Rapists and pedophiles are often the “lowest of the low” in the prison hierarchy. Is this true, or does it only apply in the US?
Also someone said that wife beaters are there too. Why is this? Why do prisoners take a dim view to these type of criminals and try to beat them up?
Because they have morals? :rolleyes:
I think pedophiles are the primary ones who have problems.
There is no greater demonstration of the purity of one’s moral excellence than beating people to a pulp when they offend you.
Anyway, crims have forfeited the right to determine morality.
We’ll see what happens to Bill Cosby . . . maybe.
Well this OP makes a nice bookend with your “Why judge a person for just one rape?” thread.
No cite, but IIRC a Doper who works in corrections once said this was a myth and that generally prisoners don’t particularly care what others are in for.
In Russia, informers are treated the worst.
In Russia, the authority protects former police officers by placing them in separate prisons.
Generally, in Russia, the laws are much more lenient then in USA.
I’ve heard that the people who get treated worst in prisons are LEOs who’ve committed crimes. Not sure how they determined that, since LEOs almost never seem to get convicted of anything.
ex-cops and informants are probably treated worse, basically anyone who promotes and cooperates with the legal system. I think the US has a moral panic about sex right now, that probably doesn’t exist in other nations. The age of consent is in the low teens in much of europe for example.
For Pakistani prisons that I have dealt with, from what have seen the vulnerable prisoners include former policemen, sex offenders and transsexuals.
People who abused children have problems in prison. Many prisoners have a history of being abused as children so they see beating up an abuser as a form of indirect revenge. I never worked in women’s prisons but I’ve heard it’s even worse there.
Informants have problems.
Thieves have problems if they steal stuff from other prisoners.
Anyone who committed treason or some other crime against the United States (like terrorism) has problems.
It varies with former police. I saw some that did okay. It think it depended on the crime. A corrupt police officer or one who abused his authority would have problems. But a police officer who committed a crime unrelated to his job might be okay.
In Australia, those convicted of offenses against children, rapists and the like are placed in ‘protective custody’. It means they’re kept out of the mainstream prison system in an attempt to prevent them being harmed by other prisoners.
Many years ago I read an article in the newspaper, written by a prison guard who had the ‘joy’ of supervising some in protective custody. According to the author, it was horrendous listening to the perps comparing stories of the crimes they’d committed, because in isolation they had no fear that those they’d tell would harm them…they would only glean vicarious pleasure from the tales told.
Chuck them into the mainstream prison and let them find their fate there I reckon. :dubious:
Back when there was a draft, I remember hearing draft dodgers were prime targets in prison. Hey, they may be felons, but a lot of convicts are patriotic too.
I find this surprising (not that I don’t believe you). I’d have assumed that convicts were against the system that sent them to prison in the first place.
Even those who are against “the system” can be enormously patriotic: they are all gung-ho for the country, but totally against the current load of people in charge.
And this is how it should be. The world is a much better place with its morality dictated by the likes of politicians and religious leaders as happens now. There are certainly no problems with that system.
Really? You reckon that extrajudicjal beatings and murder is what is needed?
Actually, vigilantism is a display of a stunning lack of morals.
Isn’t that what he said?