you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]FlippyKing 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

What strikes me as especially odd about this is that they are taking work away from lawyers who might get to argue each case instead of it being an automatic win for men who realize how much prison for them will suck unless they instead get into a prison for women.

[–]VioletRemi[S] 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The parts about "no exceptions" and "ignoring safety concerns" are the most crazy. They are basically saying "even if it is just someone right now just self-identified - and who is very dangerous to women, ignore that and put women at risk".

Also, why they have such fixation on "do not record sex of inmates at all" - but what about healthcare at least? Not speaking about statistics, etc...

[–]FlippyKing 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree, fully. Those are just crazy and in denial of reality in a way that is frightening.

But, what lawyer could actually argue this? Everything is open to interpretation to a lawyer. "What is the meaning of is?" comes to mind. This is why no matter what protections for people from government are carved out in law: lawyers called prosecutors will argue them out of existence, lawyers called judges will eventually agree with one of these arguments, and law professors will teach it as precedent. It's the life-blood of the profession. This was written by people who don't need work.

[–]FlippyKing 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I just realized my comment was actually a reply to you-- It was supposed to be just a comment, and has nothing to do with your comment. It actually detracts from it. Sorry.