home

Rikers to Close Unit for Gays

By Jeralyn, Section Inmates and Prisons
Posted on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 11:57:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The jail at Rikers Island in New York is closing its facility that houses gays and trans-genders.

For at least three decades, gay and trans-gender inmates had their own housing unit inside Rikers Island's sprawling jail complex. To be admitted, all a new inmate had to do was declare homosexuality, or appear to be trans gender, and ask to be kept out of Rikers's main jails.

The idea, city correction officials said, was to protect vulnerable inmates who might otherwise become victims of discrimination or sexual abuse in the rough world of the general inmate population. The only other metropolitan jail to separate gay and trans gender inmates is Los Angeles County Jail. Gay inmates there, however, are forced to live separately from other inmates.

Gays, trans-genders and our youngest inmates need protection. Putting them in isolation, where they spend 23 hours a day in lock-down is cruel. As a society, we have an obligation to protect the most vulnerable among us. Maybe those that endorsed the closure policy should be forced to spend a few days among the general population at Riker's. Maybe, it's the only way they will learn.

< New Year's Blogging Resolution | Friday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rikers to Close Unit for Gays | 39 comments (39 topical)
    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#1)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 01:32:58 AM EST
    Only if Ed Koch goes along with them.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#2)
    by ltgesq on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 04:56:54 AM EST
    This is Bloomberg? Bloomberg?

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#3)
    by soccerdad on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 05:35:13 AM EST
    As a society, we have an obligation to protect the most vulnerable among us
    This is a "quaint" concept under the present regime. Under the far right christian thinking now dominiate in our society either 1. they are getting what the deserve, 2. we are no longer treating them different, 3. they'll feel empowered to change, or some other transparent excuse for causing them to be punished more.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 05:35:56 AM EST
    Here's a novel idea: Render the issue moot by not committing a crime.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 06:11:47 AM EST
    Maybe Riker prison officials ought to watch a little more Law & Order -- especially the Special Victims episode where the pre-surgery transsexual is almost beaten to death at Rikers.Sheesh.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#6)
    by jimcee on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 06:50:02 AM EST
    They should keep a seperate unit for Gays and trans-sexuals to cut down on violence and abuse. It just seems logical. On the other hand wasns't TL against segregation in California according to ethnic gang orientation in order to cut down on gang violence in prisons there? Which again just seems logical. So what is the difference between the two?

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 08:05:52 AM EST
    Posted by jimcee They should keep a seperate unit for Gays and trans-sexuals to cut down on violence and abuse. It just seems logical. On the other hand wasns't TL against segregation in California according to ethnic gang orientation in order to cut down on gang violence in prisons there? Which again just seems logical. So what is the difference between the two?
    Homosexuals and transgender people who are incarcerated usually don’t form violent gangs, but are routinely preyed upon by them.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:21:02 AM EST
    Soccerdad, As a conservative who fully supports the rights of non-violent offenders to be separated from the main population, I'd appreciate a link to a statement by a conservative opinion maker that supports your accusation that "Under the far right christian thinking now dominiate in our society either 1. they are getting what the deserve, 2. we are no longer treating them different, 3. they'll feel empowered to change, or some other transparent excuse for causing them to be punished more." And quite frankly, before you offer him as a legitimate voice of the "religious right", Rev. Fred Phelps is a far fringe wacko who doesn't represent anyone but himself and the 16 members of his crazy church. Your statement indicates an unwarranted hostility and prejudice toward the religious community, and are quite simply untrue. Just as an aside, do you recognize ANY Christian opinion as worthy of respect, or is it all just "far right" as far as you're concerned? www.liberallyspeaking.blogs.com

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    "Any tolerance for gay people, even if it’s listening to Elton John, is perverted. So what should you believe? The truths presented by the right wing, obviously. The core idea is that every day America is becoming more and more corrupt with things called “opinions.” These untrue viewpoints threaten the freedoms our forefathers promised, like the right to own assault weapons and the right to deport gays, immigrants and liberals from our borders. Without these entitlements, the United States will endure a quick moral decline, and our kids will be destroyed by God himself. Heck, even super-conservative Ann Coulter should shut her yapper — she’s on the right track, but she should get a husband to talk for her. Also, if you have any tolerance for gay people — even if it’s just for Elton John — you are a pervert. Even though homosexuality is demonstrated in most animal species on Earth, it is a conscious decision created by liberals and imposed on our children. Radical conservatism makes perfect sense. If you disagree, you just don’t understand — so grow some balls, buy a truck, carry a gun and read this again. Then maybe you’ll see. " Pay attention, communist liberal slime

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:01:41 AM EST
    Mr Kessler thanks for the unwarrented slander. You can find your own links Google is a good place, I dont do your homework for you. I have posted many links in the past and will continue to do so. But I feel no compulsion to answer specific requests for people who just claim I'm wrong without proof of their own. provide your own links that the dominionists are anywhere near mainstream. As i showed in the other thread you yourself use these kinds of phrases to hide your own hostility to those of other races etc. Phelps is a wacko, how about Falwell et al blaming 9/11 on homosexuals. Google it or go to religioustolerance.org and search dominionist Yes I have a great deal of hostility towards the far right christian (small c on purpose) because for the most part people like Robertson and Falwell and other dominionists are about power not about God Thus I consider them a threat to the country and Christianity as well as the worst kind of hypocrites as for myself I was brought up Catholic, 12 years of catholic school and am an active Lutheran and am very supportive of main stream Christian thinking as you would know if you read my posts.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:04:45 AM EST
    Sayeth steve duncan:
    Here's a novel idea: Render the issue moot by not committing a crime.
    Wouldn't be at Riker's in the first place if they weren't guilty of something, right? Please don't breed.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:14:18 AM EST
    Hey Soccerdad, Then I apologize for my remarks. If you respect Christian opinion that differs from you're own, that is, conservative Christian thought, then you're fair minded. I would like to point out, though, that Jerry Falwell saying that 9-11 is God's retribution for an overly permissive society, is a far cry from wanting homosexuals to be raped in prisons. Edgar, Your post is so transparently phoney that it's quite funny. You're obviously parodying your own bias against conservatives, in case anyone didn't notice. www/liberallyspeaking.blogs.com

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:18:47 AM EST
    about power not about God Thus I consider them a threat to the country and Christianity as well as the worst kind of hypocrites
    Very well said, Soccerdad... RK: Do you not recognize satire? And yes, I am.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#14)
    by soccerdad on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:29:44 AM EST
    is a far cry from wanting homosexuals to be raped in prisons.
    he may not actively want them to be raped, but I would posit that he wouldn't care.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#15)
    by glanton on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:33:33 AM EST
    I would like to point out, though, that Jerry Falwell saying that 9-11 is God's retribution for an overly permissive society, is a far cry from wanting homosexuals to be raped in prisons.
    No, RK, it isn't. The two are, to say the very least, in intimate conversation with one another. How, after all, could one recognize the outright drooling craziness and bigotry in Falwell's statement without at the same time recognizing the same elements in the other?

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#16)
    by SeeEmDee on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    Before anyone gets in a tizzy, it might be useful to know what crimes landed the non-violent gays and T-G's in the GrayBar Hotel. I don't know the answer myself, but I would venture to guess that it was drug-related, as in possession and sale. In other words, 'concensual crimes' in which two people voluntarily enter into business arrangement in which neither side harms the other. As stunning as the idea may be to some, this then poses a question: given that many states are quietly releasing non-violent (mostly drug) offenders because of budget cuts, why were they incarcerated to begin with? If they are safe enough to release, then can't one reason that they were safe enough to remain at large in the population prior to their being imprisoned? The taxpayer's have a right to know why, since it's our hard-earned-and-governmentally-extorted funds that were used in the process, from arrest to release.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#17)
    by MikeDitto on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:51:59 AM EST
    SeeEmDee-- Drugs, prostitution, DUI, probation violations... The same kinds of crimes that land most people in a city jail. And a large number of people who are just awaiting trials and hearings...Riker's houses a lot of people who are legally if not factually innocent and are just waiting to move through the legal system.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 10:55:07 AM EST
    Sorry, J, a little off-topic here, but this story out of Egypt (our buddies in War on Terror), about the raid on a Sudanese refugee camp is disturbing to say the least.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#19)
    by Patrick on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:34:36 AM EST
    On the other hand wasns't TL against segregation in California according to ethnic gang orientation in order to cut down on gang violence in prisons there? Which again just seems logical.
    Homosexuals and transgender people who are incarcerated usually don’t form violent gangs, but are routinely preyed upon by them. Oh, I get it, it's not OK to segregate, ohh wait it is OK to segregate if... No wait, I don't get it. Other groups aren't the victims of prison gangs too? IMO desegregation will not weaken prison gangs, it will only put their intended victims in closer contact with them.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#20)
    by Patrick on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:37:03 AM EST
    You can find your own links Google is a good place, I dont do your homework for you.
    There's your answer folks, he couldn't do it, but wants others to prove their statements. If it weren't sad, I'd laugh.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#21)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    Jerry Falwell saying that 9-11 is God's retribution for an overly permissive society, is a far cry from wanting homosexuals to be raped in prisons.
    Uh... they're both equally atrocious, in my eyes anyway. Do you disagree?

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#22)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:48:37 AM EST
    Your post is so transparently phoney that it's quite funny. You're obviously parodying your own bias against conservatives, in case anyone didn't notice.
    Um... yes? Hey, Kessler, this may come as a shock to you, but Jonathan Swift didn't really support the butchering of Irish infants for human consumption. Similarly, you know those Celebrity Jeapordy sketches on SNL? They were in fact staged, with actors portraying Alex Trebek, Sean Connery, Burt Reynolds and the like.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#23)
    by soccerdad on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:50:19 AM EST
    Patrick, as you choose to ignore that fact that i post many links over time. However, when people tell me and others here we're wrong and they themselves never provide links, I feel no compulsion to answer their query. Mr Kessler had a long running series of postes were he took on me, especially johnnny and provide no links to his proported argument. If you are in the habit of providing links or ask in non-confrontational way then I will take the time to go back and refind the links or provide new ones. In other words whats good for the goose is good for the gander. Got a problem with that tough. How many times has PPJ said this I didn't see you getting all over him for it. But thanks anyway for your most recent slander. Got a specific point? Didn't think so.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#24)
    by Patrick on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:17:58 PM EST
    Soccerdad, You have in fact in the past posted many links supporting your positions, but of late you have been attacking anyone with an opposing view rather than debating them. Name calling (Even when I do it) is a sign of a weak or lazy argument. Of course I'm just an uneducated cop so such childish behavior is expected of me. I hope that is specific enough.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#25)
    by Patrick on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:20:22 PM EST
    Besides, I think is is entirely appropariate to request a link or supporting document when someone makes a sweeping generalization that borders on hyperbole. Don't you? Kinda keeps the opposition honest.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    posted by patrick: Homosexuals and transgender people who are incarcerated usually don’t form violent gangs, but are routinely preyed upon by them. Oh, I get it, it's not OK to segregate, ohh wait it is OK to segregate if... No wait, I don't get it. Other groups aren't the victims of prison gangs too? IMO desegregation will not weaken prison gangs, it will only put their intended victims in closer contact with them.
    I agree and I should have pointed out in my original post that I don't think racial desegregation of prison inmates is a very good idea. There is just too much racial hatred and animosity among prison inmates and in my opinion, such a move is just asking for future trouble.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#27)
    by soccerdad on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    attacking anyone with an opposing view rather than debating them.
    May or may not be true. But I am getting tired of going over the same arguments with the same people. people on the other side are not always interested in debating also.
    Name calling (Even when I do it) is a sign of a weak or lazy argument.
    its also may be a sign of frustration of rehashing the same nonsense with the same people. Especially if those people don't even read your links.
    Of course I'm just an uneducated cop so such childish behavior is expected of me.
    What's this trying to accomplish?
    I hope that is specific enough
    yep

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#28)
    by SeeEmDee on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:31:34 PM EST
    Michael Ditto, I was attempting to illustrate a point regarding the business of what constitutes an actual crime to society (murder, rape, child molestation, robbery, etc.) as opposed to what society (more correctly, what certain sections of society who are in political control of it) believe is a crime and wish to punish out of a sense of its' mores being offended. IMHO, it's a debate that has been kept in suspended animation thanks to the fears of those who wish to engage in it of being labeled 'soft on crime' for merely broaching the subject. The continuing fiscal crunch this nation is experiencing may be an opportunity to engage in that debate, as we can longer afford to incarcerate our way out of social problems...as apparently been the intent of the last 20 years.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#29)
    by soccerdad on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    Besides, I think is is entirely appropariate to request a link or supporting document when someone makes a sweeping generalization that borders on hyperbole.
    Whether its hyperbole depends on your point of view. And if the requesting person using unsupported attack accusations? I owe them what? Personally i think many times you are rash in what you say, which I would own up too also. But you have good info buried in there and you are pretty consistent in your views, both things I respect.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#30)
    by Patrick on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 12:42:57 PM EST
    Soccerdad, Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree, and I know what you mean about frustration, but I come here to challenge my paradigm. Most of the time it's reinforced, but I have had occasssion to see things differently, but that has always come from someone who took the time to make their points respectfully. Back on topic, Why don't they classify inmates based on their past behavior, criminal history and ability to go along with the program before placing them in such a unit. I would think they could weed out many of the opportunists that way.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 03:22:59 PM EST
    Very similar in concept to desegregating prisons by race in California. Just as in that case, in principle, it is the right thing to do. Unfortunately, in practice, it's going to result in a lot of physical and emotional trauma (and probably death too). If I thought an uptick in prison violence might prompt Americans to re-examine our criminal justice system and properly interpret the root causes of criminal behavior as well as the societal effects of funding gladiator academies with taxpayer dollars, then I might would say that the "bloody nose" we'll see as a result of desgregation would be worth it. I never underestimate America's tendency, however, to willfully ignore the obvious and/or draw the wrong conclusions. Our government's response to increased prison violence and increased recidivism will be pretty much the same as it has been for the last 100 years: more prisons, more poorly educated/underpaid guards, and worsening conditions for the incarcerated. Yeah, yeah. Our prisons are better than Turkey's. Great measuring stick. I guess that's why our Federal government is now picking and choosing which woefully immoral countries to fly prisoners to for interrogation these days. Maybe one day, if we all pitch in and try hard enough, we can have here at home the same kind of criminal justice system they have in the middle east. Public stonings, beatings, hangings, etc. Then, the CIA can save on airfare and we can all rest easy that anyone the fickle entitled majority feels is unacceptable will either be intimidated into submission, maimed, or killed. Just think of all the elite dollars that will be saved.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimcee on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 06:23:36 PM EST
    OK, As I said before I think that Gays might want to be seperated from the general prison population because of the possiblility of violence. Most posters today seem to have more political ideals as for the well being of Gay inmates. Either way, No one has answered my honest question which is: Why did TL think that segregation was a bad thing when it came down to ethnicity or gang membership but it is OK for sexuality? I like TL a bunch but I also hate hipocracy and this is a prime example of it. Other than that I would like to hear from someone who could effectively explain why segregation is OK for some folks but not for others. Just saying. PS please don't try to blame the Bushies or media.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#33)
    by demohypocrates on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:03:41 PM EST
    Its ok to violate fundamental 'civil rights' principles to protect convicted felons in a prison but heaven forbid we stop random searches of 90 year old grandmas at airports and focus on muslims who perpetrate 95% of the terrorist acts in the world. "Its ok Mohammed, get on the plane, we are checking Mrs. Greenbasch's geriatric slippers."

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:15:23 PM EST
    Tampa Student, By "examining the root causes of criminal behavior", do you mean the well worn leftist trope that, essentially, poverty causes crime? I think if you take a moment to examine that fallacy, you'd see it for the foolishness that it is. For example, there are plenty of rich people that commit plenty of crime. Also, the vast majority of poor people commit no crime. For every criminal background, I can show you a hundred people with the same background of poverty and drugs and violence who don't become criminals. The Leftist believes that the individual is always a victim of the capitalist democratic political system. (Curiously, rarely are they a victim of a communist/socialist system, but that's another story). Thus, we're told that we need to examine the "root causes", i.e. social injustice, that forces a person to become a criminal. I think if we began to teach people, rich AND poor, that your personal travails are no excuse for acting like an animal, we'd see a noticeable drop in crime. Of course, I'd also agree that we should legalize cannabis, (though a non-smoker myself), and clear the prisons of THAT particular non-criminal. www.liberallyspeaking.blogs.com

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#35)
    by glanton on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:42:24 PM EST
    RK, After attributing, in this same thread, a shred of dignity to Falwell's statement about 9/11, you are hardly in a position to be taken seriously, via a rational disagreement with Tampa, or any other poster who employs reason in their discourse. But even if you weren't already a professed ally of the American Droolers, then the following statement would have proven you incapable of looking clearly at this issue:
    I think if we began to teach people, rich AND poor, that your personal travails are no excuse for acting like an animal, we'd see a noticeable drop in crime.
    Indeed. Have you really allowed talk radio to infest your brain so deeply, that you believe we don't discourage "acting like an animal," as you so righteously put it? In the collective consciousness comprising loonyville, "THE LEFT" teaches crime as a virtuous endeavor. RK speaks for that community admirably.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 11:23:48 PM EST
    Glanton, you are quite the wordsmith! But of course, the issue isn't one of dignifying Falwells comment, but one of reporting it accurately, and recognizing that it in no way satisfies Tampa's accusation that Falwell DESIRES the rape and beating of homosexuals. Falwell attributes to God an act of retribution for our sinful ways. Tampa, however, twists this into incitement of violence against homosexuals. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to recognize the difference, if you have integrity. Secondly, the Left has been using the "root causes" excuse to blame both crime and terrorism on American society for years, as in this example from the CPUSA:"...to eliminate the terrible threat that terrorism poses to humanity, those roots must be considered. We would argue that capitalist globalization, gross inequality, poverty and corporate plunder of the world's natural resources and labor provide fertile soil for anger and desperation to grow."

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 12:43:06 AM EST
    RK: Um. Where did I comment on this thread about: Jerry Falwell... The CPUSA...(whatever this refers to) Or for that matter, poverty? In what sentence did I say that poverty alone was the root cause of all criminal behavior? But now that YOU mentioned it, you really believe that there is not any proven correlation between poverty and recidivism? You refuse to even consider it as a possibility? In the real world, the one that exists outside the Conservative propaganda reels, there are a whole host of factors that contribute to Criminal behavior - including Societal, Economic, and Physiological factors. Your simplisitic black and white view of "personal responsibility" is an excuse for a garden variety apathetic/vengeful dismissal of the humanity of people that found themselves, their behavior, and/or their thoughts outside the acceptable range of each in today's bizzare America. You're either disingenous or ignorant. Either way, your commentary is worthless. Go sling mud at someone that actually cares to waste their time trying to pry open your mind.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 05:07:07 AM EST
    Tampa He's too busy making generalizations, and generating strawmen to be accurate.

    Re: Rikers to Close Unit for Gays (none / 0) (#39)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Dec 31, 2005 at 07:17:26 AM EST
    CPUSA = Communist Party of the USA. Because, you know, all Americans to the left of Zell Miller are pinkos apparently.

    Rikers to Close Unit for Gays | 39 comments (39 topical)