Article: https://www.salon.com/2020/10/16/watchdog-group-accuses-amy-coney-barrett-of-unconscionable-cruelty-in-teen-rape-case/
Tweet: https://twitter.com/4_the_babies/status/1317481380821884928
And it's not like employers or even public institutions do anything unless a court case forces them. There was a human rights tribunal case in BC (which I'm only aware of because CHUDs think it 'proves' that misgendering is illegal in Canada), where a trans woman was repeatedly harassed by police officers, mocked and denigrated while in custody, and denied medical treatment by Vancouver PD. One of the findings was that VPD had zero policies on the treatment of trans people. Which, I don't expect much from cops, but the fact they didn't even cover their ass by having something in writing seemed absurd.
I'm so happy the Democrats being the cowards they are, just sat there and were too scared to call out this psychopath for any of this stuff.
Pretty sure the guard is individually responsible, but the institution doesn't hold any responsibility. It's perfectly consistent with modern conservative and neoliberal ideology.
I remember this from tort law!
An employer is vicariously liable for an employee’s actions only when the action is connected to the duties they carry out. So if they’re carrying out the duty, but in an unorthodox or incompetent way, then there’s liability. If there’s no nexus, then there’s no liability.
Does that seem murky? It is. Very.
On one extreme, you have stuff like an employee harming someone unconnected to the work, outside work hours, out of work uniform. On the other, you have stuff like an employee following the employer’s instructions to the letter, and harming someone. Everything in between is fuzzy.
Personally, I’d imagine a person raping someone in his custody at work would meet that threshold, but hey I’m not a Supreme Court judge.
Prisoners are some of the most dehumanized people in this country. They don't give a fuck what happens to them behind bars or how screwed their life is when they come out.
it seems like being a prison guard gives you certain access to prisoners that is unavailable to the general public TBH. and also maybe a position of power over them (in line with your job) that can be abused. just spit balling, though
It is their duty to watch the prisoners
So it's within the work
Outside the duties works be using their cellphone to sell drugs while on site
But it’s not in their job description to rape the people in their custody.
So the question is whether raping someone has the sufficient nexus to keeping someone in custody.
Personally, I think it does, as rape has historically been used as a tool of impromptu ‘correction’ and punishment, but it’s nebulous enough for bootlickers to distance themselves if they want.
So pretty much anything is on the table then right? As long as it's not in their official duties, the guards can commit genocide while smoking meth, and it's all good.
If this applies to all jobs, I'm gonna need some more ammo.
Holy shit just realized i'm going to be accidentally calling her ABC for the next 50 years in the same way I couldn't stop saying RGB
Next Case:
The guard is not liable because qualified immunity while acting as an official of the carceral system of the state
"Any wrongdoing perpetrated by our employees has nothing to do with us, even when we informally order them to do it" is already the de facto state of affairs, see Eddie Gallagher and every other atrocity by the military or police, just "bad apples who dishonor the institution" and so on
I mean, beyond parody, etc., but still
I mean that's the reality of how they operate, they don't literally state it like that
Conjures up memories of Op-Eds of people saying "ACB is a logical successor to RGB, she too is a woke girlboss and not at all extreme".
