US Prisoners Should Have Access To Prostitutes

Questions] 1. Thank you for the more reputable source. I did not mean to be attack the original source, but it was about as backed as any blog could be so I figured we needed a better one. (that being said, I fully accept this new source). 2.[A&B] I apologize, for I was not originally clear in my statement. -The prison system of the united states separates criminals based on the severity of their crimes.[1] This means the 10% of criminals who have longer sentences, will generally be sent to different prison than the white collar criminals. NOTE: I only mention this difference because equating the 90% and 10% together is not how the prison system works. C) This assumption is actually based on your premise, in that people through their sexual desire rape another person. I put the assumption that generally people will not rape another person because of lack of sex in that time. [Disagreements] 1 -Would like to note the realistic approach my opponent takes here, while in a few paragraphs states the argument is hypothetical. A). While I do believe that AIDS*(or any disease) is a heavy financial burden, it's not relevant in that regard as a "death sentence" for that is primarily a healthcare issue. [BCD] -ok. =============================== [Prostitution is Illegal] Oh boy... Ok I wasn't going to argue this part because I was assuming this was purely hypothetical in the case that prostitution was legal, in fact your next point is that we "should" do this, not if we "could". -A reoccurring theme. Prostitution is illegal and some prisoners are in jail for charges involving prostitution. What argument you have for the prevention of prison rape would not matter, it would be condoning an illegal activity to the people it put in prison for doing the same thing. Do you know how much distrust that would generate with the people? With the prisoners? It would make the assumption that the Government could do whatever it wanted regardless if it was illegal or not. Secondly, I don't know if you know this but the case of the Native American and African Americans is entirely different and they are based upon completely different cultures. Also, affirmative action was a thing. (But this is extremely off topic and I just was pointing out that it was a horrible example). ===================== [Cost and Realistic Approach] Should and could. The act of preventing AIDS/Rape, you "should" do whatever you can. But I think that there are better alternatives and that just because you should do something, does not mean you escape the reality of if you could* do something. For instance, we SHOULD give Americans the best healthcare possible for free and stop everyone from ever committing a crime again. But can we do that? No. 1. Spending A) It would benefit more people and people of better societal standing to spend that money in other areas. The homeless, the poor, generally the money could go anywhere else it would effect more people in a more meaningful way. B) The general public would never go for government sponsored prostitutes. C) The politicians would never back it either. D) Again, a tax for government sponsored prostitutes. Would never fly. Ever. You are mixing taxation(which people hate) and a societal taboo. 2. Society and politics A) The US being what it is, would never EVER let this happen. I mean you'd be making the jump from legal prostitution to prisoners getting prostitutes. A large portion of the US is against gay marriage, marijuana, and healthcare already .B)Whichever party puts this up will be giving the other side a "win button" for any debate, any ad, and in general. The implications that could have on American law-making would be horrible. [The Problem solved] 1. You know, this is problem I forgot to address. You are linking the lack of sex to rape. This is not a X=Y scenario, rape is also not generally caused by a lack of sex in normal scenarios and is a bit deeper than the X=Y fashion it has been addressed in. -But on that note, I think masturbation would solve the problem just as much with a thousandth of the cost. Sexual urges gone, I don't see the difference other than the argument that "sex =/= masturbation" which is irrelevant as it addresses the main problem. 2. Again, you seem to not use a realistic scenario and just think that prostitutes will like this system because they get beat less*(maybe) and now have a government sponsored pimp. A) You'd have to pay and provide food/lodging. B) Most prostitutes aren't that trusting of their government, seeing as how their work is illegal. C) Most people, everyone really, regards prison in a negative light. D) There would be abuse. As much as you'd like to argue against it, the crimes against sex workers is already very common. In prison, I am not convinced this would present less opportunities for abuse. Prison: It's not a place you want to go. It's not a place you want to visit. While I have no factual proof to back up that prostitutes would not like to work in a prison, I can surely tell you that they would not. =================================== [MORE FLAWS.] 1. If a prisoner has AIDS, he would not get a prostitute, and keep on raping. -If you could test and give him an AIDS infected prostitute, why not just have timed test for AIDS and separate the AIDS prisoners from everyone else? 2. The amount of prostitutes would be enormous for a decent ratio of non-STD infected ones to keep working. You'd need at least 1 for every 2-3 prisoners to not get a high infection rate. 3. The amount of pay you'd need to support a prostitute for getting infected with STD's and if she sued, would be ridiculous. 4. General cost of lodging, food, and pay for a prostitute would be more than a prisoner's cost. 5. What about those incarcerated for sexual assaults of any kind? It would be seen as a reward by society. 6. What about gay men or women? 7. What about those who deny the prostitutes? Would they be forced? =================================================== [Let me make the case for SHOULD NOT] -Real quick. 1. The government should not be hypocritical in it's implementation of the law. 2. Prostitutes would fair just as badly within a government system.*(especially one dealing with prison). 3. It would present too heavy of a financial burden on society, where funds could be spent elsewhere to impact more people. 4. It would impact the US political structure in a negative way. 5. Instead of solving both the issue of prostitution and prison rape completely, you'd be taking a very costly measure to try and stopgap a problem with no sufficient evidence it works. - It does not make prostitutes into productive members of society - It would introduce all kinds of new problems with handling the prostitutes. Again, should and could go hand in hand. If if the argument is not philosophical and has real world meaning/impact, then you should consider both accounts, not just the wishful thinking part. =================================== Proof I'm requesting: 1. That "handlers" would stop abuse of prostitutes or not abuse them. 2. The reason most inmates turn to rape is because of years without sex. -I figured to just bypass this because prostitution itself was an easier topic, but I'm done with that so I'll ask for this. -Also I wanted to make the point that rape is a deeper topic than "lack of sex." 3. This isn't "proof" but I'd like to see your estimate on cost done in scale with the system and your implementation of it.