[lbo-talk] celebrity unit

[John Thornton]

Dennis Claxton wrote:
>> How do you not know this?
>> Have you not seen a picture of these rooms?
>> Do you not know you take your meals in the privacy of your room in this
>> unit?
>> Do you not know what the conditions in the "Non-celebrity units" are like?
>> It is not just about denying the riff-raff access.
>> Units like this offer greater privacy, more comfort, and more privilege.
>> This isn't a ground breaking discovery on my part, but rather common
>> knowledge.
>>
>> John Thornton
>>     
>
>
> I know a little about jail.  I also know that the cell Hilton stayed 
> in is like every other cell and that she had the same food as 
> everyone else.  I said earlier that "celebrity unit" is a 
> misnomer.  She was in protective custody, the same as cops who get 
> sent to jail.  That's why she took her meals in private, so she 
> wouldn't get fucked up in the general population.  Yes, she was 
> treated differently than most other prisoners, but jail is 
> jail.  Yes, she got out early, but so do about 40,000 other people a 
> year in Los Angeles County.
>
> There is very much wrong with our criminal justice and prison systems 
> and I talk about it here all the time,  but making stuff up never 
> helps an argument.   
What did anyone "make up"?
The special needs unit is more comfortable, more private, and has more 
privileges. Nothing made up about that.
I never claimed her food was different only that she enjoyed the 
privilege of dining in her room rather than in a mess hall.
This may seem insignificant to you, and you are entitled to your 
beliefs, but it is a real privilege nonetheless.
Small privileges take on heightened significance in such circumstances, 
an idea I have a difficult time believing you are completely unaware of.
Her room was like the other 12 on the celebrity unit but not like all 
the others shared by the majority of the inmates in the general population.
Century Regional isn't a harsh prison when compared to others either.
I've seen the differences in such rooms firsthand (In other prisons, not 
specifically the unit where Paris was held) and they are quite real.
Solid walls and only two occupants offer a level of privacy many inmates 
can only dream of.

What percentage of the 40,000 people released early spend less than 2 
days in jail?
Little that Paris experienced is shared by 99.9% of the people who go to 
jail.
Those 99.9% would love to be treated as Paris was. Her treatment was not 
good news to people working for humane treatment for prisoners and 
pretending that it was is totally disingenuous.

People get "fucked up" in general prison populations every day.
No unassailable figures exist but best estimates are that 70% to 90% of 
inmates are raped and well over 90% are threatened with a very credible 
threat of physical violence.
Why exempt Paris from this very real threat that exists for EVERYONE 
else in the general prison population?
If fewer than half of all inmates were physically threatened then one 
could make a reasonable case that since Paris may have a 90%-98% chance 
of being threatened with physical harm this constituted an unfair burden 
for her when compared to other inmates. However in light of the fact 
that other inmates stand a 90% chance or more of being threatened with 
physical harm the fact that Paris has perhaps a 5%-10% greater chance of 
facing such a threat is rather insignificant. We are left either 
pretending that prisoners face a greatly diminished threat of physical 
harm than actually exists so we can plead special circumstances for 
Paris or else we have to say that Paris being threatened with violence 
is less acceptable than any randomly chosen prisoner being similarly 
threatened. Since you seem to believe Paris deserved special treatment 
which idea explains this belief better? Do you prefer the comfort of 
erroneously believing prison is less violent than it actually is or do 
you believe that a threat to Paris is worse than a threat to a randomly 
chosen inmate?

John Thornton