own numbers.
Additionally, an inmate complaint will rarely result in legal sanctions for the perpetrator or prison authorities, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has held that placing an inmate at risk of sexual assault with deliberate indifference can be a violation of the 8th Amendment. The main obstacle between inmates and a courtroom is the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). Congress passed the PLRA in an effort to prevent “frivolous” inmate lawsuits and created considerable hurdles that an inmate must overcome to see his or her day in court. Significantly, any regulations passed under PREA will have to be in compliance with the PLRA, which may hamper its effectiveness in some areas.
In cases of sexual assault, inmates are most often stymied by two PLRA requirements — an exhaustion of all administrative remedies and a showing of physical harm. If a prisoner fails to comply with the technical and often arbitrary requirements of the administrative procedures, or if the inmate misses one of the filing deadlines — which may be as short as 48 hours — his or her right to sue is forever forfeited. Cases are frequently dismissed because of technical errors, because the wrong form was used or because the complaint was submitted to the wrong entity within the sprawling prison system.
In a notable 2003 case, Human Rights Watch reported that sixteen female inmates filed suit alleging systematic sexual abuse by prison staff, including forcible rape, coerced sexual activity, oral and anal sodomy, and forced pregnancies. The federal court hearing the case refused to address the merits, instead taking nearly five years to conclude that the women’s use of informal reporting procedures provided by the prison resulted in a failure to adequately exhaust all administrative remedies.
The PLRA also requires a showing of physical injury — and many jurisdictions do not consider a sexual assault to constitute a physical injury per se. This provision in particular is frequently relied upon to dismiss claims by victims of sexual assault, who frequently have no proof of physical injury due to delay in reporting, lack of additional violence during the assault, or inadequate prison medical providers, who often do not have the resources or willingness to administer a rape kit.
Advocates hope the final PREA regulations will provide more services for inmates and more accountability for prison administrators. However, while the regulations may be able to ease some of the administrative burdens currently on inmate victims, it will not provide a private cause of action and the PLRA will still dictate access to courts.
The proposed regulations would ban cross-gender strip searches, create minimum standards for investigations following a report, require correctional facilities to provide medical and mental health care, and institute a zero tolerance policy for sexual assault and harassment. The regulations also purport to make the prison grievance systems more accessible, however they don’t go as far as most advocates think necessary. It remains to be seen what effect, if any, the regulations will have.

Published in the blog Solitary Watch

http://www.cclp.org/prea.php Center for Children’s Law and policy

http://www.justdetention.org/en/factsheets/Prison_Rape_Elimination_Act.pdf
Fact sheet from Just Detention Blog

NYRB sept 2010



An End to Prison Rape
by Linda McFarlane · July 16, 2009
Change.org blog
When the government removes someone’s liberty, it takes on an absolute responsibility to keep that person safe, including from sexual abuse. This is a difficult task and, unfortunately, prison officials nationwide are failing at this responsibility all too often.
In inmate surveys conducted in 2007, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found that 4.5 percent (or 60,500) of the more than 1.3 million inmates held in federal and state prisons had been sexually abused in the previous year alone and that nearly 25,000 jail detainees had been sexually abused in the previous six months. These surveys were snapshots, reaching only inmates present on a particular day. As the annual number of admissions to county jails is 17 times higher than the jail population on any day, the BJS data represent just the tip of the iceberg.
There is hope, however. Last month, the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission (NPREC) released its recommendations for the first-ever binding national standards addressing sexual abuse in U.S. prisons and jails. Mandated by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, the standards address core prison management issues, such as staff training, inmate education, housing, investigations, and medical and mental health care in the aftermath of an assault. The U.S. Attorney General has until June 23, 2010 (one year from the release of the standards) to codify them into federal regulation.
Developed with input from corrections officials, prisoner rape survivors, and advocates, these standards are one of the best tools to date to help put an end to sexual abuse in the nation’s detention facilities. Many corrections agencies have already begun developing policies to improve inmate safety.
Just Detention International (JDI) is working with officials in Oregon and California to become ‘early adopters’ of these standards – by bringing the Oregon Department of Corrections and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation into compliance even before they are required to do so. In doing so, these state agencies are becoming models for corrections systems nationwide.
Both systems have already made tangible improvements. In California, JDI helped secure a community-based rape crisis counselor on the sexual assault response teams at 31 of the state’s 33 prisons and provided cross-training so that the counselors and prison officials understand each other’s respective jobs and are able to work together in a constructive way. In Oregon, the Department of Corrections established an inmate hotline, so that survivors can safely contact the Inspector General’s office when they are too afraid to report an assault to a prison official.
The effort to implement the standards is also helping to change the violent culture of corrections and to bring a human rights framework into these prisons and jails, often for the very first time. It’s a logical progression from the original reason for engaging in these partnerships: Sexual abuse in detention is wrong. It is an affront to our society’s basic values. It causes terrible harm to survivors and creates unsafe prisons for staff and inmates alike.
The problem of sexual abuse in detention is deeply rooted and will not go away without a fight. There undoubtedly will be setbacks, but it is a battle that we can win. That is what Congress acknowledged in 2003 when it unanimously passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act. That is what JDI has learned by working with corrections agencies to proactively tackle this issue. The new national standards recognize this truth, and are an invaluable tool for corrections agencies to use in this fight.
Now, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder must send an important signal about the urgency with which we need to address prisoner rape. He can do so by ensuring that the standards provide the tools and protections Congress intended.
No matter what crime someone has committed, rape must not be part of the penalty.

Writing 2 Syllabus and Calendar Spring 2011

Writing 2 Comp & Rhet Spring 2011 Tim Fitzmaurice timfitz@ucsc.edu
MWF Sect 6 at 2pm & Section 7 at 3:30pm Stevenson 151 BLOG: timfitz.blogspot.com OFFICE: Crown 111, 459-2483 Office Hours: Wednesday 12:30-1:30 and by appt. TEXT ME at (831) 252-3197—no answering machine!
Required Texts: (All are at the Baytree Bookstore.)
1. Gilligan, Violence; 2. Ainsworth, 75 Arguments; 3. Khadra, The Attack; 4. Pape, Dying to Win
Required Work:
1. Write five formal essays, and revise two of them thoroughly.
2. Attend every class meeting and participate in discussion.
3. Meet with the Instructor twice.
4. Do the in-class assignments, including oral report, submit assignments on time.
5. Submit a portfolio of all of your work at the end of class. We have no final exam.
If you will be absent, please let me know as soon as possible. Call, text, or email.
Academic Honesty
It is important that you write your essays yourself without help from unknown sources. I need to know how you are doing your work. Be sure to give credit for every quote you use and every idea you borrow. Put quote marks around the words and use a parenthesis at the end to tell me where you found it. If you use other people’s ideas, you need to tell where you got those ideas. Good writers quote others. So this won’t make your writing weaker. It will make it stronger.
Essay Format
On essays for this class please use white paper and black ink. Do not give me cover sheet or title pages. Leave space in the margins for my marks, double space. Avoid unusual type fonts. Write your name, the class, and the date in the upper right corner of the page. Make sure the date is accurate. Write revision if it is a rewrite. Give every essay a title. Page number on each page, staple the essay in upper left corner. I need a hard copy to mark the essay.
Assignment for our next class.
Interview and write a profile, no more than two pages, of another student in our class. You will be asked to introduce this student to the rest of the class, giving us two truths and a lie on the first day.
Assignment for discussion on Wednesday and for submission on Friday.
Write a brief (1 page, no more) comment on the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) rules that are being decided right now. I know it is early to have an opinion and that this is a quick reaction. But you will have a sheet to guide you and you can look for the PREA discussion online. We need it Friday—two copies—to send to the commission by Monday. You can look up the fullreport. It is fifty pafges long. http://community.nicic.gov/blogs/prea/archive/2011/02/10/proposed-standards-comparison-charts-available.aspx Or you can look at the National Institute of Corrections site list of sources at http://community.nicic.gov/blogs/prea/default.aspx.
See the Department of Justice announcement: http://collaboration.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/2017/DOJ_Announcement_of_Proposed_PREA_Standards.pdf?1296010344

Calendar for Writing 2, Spring 2011 Tim Fitzmaurice Crown 111 UCSC
I may make changes to this arrangement. 459-2483 timfitz@ucsc.edu

Week 1 March 28/ 30/April 2 Introduction
Profile of another student due on Wednesday. Essay on Violence: Nature or Nurture? Due on Friday (2 pages+).

Read Ainsworth Chapter 5 over the weekend and write a response to the essays, as assigned (p. 196, p. 224, p. 240, p. 247, p 249). One page telling me what the thesis was and how successful the argument was for you. Choose at least two essays.

[Prepare for the future! Visit the jail assignment. You are required to visit the jail or to tell me why you cannot visit. You can make your appointment for any Sunday by going online at the County Sheriff site: http://www.scsheriff.com/ click on Corrections and then go to Public Jail Tours. You need to fill out a form and get permission to visit. So do it soon and go with a friend. A limited number can go on any one day. So book your tour right away. If you do not have California ID, I need to put your name on a list. Please talk to me.]

Week 2 April 4/6/8 Purpose and thesis.
Discuss this week the essays in Chapter 5 of Ainsworth.
Due: Friday an opening thesis and strategy for essay 1 on Security and Liberty.

Week 3 April 11/13/15 Organizing your essays: Strategies
Discuss this week the essays in Chapter 7 of Ainsworth.
Due a draft of essay1 on Monday.
Read Ainsworth Chapter 7 and 9.

Week 4 April 18/20/22 Structure of paragraphs: Coherence
Discuss this week the essay in Chapter 9 of Ainsworth.
Library Visit TBA Start reading Khadra and Pape this weekend

Week 5 April 25/27/29 Sentence grammar and subordination
Due: Due Essay 2 on either Chapter 7 or 9 of Ainsworth.
Monday film.
Read Khadra and Pape on suicide terrorism

Week 6 May 2/4/6 Style and logic
Discuss Khadra and Pape this week.
Due: a revision of Essay 1 or 2 by May 6th
We will arrange the groups for the oral presentations and essay 5.

Week 7 May 9/11/13 Research and citation
Due Essay 3 on Terrorism on Monday.
Monday film. “Lock Up/ Lock Down”
Discuss Gilligan and incarceration. It would be good to visit the jail before we get to this conversation. Read Gilligan, the first hundred pages.

Week 8 May 16/18/20 Writing assignments in different disciplines
Read Gilligan (the rest of it) to use in conjunction with the essay 4 on Violence.
Due Friday Essay 4 on Incarceration.

Week 9 May 23/25/27 (Monday is a holiday) Revision
Oral Presentations
Due: a revision of an essay.

Week 10 May 30/June 1/3 Instruction ends June 5; no final exam Holiday Monday.
Oral Presentations
Due essay 4 final draft and portfolio containing your work from this quarter. The portfolio contains all of your essays in the draft and final form. It should also contain the other writing we did in the class, daily writing, the profile, and other responses. You can rewrite everything if you wish to try to improve your grade.

Essay 1: On Security and Liberty
Write an essay about the problem of freedom and security after 9-11. In an era of terrorism and the limiting of civil freedoms, an era of surveillance, suicide bombings, torture and war, can we have security without sacrificing freedoms, like privacy rights and freedom of expression? What do we need to understand about this? I will give you a two-page handout for this essay. Use Essays from Ainsworth in Chapter 5 as the foundation for this essay.

Essay 2: On Violent prejudices
Read the Chapters 7 & 9 in 75 Arguments that discuss issues of identity and marriage. You can include essays from other Chapters as well. No Web Sources please. I will give you a longer version of this essay assignment. Write a four-page+ essay with references to at least three essays from our text. You have choices for this essay. For example,
1. On Identity and Race: based on essays in Chapter 9.
2. On Marriage: Based on readings in Chapter 7.

Essay 3: Why suicide Bombing?
Write an essay that discusses the nature of the suicide bombing and your best understanding of the theories of what drives the suicide bomber.
Please refer to the film “Paradise Now,” the book Dying to Win and the novel The Attack.

Essay 4: An essay on Violence, Rehab, Reconciliation, and Punishment.
Visit the county jail. Read and cite the book by Gilligan and the film, “Lock Up/Lock Down.” Then write an essay on what causes violence, in your opinion and what are the best ways to solve this problem. You willbegin working with your group in this period for essay 5.

Essay 5: A research essay on some topic concerning violence in the community, including gangs and youth, domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, violence against women, international violence, media and sports violence. You are asked to do your own research into the topic and to present the information with your group. The essay does not have to be the same as the presentation.

Oral presentation due in Week 9 or 10. Your oral presentation topic will be the same as your fourth essay topic. You will get your topic assignment in class. You will work with four or five other students on this topic. Each writes their own essay.

Revisions will be periodically assigned, but you can revise at any time and rewrite until you are satisfied with result.

Formatting and citing.
All of our essays are four to six pages long in the final draft. I expect you to cite your sources and provide a list of sources at the end of the essay. I expect all essays to be typed, double spaced, on white paper and stapled, with page numbers on each page and the correct date. You may only use the sources that I suggest for your essays. I do not trust the web sources. So use any outside source, particularly those, with caution. You can use wither MLA or APA style. If you want an exception any of the “rules” I have just enumerated—like the limits on sources—then ask me.

I recommend that you think about doing the essays in the following way:
1. Begin with an example or story that shows the importance of the issue. This story can come from your own experience, a text, or observation. It can be a look at someone you know or it can be drawn from our reading. Analyze it briefly.
2. Write a thesis. The community needs to understand something about the issue and to act in some way. That’s the simplest version of an argumentative thesis.
3. Spend some time defining the topic and its main terms and ideas. Use quotes from our text or observations you have made about the topic. Support the thesis, your purposeful goals, with examples and with logic, with facts, and with quotation of sources.
4. Talk about the obstacles to accomplishing these purposes and why they exist
5. Talk about the best way to solve these problems, if there is a solution.
6, Good essays end by looking at why your point of view is crucial and why it will help us address the problem. If the problem is ignored, the society will be worse.

Writing Process
1. Assert your Purpose and thesis
2. Gather facts and arguments to develop the essay. (logic, examples, quotes, facts)
3. Determine who the Audience is and what they need. (tone of voice, diction)
4. Draft the essay.
5. Revise the larger structures and overall strategies, including paragraphs.
6. Revise the smaller sentence level style.
7. Edit and fix the grammar, usage, spelling and punctuation errors.

Purposes depend on what we know, what we believe, and what we want to do.
A famous Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, once said that in this world we can accomplish three purposes: (1) to be aware of the facts and of reality, (2) to understand what these facts mean, and (3) to act compassionately or to make the world better based on our knowledge. Some of our essays are just about the facts, most of them are about how to understand the facts, and the some about what we need to do.
So when you think about your topic try to describe the facts (1) what you and your audience need to know about it. Then talk about (2) how to understand it, the theory behind your point of view. In college we are mostly concerned with making sense of something, with understanding. The third goal is (3) to act to do something about it. In a way that goal is political. It means we have to make our world better.
Everyone is different. We all see the world in a unique way. Our understanding and our purposes are shaped by our values and by our ideology. In school we study different disciplines to discover what our unique point of view might be. Some of us are artists and some engineers and some economists and some psychologists and some sociologists. You cannot borrow your purpose from someone else.

What is violence? Are we experts on the topics we write about?
No. We are curious intellectuals. I am aware that we all have different backgrounds and knowledge of these topics and that the essays you write this quarter will be based on partial knowledge and first impressions of thinkers in the field. Your essays are judged on how well you use this foundation to write intellectually capable essays reflecting the insights of a reasonable person. We are not thoroughly versed in the theories about violence and what causes it. So the essay is based on your experience in the world and on your reading and observations in various media.

For your essay on community violence, for example, you will use the essay you write just before it, an attempt to define violence, based on Gilligan’s book. In class we will discuss theories of where violence comes from and begin to write our own perspectives on it.


Writing 2 Section 6 and 7 Spring 2011 Tim Fitzmaurice
ESSAY 1: On Security and Liberty Due Monday April 11th.
Write an essay about the problem of freedom and security after 9-11. In an era of terrorism and the limiting of civil freedoms, an era of surveillance, suicide bombings, torture and war, can we have security without sacrificing freedoms, like privacy rights and freedom of expression? What do we need to understand about this?
John Stuart Mill says in our reader that self-government “is not government of each by himself (sic), but of each by all the rest” (199). Mill says
…the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. (204)
In other words, individual freedom of action can only and should be limited if it is a threat to others. The rest of his essay is committed to asserting individual freedom, but this part asserts the necessity of limits. People can’t be permitted to hurt others. In fact, he later says that we are answerable for doing evil “not only by our actions but by our inactions” (206). So we must be not actively hurt anyone and not passively allow people to be hurt. He binds individual freedom and the safety of all very closely together.
Do we need armies, police, laws? To respond to terrorist threat can we limit people’s freedoms? Can we invade their privacy? Surveillance, torture, profiling, strip-searches, militarism, border control? Should we reduce freedom of action for safety?
Matthew Brzezinski asks in his essay how much should our security cost us: “How Far Should We Go?” (224) It has led to surveillance, torture, a denial of habeas corpus, a lack of judicial oversight on search warrants. Can we tolerate this loss of civil protection? And he says the cost will be even higher in the future
… domestic security will dwarf every other kind federal spending: education, roads, subsidized housing, environmental protection. More than that decisions we make about how to protect ourselves—the measures we demand, the ones we resist—will take over our political discourse and define our ideas about government in years to come. (239)
In effect, for Brzezinski, our way of thinking about democracy is and will be shaped by our history. What about the effects of people coming across the border? In Silko’s essay, the fear of intruders has changed the way we look at migrant workers and every dark skinned person. Security is racialized. She says, “’Immigration,’ like ‘street crime’ and ’welfare fraud,’ is a political euphemism that refers to people of color” (245). So our response to terror is a complex problem. We need to understand it. That is your assignment to tell me how we as a community should understand this problem and respond to it. Use the essays in Chapter 5. The chapter ends, incidentally, with Mona Charen, a conservative voice, saying “if we err on the side of civil liberties instead of security, hundred of thousands or millions of Americans could die” (251).
Hints about writing this essay.
What do you think and how do you support your argument, with these texts, with your observations, with logical argument? I want to suggest that at heart the question is simple. It is almost inevitably a kind of balancing act. The challenge in this assignment is to strike your balance and to put the arguments in order. So what is the structure of an essay like this? Bring a draft of your thesis and some supporting ideas & quotes on April 10th.
Opening: What example makes your argument significant and focuses on your eventual point. It could be a personal account of 9-11. It could be a paraphrase from the essay or an observation of someone else responding to an incident in the war on terror, a soldier, a bombing victim, someone whose rights were infringed because of the new emphasis on controlling people, searching or border protection or airport surveillance or interrogation. The essay starts with a strategy introducing the fundamental focus and topic.
Thesis: Then you need a thesis or purposeful way of asserting your controlling idea. This section is notable for breaking out of the opening narrative or statistics or cases or whatever strategy to become theoretical and analytical and large in scope—what does everyone need to know to understand or to do about this situation? A straightforward thesis could say something like -- We as a society need to understand this phenomenon and take certain actions.
Body: The next challenge is the way you might develop or support your argument. It depends on what strategies you think you need to use to persuade people or to explain the phenomenon. Define it. Quote the texts to tell me what the problem is and how some people see it.
I need to see where the issue is. In this instance, you can show this by looking at different points of view in the essays Charen’s perspective: Get real! We need safety first. Who cares about the “inconvenience” of surveillance or tough border controls? Or Emma Goldman’s notion that “War is a quarrel between two thieves too cowardly to fight their own battles; therefore they take boys from one village ... and let them loose like wild beasts against each other” (216). Or Silko’s notion that our homeland security rules are not just inconvenient, but are bound up with racism and a “police state” (244).
Remember that this where you assert what you need to say about the matter. It depends on how you read these people and other essays in our book. DO NOT USE ANY WEB SOURCES. But feel free to go to any other essay in our textbook. I like the essays on law and obedience and civil disobedience in Chapter 6. I welcome references to the essays in Chapters 1 and 11.
The essay needs to speak about those who disagree with you. Find the opposing views, quote fairly, analyze them, and respond to their arguments if possible.
Ending: Essays end with a sense of the lesson to be learned from the argument. If we agree about this then we can move forward in a positive direction. If we do not understand this properly we are going to hell in a hand basket. Close the circle by returning to your opening example in some way.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Essay on Tuesdays with Morrie

Due Last Day of class

Choose one of the following topics and write five pages developed from the question. Please quote at least five times from our book, Tuesdays with Morrie, by Mitch Albom.

a. On Death
“Once you learn how to die, you learn how to live.” (82)

The book, Tuesdays with Morrie, by Mitch Albom is devoted to the last days of a college professor and one of his former students. It is mainly a meditation or discussion about death and gives several examples of how people experience death, including Morrie’s mother and father, Mitch’s uncle, and of course Morrie’s death. Compare what the various stories tell us about how people die in this culture. Look at your own experience of death, either people you have known, the images from the media and the news, your reading and tell me what your attitude is toward this difficult subject. Is it useful for us to have book on this subject?

b. Choose a theme.
“But there still seemed to be no clear answers. Do you take care of others or take care of the “inner child”? Return to traditional values or reject tradition as useless? Seek success or seek simplicity” Just say No or Just Do It? … All I knew was that my old professor wasn’t in the self-help business. He was standing on the tracks, Listening to death’s locomotive whistle, and he was very clear about the important things in life.” (65-66)

This book, Tuesdays with Morrie, has many themes in it, including marriage, aging, culture, parenting, forgiveness, family, love and friendship. Choose a theme and discuss it. How does Mitch and Morrie present this theme and how do you makes sense of it. Do you see it the same way that they do. Use your experience and observations to talk about why this theme is an important notion to understand for our happiness, our fulfillment, and for our success. Be sure to make it clear what Morrie and Mitch’s point of view on one of these matters might be.

c. On Education
“No books were required, yet many topics were covered … The last lecture was brief only a few words…. A Funeral in lieu of graduation.” (1)

The book, Tuesdays with Morrie, is a course that is taught in a new way. Is this a good model for education and why? What is education supposed to accomplish in our lives? Look at the experiences you have had in education and think about what has failed you and what has worked for you. What is the foundation for success in this course? Is it that the student seems to structure the education, that the themes are so crucial to Mitch and Morrie, that the source is so authoritative and that the lessons are based on true life experience? What makes this kind of education work, at least for Mitch, and why do so many other models of education fail? I think you will perhaps include some thoughts developed from an earlier essay on the purpose of education.