Cruel and unusual punishment?

[Silverplum]

How does humiliating and demoralising a criminal benefit society?

That's whole 'nother topic of discussion, ain't it, sport?

 

[justalayman]

I also acknowledge that when she broke the law she lost alot of her rights, but I find it hard to understand how humiliation and bruising ones dignity is acceptable treatment of even the most heinous criminals.

well, your dignity is one of the first things to go. Whether it be a full on cavity search when entering the jail (with no respect for gender of searcher or searchee) to being on camera 100% of the time when in many jails; You lose all rights to privacy.

The observation is not intended to humiliate anybody. The truth is; without full on physical observation, there are means to cheat on the tests.

It is simply a necessary action given the situation.

 

[navigator70]

Both actually - there are many facilities where there is the usual line of urinals, and stalls.

So, a woman can walk into the facility and see lots of pee-pees before she finds a stall for herself.

She can choose to close the door - or not.

(I realize this does go against the general state of affairs in the US)

Interesting, thanks.

 

[CreativeBlock]

It is simply a necessary action given the situation.

I find it a bit hard to believe that, considering the flux of sexual harassment training (and complaints that abound) employees receive, that he would have directed her to "open her legs" so he could "see her stream."

I could be wrong, however.

OP, how SURE are you that this occurred? How SURE are you that this wasn't simply hyperbole expressed by your friend to make the situation either more dire or more provocative?

 

[CreativeBlock]

Are you of the opinion that public restrooms should all be unisex?

Considering how many videos and/or images of celeb hoo-hoos and sexual mis-capades out there, I think the reference made was regarding how prolific such imagery is. And how, rather than being outraged (that it's even considered newsworthy, somehow), we're titillated and spellbound.

Perhaps if we, as Americans, reacted with as much ennui to matters of the toilet as our European cousins do, we'd be less interested in who Britney flashed her no-no spot to and be more interested in solving our problems.

 

[navigator70]

That's whole 'nother topic of discussion, ain't it, sport?

Maybe, I guess I am just looking for clarification. I did find this from U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons...

(3) Searches of this type will always be performed
discreetly, in a private area away from others, and by staff
members adequately trained to perform the test. Whenever
possible, urinalysis tests will be conducted by staff members
of the same sex as the non-inmate being tested. Urinalysis
tests may be conducted by staff members of the opposite sex
only in emergency situations with the Warden’s authorization.

http://www.bop.gov/policy/progstat/5510_012.pdf

Page 17

If not cruel and unusual punishment, why is this clause neccessary?

 

[justalayman]

=CreativeBlock;2765995]I find it a bit hard to believe that, considering the flux of sexual harassment training (and complaints that abound) employees receive, that he would have directed her to "open her legs" so he could "see her stream."

I could be wrong, however.

It is because exactly what I have been speaking of; methods to cheat the test.

google "whizzinator" and you will start to understand.

OP, how SURE are you that this occurred? How SURE are you that this wasn't simply hyperbole expressed by your friend to make the situation either more dire or more provocative?

it was simply to be assured the person was not using a hidden bag with a hose filled with somebody else's clean urine.
Sorry folks but that's life when you break the law. Expect to be poked, prodded, felt, and watched closer than your spouse ever has.

 

[navigator70]

I find it a bit hard to believe that, considering the flux of sexual harassment training (and complaints that abound) employees receive, that he would have directed her to "open her legs" so he could "see her stream."

I could be wrong, however.

OP, how SURE are you that this occurred? How SURE are you that this wasn't simply hyperbole expressed by your friend to make the situation either more dire or more provocative?

May very well be provacative hyperbole, however the first time it happened she was visibly upset when she returned to the car, instead of just the usual demeaning an sarcastic remarks about the one administiring the test.

 

[navigator70]

it was simply to be assured the person was not using a hidden bag with a hose filled with somebody else's clean urine.
Sorry folks but that's life when you break the law. Expect to be poked, prodded, felt, and watched closer than your spouse ever has.

By someone of the opposite sex?

 

[navigator70]

well, your dignity is one of the first things to go. Whether it be a full on cavity search when entering the jail (with no respect for gender of searcher or searchee) to being on camera 100% of the time when in many jails; You lose all rights to privacy.

Good point.

The observation is not intended to humiliate anybody. The truth is; without full on physical observation, there are means to cheat on the tests.

It is simply a necessary action given the situation.

I do not disagree with the physical observation. What I disagree with is the neccessary action given the situation.

This program is set up to give numerous drug tests every day. Shouldn't they be equipped every day with male and female administers of the drug test?

 

[justalayman]

By someone of the opposite sex?

Yep, it could be either. The penal system cannot afford to make sure nobody is offended by having a same gender investigator. They are there to do a job, not get their jollies. Some departments try to use women to search women but honestly, it just isn't going to happen all the time.

 

[justalayman]

Good point.



I do not disagree with the physical observation. What I disagree with is the neccessary action given the situation.

This program is set up to give numerous drug tests every day. Shouldn't they be equipped every day with male and female administers of the drug test?

the necessary action? You mean the spread wider so the observer can view the stream?

Without that, a bag of urine can be concealed and a tube can be hidden in the crevices and folds so it appears the woman is expelling the urine. The observer needs to be certain that is not the situation.

and it would be nice if they did have both genders of observers on hand. Maybe that is something that can be addressed. Without knowing their manpower availability and requirements, it is impossible to say if that would be a possibility. I can't imagine it would hurt for people to voice their concerns about the situation.

 

[applecruncher]

Well, I’m surprised a male is allowed to watch/supervise or whatever one wishes to call it. Asking for trouble, imo.

Requiring one to give urine samples is not punishment. Years ago I worked in a federal probation office for awhile and they were VERY careful – female ex-offenders had to be monitored by female officer, males were monitored by males.

 

[TheGeekess]

I don't see anything in Alabama state law that prohibits this. But you're welcome to search for yourself.

Alabama Legislative Information System Online

 

[CdwJava]

If not cruel and unusual punishment, why is this clause neccessary?

Because the Federal Bureau of Prisons has decided that same-sex observations are a good idea. That is a policy, not a law, and that is a policy of an organization other than your friend's local probation office.

This program is set up to give numerous drug tests every day. Shouldn't they be equipped every day with male and female administers of the drug test?

That depends ... do they have the staff to do so? Are there sufficient female officers to allow them to take sick time, vacation s, etc., and still have female staffing? What if no females apply or are hired?

Agencies get into some very sticky legal quandaries when they deny employment as a result of gender (even i it is males being denied).

While I find the liability of having opposite sex observations to be too high to want to risk it, I can see situations where this just might be a fact of life. And with budgets getting axed all over the place, such situations may well become far more common place.

Without that, a bag of urine can be concealed and a tube can be hidden in the crevices and folds so it appears the woman is expelling the urine. The observer needs to be certain that is not the situation.

Oh, I could tell you stories ...

Navigator, it does not take much room at all to smuggle in enough urine to fill a cup part way. Women, in particular, have more places to smuggle such things - both in clothing and in ... uh ... other places.