• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amy Coney Barrett attacked for ‘cruelty’ over role in overturning prison inmate rape damages

skeptic llc

Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
1,446
Reaction score
532
Location
PNW USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Hmm, not enough patience to watch the whole video; basis for liability = ?
 

jchat

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2020
Messages
12
Reaction score
8
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I linked the independent article but essentially she and two other judges deemed that the county jail couldn't be sued as the prison guard who raped the woman was 'acting outside his official duties'
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
11,596
Reaction score
3,223
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I linked the independent article but essentially she and two other judges deemed that the county jail couldn't be sued as the prison guard who raped the woman was 'acting outside his official duties'

In prison, consensual sex btx a guard and an inmate is classified as rape. Was that the case?
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,479
Reaction score
5,122
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal

dex4974

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Messages
5,560
Reaction score
1,218
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist

Salon is the Breitbart of left wing media.
 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,479
Reaction score
5,122
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal

Salon is the Breitbart of left wing media.
Too lazy to do your own research?

How about this..

 

dex4974

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 29, 2016
Messages
5,560
Reaction score
1,218
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
Too lazy to do your own research?

How about this..

That's a little better. Thanks.

 

BlueTex

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
11,479
Reaction score
5,122
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That's a little better. Thanks.

Here is actual decision... Interesting side note, the sherif was the famous David Clark..


 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
11,596
Reaction score
3,223
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Thanks.

"Conduct is not in the scope if it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time or space, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the employer,"

Well, that pretty much narrows it down to "The institution cannot be held liable for civil damages for any act of any kind committed inside the prison by any prison employee unless authorized by the prison".

"It's not business. It's strictly personal."
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
6,237
Reaction score
1,734
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Thanks.

"Conduct is not in the scope if it is different in kind from that authorized, far beyond the authorized time or space, or too little actuated by a purpose to serve the employer,"

Well, that pretty much narrows it down to "The institution cannot be held liable for civil damages for any act of any kind committed inside the prison by any prison employee unless authorized by the prison".

"It's not business. It's strictly personal."
That's not entirely true, because negligence in supervising employees, or providing safeguards can come into play. What the appeals panel said (and it wasn't just Barrett) was that in this case, the employee did something outside of their job - in fact, going against organizational policy - and the employer can't be responsible for every action of an employee that suddenly goes off the rails.

Please note (and highlighted in the article) that Barrett ruled differently in a case where a guard repeatedly committed sexual assault, and the jail failed to stop him

However, legal observers say that in a similar case Ms Barrett ruled against Wisconsin’s Polk County in a case where a prison guard sexually assaulted five women hundreds of times, according to salon.com. Polk County was ordered to pay one of the victim’s of convicted former guard Daryl Christensen $11.5 million, but that was later overturned by a three judge panel fo the Seventh Circuit Court.

The case was then reheard by the court’s full panel and Ms Barrett sided with the 7-4 majority and ruled against Polk County, which was ordered to pay $4m of the award.
 

jchat

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2020
Messages
12
Reaction score
8
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's not entirely true, because negligence in supervising employees, or providing safeguards can come into play. What the appeals panel said (and it wasn't just Barrett) was that in this case, the employee did something outside of their job - in fact, going against organizational policy - and the employer can't be responsible for every action of an employee that suddenly goes off the rails.

Please note (and highlighted in the article) that Barrett ruled differently in a case where a guard repeatedly committed sexual assault, and the jail failed to stop him

I would argue that allowing someone to have total legal and physical control over another person would constitute a moral and ethical obligation to put safeguards in place that would make this much harder to pull off
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
10,275
Reaction score
3,783
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I would argue that allowing someone to have total legal and physical control over another person would constitute a moral and ethical obligation to put safeguards in place that would make this much harder to pull off
Yes, but in this case the employer seems to have done its due diligence. The panel merely prevented the victim from trying to set the county up as an “insurer” to pay out monetary damages that the actual perpetrator should be responsible for.
 

jchat

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2020
Messages
12
Reaction score
8
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, but in this case the employer seems to have done its due diligence. The panel merely prevented the victim from trying to set the county up as an “insurer” to pay out monetary damages that the actual perpetrator should be responsible for.
How did you come to that conclusion? Given that a Jury found the county liable and this decision doesn't directly express any measures taken or even a standard of measures to be taken, I'm not sure what you would use to say that
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
10,275
Reaction score
3,783
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
How did you come to that conclusion? Given that a Jury found the county liable and this decision doesn't directly express any measures taken or even a standard of measures to be taken, I'm not sure what you would use to say that
The panel decision lays out why the employee and employee alone is responsible for paying the monetary damages awarded by the jury in that case. For example, “Uncontested evidence at trial demonstrated County thoroughly trained Thicklen not to have sexual contact with inmates. County expressly forbade him from having sexual contact with an inmate under any circumstances, regardless of apparent consent. County’s training warned him that such sexual contact violates state law and the Sheriff’s Office’s mission.” with the conclusion being “We have sympathy for Martin, who loses perhaps her best chance to collect the judgment. But the law does not make public employers absolute insurers against all wrongs.” And it should be noted that Barrett did join the majority in another decision to hold a different county liable in a different rape case because they did not provide that mandatory training.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
73,492
Reaction score
31,917
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"the prison didn't order the guard to rape the girl and therefore has no responsibility to protect a teenage girl from rape" is cruel, yes.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
10,275
Reaction score
3,783
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
"the prison didn't order the guard to rape the girl and therefore has no responsibility to protect a teenage girl from rape" is cruel, yes.
Well, no, that’s not what the decision was. The decision was equivalent to saying that if you knock your own teeth out because you used an object for something other than it’s intended purpose and ignored the copious warning labels then you can’t hold the manufacturer liable for that. Raping inmates does not fall within any of the guard’s authorized duties and he received thorough training that such an act is expressly forbidden, a violation of the code of the conduct, grounds for termination, and a criminal offense. So the county cant be held liable if the guard chooses to do it anyway. The county’s only legal responsibility is to prohibit and discourage that behavior and it did that.
 

jchat

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2020
Messages
12
Reaction score
8
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The panel decision lays out why the employee and employee alone is responsible for paying the monetary damages awarded by the jury in that case. For example, “Uncontested evidence at trial demonstrated County thoroughly trained Thicklen not to have sexual contact with inmates. County expressly forbade him from having sexual contact with an inmate under any circumstances, regardless of apparent consent. County’s training warned him that such sexual contact violates state law and the Sheriff’s Office’s mission.” with the conclusion being “We have sympathy for Martin, who loses perhaps her best chance to collect the judgment. But the law does not make public employers absolute insurers against all wrongs.” And it should be noted that Barrett did join the majority in another decision to hold a different county liable in a different rape case because they did not provide that mandatory training.

Well I asked what safe guards they lined out and all you have stated is 'they told him not to do crimes in training! 'which is quite literally a mere trust system. And when we are talking about the total surrender of ones rights while in jail that custodian has to have safeguards because sooner or later someone will do the wrong thing given motive and opportunity. So in this case I would agree with the Jury and I believe this ruling to be astonishingly cruel
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
6,237
Reaction score
1,734
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I would argue that allowing someone to have total legal and physical control over another person would constitute a moral and ethical obligation to put safeguards in place that would make this much harder to pull off
How do you know they didn't do that? Jails have MANY safeguards that are designed to prevent a guard from being alone with an inmate.
 

dcsports

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
6,237
Reaction score
1,734
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"the prison didn't order the guard to rape the girl and therefore has no responsibility to protect a teenage girl from rape" is cruel, yes.
That's not what the decision was.
 

Napoleon

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2012
Messages
10,275
Reaction score
3,783
Location
Columbus, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Well I asked what safe guards they lined out and all you have stated is 'they told him not to do crimes in training! 'which is quite literally a mere trust system. And when we are talking about the total surrender of ones rights while in jail that custodian has to have safeguards because sooner or later someone will do the wrong thing given motive and opportunity. So in this case I would agree with the Jury and I believe this ruling to be astonishingly cruel
Then you have unreleastic expectations. No employer has that much control over the actions of their employees. Not even the military. All any employer can do is train its employees on right vs wrong behaviors and reenforce that training with a system of reward and punishment and the county was doing that.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
73,492
Reaction score
31,917
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, no, that’s not what the decision was. The decision was equivalent to saying that if you knock your own teeth out because you used an object for something other than it’s intended purpose and ignored the copious warning labels then you can’t hold the manufacturer liable for that. Raping inmates does not fall within any of the guard’s authorized duties and he received thorough training that such an act is expressly forbidden, a violation of the code of the conduct, grounds for termination, and a criminal offense. So the county cant be held liable if the guard chooses to do it anyway. The county’s only legal responsibility is to prohibit and discourage that behavior and it did that.
Yes, that's what I said. The argument is that the county has no obligation to actually protect children from rape when those children are in the custody of the county.
 
Top Bottom