PDA

View Full Version : Only in America (or, maybe, Iran...)



Marsilius
July 27th, 2007, 16:11
A 20 year old prisoner has been found guilty after having been charged with masturbating in his cell...

From yesterday's Miami Herald...

Inmate found guilty in masturbation trial
By ROBERTO SANTIAGO AND JENNIFER LEBOVICH
rsantiago@MiamiHerald.com

тАв Terry Lee Alexander was charged with a misdemeanor count of exposure of sexual organs.

тАв The statute states: ``It is unlawful to expose or exhibit one's sexual organs in public or on the private premises of another, or so near there to as to be seen from such private premises, in a vulgar or indecent manner...''
A Broward prisoner accused of committing a sex act while he was alone in his jail cell was found guilty Tuesday of indecent exposure.

Terry Lee Alexander, 20, unsuccessfully fought the charge, which had been brought by a female Broward Sheriff's Office detention deputy who saw him perform the sex act in his cell in November.

In reaching the guilty verdict, jurors found that an inmate's jail cell is ''a limited access public place'' where exposing oneself is against the law.

The judge sentenced Alexander, of Lauderdale Lakes, to 60 days in jail, on top of the 10-year sentence he is currently serving for armed robbery.

The sole witness in the case, BSO Deputy Coryus Veal, testified that Alexander did not try to hide what he was doing as most prisoners do. Veal saw him perform the act while she was working in a glass-enclosed master control room, 100 feetfrom Alexander's cell. There was no video tape or other witnesses.

Alexander's attorney argued that the prison cell was a private place and that what Alexander was doing was perfectly normal.

''Did other inmates start masturbating because of Mr. Alexander?'' McHugh asked Veal. ``Did you call a SWAT team?''

''I wish I had,'' Veal answered.

Veal, who has charged seven other inmates with the same offense, insisted that she was not against the act itself -- just the fact that Alexander was so blatant about it. Most inmates, she testified, do it in bed, under the blankets.

Veal said this was the third time she caught Alexander, and she had had enough.

In the end, it took a jury of four men and two women only 45 minutes to find Alexander guilty. Broward County Judge Fred Berman sentenced Alexander to 60 days in jail.

''It was pretty straightforward,'' said juror David Sherman. ``The prosecution's case was clear, and the defense did not dispute any of the major elements.''

Sherman said jurors determined that a prison cell, which is owned and operated by the government, is neither public nor private but is a ``limited access public place.''

He also said that none of the jurors had a problem with the sex act, per se.

The case drew snickers in the courtroom, especially during jury selection, when prospective jurors were quizzed about their own habits.

Defense attorney Kathleen McHugh faced 17 prospective jurors and asked point-blank who among them had never done that particular sex act.

No hands went up.

While most prisons deal with such an offense internally, Broward Sheriff Ken Jenne -- and Miami-Dade Corrections officials -- are hoping to curb the practice among inmates by prosecuting them.

Janelle Hall, a spokeswoman for Miami-Dade Corrections, said that while no charges have been brought against inmates, the department is working with State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle's office to discuss prosecution of such ''egregious'' cases in the jail.

''It has been a hot topic so to speak in our department,'' Hall said. ``In those cases that are egregious, where there is some sort of intent to deliberately expose themselves, those cases will be reviewed further in the courts.''

A spokesman for Broward State Attorney Michael Satz said prosecution is warranted when an inmate exposes himself in plain view of the detention staff or others.

''Female detention deputies are human beings, too. Why should they have to view such vulgar and indecent behavior in their place of work?'' said Satz spokesman Ron Ishoy.

Prosecutors filed charges in all seven of Veal's other cases, Ishoy said, but later dropped the charges in one of those cases to allow the defendant to begin his sentence in the state prison system on a more serious, unrelated charge.

Four of the defendants pleaded guilty to the charge of exposure and were sentenced to time served. Charges against two inmates are pending.

The state attorney's office did not have the number of cases involving inmates charged with indecent exposure in BSO jails.

And there was no information on whether similar charges had been brought against female inmates.

''When an inmate exposes [himself], it's up to the deputy's discretion how to handle it,'' said Elliot Cohen, a BSO spokesman. ``It can be a verbal reprimand to the filing of criminal charges.''

Teri Barbera, a spokeswoman for the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office, said jail inmates there are written up for violating jail rules and subject to internal punishment ranging from loss of visitation privileges to solitary confinement.

Barbera said she is not aware of any cases where criminal charges have been brought against an inmate.

July 27th, 2007, 16:34
He pulled his pud for a female guard to see. Why should that be tolerated in jail when it isn't anywhere else?

Marsilius
July 27th, 2007, 17:03
Maybe because he was in the privacy of his own space?

bao-bao
July 27th, 2007, 20:29
I don't know him so Marsilius may not be old enough to remember Jim Morrison of The Doors being convicted of exposing himself onstage in Dade County, Florida, back in 1969, but I'd guess MOST of the board members are!

Rules are rules, but I bet this guard was on some sort of personal crusade -- much like a certain poster here who hints by their handle they're of above-average intelligence, and an orange juice spokeswoman most of us do remember!

Lunchtime O'Booze
July 27th, 2007, 20:31
I was there at the time !!!!..and there wasn't much to see...although he was a hunk.

July 28th, 2007, 00:21
Common sense would tell almost anyone (even SGT members, one would think) that it is not right to masturbate in view of someone who might not want to see it. Even if you're in the "privacy" of your own living room, it becomes an illegal act if your drapes are wide open and you are in view of the neighbors. The prisoner in question could jerk his gherkin after lights out, or under his blanket; but no, he masturbated purposefully in an exhibitionistic act in front of a woman who did not want to see it. That's assault.

Marsilius
July 28th, 2007, 01:05
Jail cells in other countries - certainly the UK - often have individual doors, tacitly recognising the prisoner's right to privacy once he is in his cell.

Why do US jails invariably seem to have no doors - just sets of bars - denying the prisoners any privacy whatsoever? You might answer that the answer is security, but I'm not aware that UK jails have a higher rate of prisoners tunnelling out than US ones (both, as far as I know, 0% - in spite of the efforts of the lovely Michael Schofield in "Prison Break".)

And, it seems to me, the US open design actually facilitates the sort of intercommunication and ratcheting up of emotions, abuse, feuds, etc. that cause the disturbances and riots portrayed on shows like "Prison Break" and "Oz" (yes, I know thay're only TV shows...).

Surely, in contrast, locking people behind closed doors creates a calming atmosphere and, at the risk of opening a new can of worms, at least treats those we are choosing to punish by deprivation of liberty with a modicum of humanity and consideration (which their punishment is not supposed to be denying them)?

July 28th, 2007, 09:07
....treats those we are choosing to punish by deprivation of liberty with a modicum of humanity and consideration ....

CHOOSING to punish?!?
Excuse me! These people CHOSE to be in prison by CHOOSING to break the law. They aint in there for jay-walking you know.
If you can't do the time don't do the crime.

Marsilius
July 28th, 2007, 13:58
Thanks, kenc.

But, no: we as members of a nation/society choose to punish people because we choose to make certain things a crime.

Nothing is intrinsically a crime - merely that range of activities that we as a nation/society choose to criminalise.

For instance, the Saudi government chooses to punish a man for having sex with another man whereas Canada does not. In Thailand, similarly, showing disrespect to the King of Thailand is a crime: elsewhere in ther world it is not. There are thousands of such instances where a nation/society criminalises a particular activity that is legal - and so does not lead to punishment - in other countries.

I agree that a "criminal" is, by definition, one who has broken the national law, but the preceding stage is that the nation/society has chosen to criminalise the particular activity that it has , in that instance, labelled a "crime". Hence the nation/society has, at the very least, a strong responsibility for having brought about the "criminal's" incarceration.

The point, moreover, that I was raising - and that you have ignored - is what the nature of the punishment should be. The point of jail is, I believe, deprivation of liberty - both for the security of the rest of society and as a punishment. Once prisoners have been locked away, and security and safety issues within the establishment addressed, the point of jail is not to spy on inmates - who are human beings like the rest of us - without justification and to deprive them of their privacy for no reason at all other than gratuitous voyeurism. So, as I quite reasonably asked, why no doors?

Thai_Faen-old
July 28th, 2007, 17:02
Don't think anyone has said it so I will.... what a wanker.

I wonder if the female officer that caught him wanking on a number of occasion was a dyke that was just jealous he had something that she could only imagine by strapping something to herself (please treat this reply as a tongue in cheek response), I take on board the fact that as some have pointed out he wasn't necessarily being discreet as he spanked his monkey.

Thai_Faen :bounce:

Bob
July 28th, 2007, 18:01
Some of the claptrap being spouted here is enough to turn me into a neo-con (well, hardly).
Let's see: (1) An activity is a crime because a society's government says it is a crime; (2) crime is bad; (3) we can get rid of crime (and all badness) by simply declaring all activities not a crime. Then we're all good and can smile and eat cake.

And lord forbid that we would cause even a slight incovenience to those in jail. We should pamper them and assist their
expression of themselves. Perhaps jails with lovely bay windows so the occupants (hell, we wouldn't want to be distasteful and call them "prisoners", would we?) can wank to their hearts desires for all to see.

All societies should rise up, march to the capitals of the world, and protest the infringement of our god given rights to publicly pound our puds. Jail cells are but our private apartments of the world and, with some tasteful redecorating (perhaps some fuchia wallpaper and lime-green shag carpeting on the walls?), we can turn them all into colorful creamatoriums.

Ah, the image of Federico Fellini fucking the dog after a sugar high.....