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

[Napoleon]

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.

No, the point is that the county does not have absolute power or ability to stop an employee from abusing their authority to commit a crime.

 

[Deuce]

No, the point is that the county does not have absolute power or ability to stop an employee from abusing their authority to commit a crime.

Their power doesn't matter, the responsibility is the question.

 

[ludin]

Salon - Bias and Credibility

LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Salon is the Breitbart of left wing media.

The salon is nothing more than a leftist tabloid.

 

[Napoleon]

Their power doesn't matter, the responsibility is the question.

You don’t have the responsibility if you don’t have the power.

 

[TurtleDude]

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.

Excellent analysis-astute conclusion. well stated.

 

[dcsports]

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.

No one is making that argument.

 

[jonny5]

A little video I made on the subject

Is this a video debate forum now?

 

[Deuce]

You don’t have the responsibility if you don’t have the power.

Disagree. Just because you can't prevent 100% of X doesn't mean you have absolutely no responsibility towards X.

 

[Napoleon]

Disagree. Just because you can't prevent 100% of X doesn't mean you have absolutely no responsibility towards X.

And the panel judged that the county met that responsibility by providing the training. It has no responsibility to control the actions of the employee directly because that is impossible.

 

[Deuce]

And the panel judged that the county met that responsibility by providing the training. It has no responsibility to control the actions of the employee directly because that is impossible.

Nobody is suggesting mind control is part of the prison's responsibility. Straw man. Rejected.

A power point slide that says "don't rape children" doesn't absolve a prison from all responsibility towards the safety of a child it has custody of. Anyone who thinks it should is a monster.

 

[jchat]

And the panel judged that the county met that responsibility by providing the training. It has no responsibility to control the actions of the employee directly because that is impossible.

As someone previously stated, prisons have safeguards to prevent officers from being alone with an inmate. Nothing about that kind of thing has been cited in this decision, I find that to be abhorrent.

 

[bluesmoke]

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

Negligence of an employee committed during an act within the scope of duties, sure. But if a guard beats the living hell out of an inmate, that’s not within the scope. Nor would killing the inmate be. Any guard can rape an inmate, regardless of each other’s sex/gender, and the prison can’t be held liable because the act is not within scope.

 

[dcsports]

Negligence of an employee committed during an act within the scope of duties, sure. But if a guard beats the living hell out of an inmate, that’s not within the scope. Nor would killing the inmate be. Any guard can rape an inmate, regardless of each other’s sex/gender, and the prison can’t be held liable because the act is not within scope.

Again, I was speaking of negligence in the scope of supervision. To use your example, one employee beats the crap out of one inmate, that's on the employee. If the jail made a reasonable effort to train, supervise, and monitor employees, and fired the guard responsible, then they probably won't be held liable. Ten inmates get the crap beaten out of them by guards, or that guard beats the crap out of 10 inmates, then it becomes a question of what the jail has done to prevent or stop the beating.

 

[bluesmoke]

Again, I was speaking of negligence in the scope of supervision. To use your example, one employee beats the crap out of one inmate, that's on the employee. If the jail made a reasonable effort to train, supervise, and monitor employees, and fired the guard responsible, then they probably won't be held liable. Ten inmates get the crap beaten out of them by guards, or that guard beats the crap out of 10 inmates, then it becomes a question of what the jail has done to prevent or stop the beating.

But neither case is within the scope and neither case would by the decision Barrett agreed with would find the prison liable. You are bringing up a point that has not been tested, but literally would still not qualify, based on the parameters of the court opinion, to find the prison liable. Or, you point out where in the court's reading you find such as you describe would the prison be liable.