puffy999: Minsky: And communism bad, tough on crime good, rehabilitation bad, eye-for-an-eye good. Nice culture you've created there.

Zachary (new window) would like a word with you.

Thanks for that. Added to Netflix instant queue. Looks heart-wrenching.

Deserves a hero tag. He's dirtying his hands to wake up the public that the death penalty has its place. The answer to executing prisoners willy nilly is not to provide their necessities for the rest of their natural lives regardless of their proven criminal behavior.

thinks_on_feet: Daedalus27:
You are completely full of shiat, and I suspect you work as or are married to (or friends with) a CO.

Effectively managing the housing assignment of a given inmate is as easy as effectively managing any other social setting when ALL the power over EVERY aspect of the inmate's life is in the hands of the managing authority -- it just isn't as much fun to farked-up psychopaths as the less-effective alternatives... and they all say exactly what you just said in defense of their stupidity.

How long were in prison?

The victim was transferred to this prison and was there for a week. The housing arrangements were temporary because the transfer happened unexpectedly due to the victim setting fire to his previous cell in his previous institution. The murderer felt he had exhausted all his options after a week. Hmmmm.

/The murderer just wants to matter. This is a "look at me" act and threat. "See, I matter. I'm part of history." His biggest fear is dying in a meaningless way with nothing to show for it (that's why he'll never kill himself). Personally, I don't care if he lives or dies as long as it's cheap and he doesn't hurt any more innocent people.

G2V: I do not approve of the death penalty. However, I'm totally fine with an isolation cell with speakers in the walls that randomly play off key single verses from showtunes... for the next 50 years.

While this would certainly be punishment I don't think it would be a deterrent. I doubt most people committing serious crimes even have a clue what a show tune even is. That doesn't mean I don't support your plan, I just think to get it approved you should change your pitch from deterrent to punishment.

Chimperror2: How long were in prison?

The victim was transferred to this prison and was there for a week. The housing arrangements were temporary because the transfer happened unexpectedly due to the victim setting fire to his previous cell in his previous institution. The murderer felt he had exhausted all his options after a week. Hmmmm.

/The murderer just wants to matter. This is a "look at me" act and threat. "See, I matter. I'm part of history." His biggest fear is dying in a meaningless way with nothing to show for it (that's why he'll never kill himself). Personally, I don't care if he lives or dies as long as it's cheap and he doesn't hurt any more innocent people.

Nobody cares about what you care about.

As a Texan I naturally support the death penalty. But in this case telling this guy he is going to live alone in a cage for the next 40 years has some appeal too.

Hmm actually this guy could be used to do some good work. Transfer the scum on slow-moving 'death row' to the 'queue to be his cell mate' and keep'em coming.

Dupa: Dateline: Pound, VA.

This must be the "Pound Me In the Ass Prison" we've heard so much about.

Late to the party here, but they got it wrong. Red Onion Mtn. State Prison is in Pound - Wallens Ridge (mentioned in the article) is in Big Stone Gap. There's about a 25 or 30 minute drive between the two.
(Next week is the Best Friends Festival in Norton, just between the two towns - wouldn't normally be a big deal, but we've got Rick K. & The All Nighters playing Friday night!)

Durendal: Damn. At least the guy can recognize it and knows he should be put down. He's not going to appeal or tie up the courts, so why the hell don't they just ship him to the gas chamber?

Appeals are automatic in death penalty cases. Since he'll refuse to mount a defense, he'll be assigned an attorney because he won't be able to get a fair trial without a proper defense.

BasqueBastard:


Oh, you said Helen Thomas, I keep reading that as Heather...

I used to love those 5 frames of Heather when I was a kid but I always thought it looked like her boobs were way too far apart. Must be the pose because she looks fine in every other 80s swimsuit photo. I keep looking for another "wide" shot but can't find one.

/I'll be in my bunk.

thinks_on_feet: I've known and worked with Correctional Officers for two decades. With a couple exceptions, the CO's I've known have the same personality defect I see in most frat boys, cops and gang members: A callous disregard for anyone who isn't part of their group, and only a passing concern for those who are, usually when it means they can engage in self-pity or violence against others.

Such as at cop funerals or cell extractions.

They used to call the Deuel Vocational Institute, in Tracy, "gladiator school" because, before it became widely known and well covered-up, the CO's there would turn an inmate from, say, Black Gorilla Family, out on the yard with a guy from, say, Aryan Brotherhood.

Gladiator School, get it?

At its worst, they would leave chunks of cinderblock, or bars from hand weights, on the yard. Sometimes they would make it two on two. Sometimes they let them fight until one inmate was dead; other times they'd shoot the guys who wouldn't fight.

Another inmate killed in a prison riot.

It takes a special kind of sick fark to do it, of course... and that's what they were doing to the guy in this story: They were demonstrating their sickness... having fun torturing one inmate until he eventually killed off another inmate they were probably sick of dealing with (so they didn't have to risk doing it themselves).

CO's don't like taking risks, see, because CO's are not brave and they are not cops. They're sadists with all the power and relatively better weaponry. And they're cowards.

The killer in this story did nothing wrong; did the dead guy a favor.

Wasn't this a movie starring Val Kilmer?

The 63 year old another sad example of the warehousing of mentally ill in prison. Thanks Reagan, thanks every "tough on crime" (what a joke) legislator and prosciutto.

Barbecue Bob: Attention bleeding hearts; The world needs less people.

/One and hopefully two less twatwaffles taxpayers have to supervise, feed and house.

That's weird, 'cuz it's your heroes who made the laws that filled 'em up in the first place...

thinks_on_feet: Daedalus27: A couple points:

If corrections officers re-housed every inmate that had a problem with their cellmate, there would be no individuals with a cellmate or they would only be with their fellow races/gang members. Then we would have complaints about unlawful segregation or how prison is promoting a gang lifestyle/crime by only housing them with their fellow members. Inmates do nothing but biatch all day everyday about every little thing so it is hard to blame corrections officers from ignoring this request. It is a prison, not a holiday inn. As far as the cover-up after the fact, the corrections officers deserved to get hammered, but I am certainly not blaming them for not immediately jumping to re-house this criminal.

Housing this individual for the rest of his life puts the corrections staff and other inmates in profound danger. He has stated he will kill again if not given the death penalty. Why should corrections officers, staff, and other inmates be put at risk with a dangerous individual who has nothing to live for and a violent history? You can't take away all privileges as he now has none, and adding 100 years isn't going to stop him from harming another person. It is cases like this that the death penalty was designed for. It is a last resort for a violent criminal to stop further harm on society.

As far as putting the mentally ill to death, if we consider this individual mentally ill, yes I am in favor of it. You don't treat a rabid dog, and an individual who is violent, expresses no remorse or willingness to change, is effectively nothing more than a threat to society. We have tried prison with him, and it did not stop the behavior. The only further step society can take to protect itself is to kill them. No one should suffer further from the harm he can commit and he has vowed to do whatever he can to hurt someone if given the chance. I fail to see how anyone can be opposed to removing a dangerous individual permanently from society.

You are completely full of shiat, and I suspect you work as or are married to (or friends with) a CO.

Effectively managing the housing assignment of a given inmate is as easy as effectively managing any other social setting when ALL the power over EVERY aspect of the inmate's life is in the hands of the managing authority -- it just isn't as much fun to farked-up psychopaths as the less-effective alternatives... and they all say exactly what you just said in defense of their stupidity.

You can think what you wish, but I have to say I don't think very highly of your opinion either. We probably come from different backgrounds with different experiences. I feel confident in my opinion and if you choose to disagree with it, that is fine. However hurling insults isn't exactly productive in the discussion, but this is fark and if thats all you have, so be it.

Having the authority to move everyone, and moving everyone are two seperate issues. Just because an inmate has a problem of some kind and wants to be re-housed doesn't mean it is appropriate or rational to move them. There are many considerations that go into moving inmates. Blindly granting bed changes is a quick way to causing lots of violence, crime, and charges of discrimination for seggregating the population.

These are criminals, not guests at a Bed and Breakfast. These are Corrections Officers, not bellhops, maids, and front desk operators. Just because inmates desire something, doesn't mean they should automatically get it. We don't know if there was alternative housing available in his security classification. We don't know if there was a history of him moving and making requests to move. Yet your ready to blindly condemn the COs for not immediately transfering this guy. Who is to say his next cellmate wouldn't have been dead meat also as this guy seems to have a hair trigger.

Gyrfalcon: Daedalus27: A couple points:



As far as putting the mentally ill to death, if we consider this individual mentally ill, yes I am in favor of it. You don't treat a rabid dog, and an individual who is violent, expresses no remorse or willingness to change, is effectively nothing more than a threat to society. We have tried prison with him, and it did not stop the behavior. The only further step society can take to protect itself is to kill them. No one should suffer further from the harm he can commit and he has vowed to do whatever he can to hurt someone if given the chance. I fail to see how anyone can be opposed to removing a dangerous individual permanently from society.

You make a valid point, but you are confusing two entirely separate diagnoses: the severely mentally ill and the psychopath.

This individual is NOT mentally ill. He is instead quite rational. He knows he likes to kill, he knows he will continue to kill, and he is completely grounded in reality: He kills on purpose, with malice and with no remorse.

A mentally ill person is psychotic, not psychopathic. He may kill in his delusions, he may enjoy the killing, but he is NOT grounded in reality: His killing is done in the world of his delusions. If this person had been mentally ill, he would not be telling everyone with such cold calm that he will kill again unless stopped.

Also, I feel compelled to point out, as an advocate for the mentally ill, that the SEVERELY mentally ill--the truly psychotic--make up only about 2% of the population, and the VIOLENT mentally ill make up an even smaller fraction of that. The sane psyschopaths are much more to be feared than the insane.

Up in the thread someone was classifying this individual as severely mentally ill and asking if we should condemn him. I was merely responding that if this is your definition of severely mentally ill, then yes I believe it is appropriate to give them a death penalty.

I don't agree that this guy is severely mentally ill. There are probably certain aspects of mental illness within this individuals background (as are in many prison inmates), but just because an individual may have some issues, doesn't mean they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. I agree with you, but if someone wanted to force that definition on him, I was fine with killing those with his behavior however you want to classify him.

Primum: The 63 year old another sad example of the warehousing of mentally ill in prison. Thanks Reagan, thanks every "tough on crime" (what a joke) legislator and prosciutto.

Umm, he killed his neighbor with a shotgun. He earned his way to prison and every year he spent there.

Daedalus27: Having the authority to move everyone, and moving everyone are two seperate issues.

Both are easy when the intention is a safe and secure prison. It gets tricky only when sadists like to torture inmates for fun, as was the case in this case.

Just because an inmate has a problem of some kind and wants to be re-housed doesn't mean it is appropriate or rational to move them.

You've obviously never had to endure, or you're entirely callous to someone who must endure, close quarters with a raving lunatic on 24/7 basis. STFU.

There are many considerations that go into moving inmates. Blindly granting bed changes is a quick way to causing lots of violence, crime, and charges of discrimination for seggregating the population.

You're arguing the general instead of the particular, you farking moron. Again, STFU.

These are criminals, not guests at a Bed and Breakfast.

Got it: You're a CO. You don't believe inmates are humans.

These are Corrections Officers, not bellhops, maids, and front desk operators. Just because inmates desire something, doesn't mean they should automatically get it. We don't know if there was alternative housing available in his security classification. We don't know if there was a history of him moving and making requests to move. Yet your ready to blindly condemn the COs for not immediately transfering this guy. Who is to say his next cellmate wouldn't have been dead meat also as this guy seems to have a hair trigger.

You are a fool.

thinks_on_feet:

You've obviously never had to endure, or you're entirely callous to someone who must endure, close quarters with a raving lunatic on 24/7 basis. STFU.


Neither did the murderer. 24/6 tops.

Kill the man. Prison isn't about punishment, it's about rehabilitation; this man clearly wants to die and will do whatever it takes to kill him. Plus, keeping him alive is using up tax payer money,which he clearly doesn't mind releasing the burden of.

Let him die. Kill him. He's begging for it, he wanted it, he warned it, he killed again,and begged for you to kill him again. Ignoring him is just asking for something to happen again, and solitary confinement isn't going to stop him from killing someone.

Roquefort: Clabbered milk?

...must be Southern vernacular that I'm not familiar with

Means the milk has become so spoiled that it has begun to solidify.

thinks_on_feet: Daedalus27: Having the authority to move everyone, and moving everyone are two seperate issues.

Both are easy when the intention is a safe and secure prison. It gets tricky only when sadists like to torture inmates for fun, as was the case in this case.

Just because an inmate has a problem of some kind and wants to be re-housed doesn't mean it is appropriate or rational to move them.

You've obviously never had to endure, or you're entirely callous to someone who must endure, close quarters with a raving lunatic on 24/7 basis. STFU.

There are many considerations that go into moving inmates. Blindly granting bed changes is a quick way to causing lots of violence, crime, and charges of discrimination for seggregating the population.

You're arguing the general instead of the particular, you farking moron. Again, STFU.

These are criminals, not guests at a Bed and Breakfast.

Got it: You're a CO. You don't believe inmates are humans.

These are Corrections Officers, not bellhops, maids, and front desk operators. Just because inmates desire something, doesn't mean they should automatically get it. We don't know if there was alternative housing available in his security classification. We don't know if there was a history of him moving and making requests to move. Yet your ready to blindly condemn the COs for not immediately transfering this guy. Who is to say his next cellmate wouldn't have been dead meat also as this guy seems to have a hair trigger.

You are a fool.

Where was this torture? He had a cell mate who was odd, mentally ill, and disliked. Guess what, thats the prison population. This guy wasn't beat on or made to fight, he had a personality conflict with his cell mate. He asked to be moved, and it was denied. That doesn't mean that he has a free pass to kill his cell mate.

The fact is, cell assignments are done on the basis of security needs and availability. I am arguing the general because we don't have the specific facts in this case. Do you know if a cell was available with this inmates needs in mind? I don't, and neither do you. We don't know whether there was a cell available to move this inmate to, assuming there was a justification for the move, which isn't clear.

Your believing the words of the inmate in question are gospel. I mean after all, inmates are so trustworthy and would never lie or make something up to get what they want... If you ran the prison based on what the inmates wanted, it wouldn't be a prison.

If this person wanted a transfer so desperately, he didn't need to kill him. Threaten suicide, beat up his cell mate, or any number of methods outside of bounding him up, gagging him, and strangling the life out of him. From your position and viewpoint, it sounds like you almost believe the Corrections Officers did the murder to set up this poor innocent inmate.

Inmates have been convicted of acts which forfeits many of their rights. One of those is the freedom to determine where they live, the actions they can undertake, the people they associate with, etc. I have never said they were not human, but they are not entitled to the freedoms and protections that law abiding citizens take for granted. If you don't want to have your freedoms taken away, don't kill another person (as this inmate had done prior to killing his cell mate).

tototototo: Gyrfalcon:

No, It's not okay to execute people who don't want to die. Prison should be for punishment and rehabilitation, not just the former.

You probably don't know the half of it. (new window)

Daedalus27: Where was this torture? He had a cell mate who was odd, mentally ill, and disliked.

He had a cellmate who chronically masturbated, drank urine and sang constantly. The inmate was known to be a retard. The guards put him in that cell, intentionally -- and when an inmate indicates he's going to kill his cellmate?

The prudent course of action is to transfer the inmate (or the cellmate) to AdSeg for a housing move -- yeah, it's super inconvenient, but so are murder investigations and bad press and administrative hearings to fire guards and the resulting labor union beef, etc.

Savings to the taxpayer? It's on the side of just moving someone before the guy before he kills his cellmate; but again: This situation was created to torture the inmate, not to resolve anything in a humane and expedient, cost-effective way.

If you don't realize this to be true, you're stupid.

Guess what, thats the prison population. This guy wasn't beat on or made to fight, he had a personality conflict with his cell mate. He asked to be moved, and it was denied. That doesn't mean that he has a free pass to kill his cell mate.

You're stupid. And I change my mind: You're not a CO. You've obviously never even been in a prison.

The fact is, cell assignments are done on the basis of security needs and availability.

You don't know shiat.

I am arguing the general because we don't have the specific facts in this case. Do you know if a cell was available with this inmates needs in mind? I don't, and neither do you. We don't know whether there was a cell available to move this inmate to, assuming there was a justification for the move, which isn't clear.

You're an idiot.

Your believing the words of the inmate in question are gospel.

Well, he said he was going to kill his cellmate, and then he did. You, on the other hand, work as a clerk at Wal-Mart and got all your information off TV. I'm going with the inmate's version on this one.

I mean after all, inmates are so trustworthy and would never lie or make something up to get what they want... If you ran the prison based on what the inmates wanted, it wouldn't be a prison.

I doubt you would know what an inmate is like. I've never advocated running a prison based on inmate wants. I am responding to the article, which mentioned the callous response (and the subsequent result, which could have been avoided).

If this person wanted a transfer so desperately, he didn't need to kill him. Threaten suicide, beat up his cell mate, or any number of methods outside of bounding him up, gagging him, and strangling the life out of him.

Obviously, not.

From your position and viewpoint, it sounds like you almost believe the Corrections Officers did the murder to set up this poor innocent inmate.

No; I believe the guards got him to do their bidding.

Inmates have been convicted of acts which forfeits many of their rights.

No, prison is a forfeiture of freedom to live outside custody. You don't get torture as part of a prison sentence in this country, you stupid fark.

One of those is the freedom to determine where they live, the actions they can undertake, the people they associate with, etc. I have never said they were not human, but they are not entitled to the freedoms and protections that law abiding citizens take for granted. If you don't want to have your freedoms taken away, don't kill another person (as this inmate had done prior to killing his cell mate).

You are a moron.

I see lots of potential for this. A tournament to see who can survive the X man tournament, winner will get the death of their choice.

/As long as their choice is life without parole

cchris_39: As a Texan I naturally support the death penalty. But in this case telling this guy he is going to live alone in a cage for the next 40 years has some appeal too.

So you think tax supported torture is cool. Gotcha.

Sounds like a great storyline for a Will Smith movie.

I say keep him alive, and when the warden wants to kill an inmate just place the inmate in his cell.

The warden's hands won't get dirty, he can say there was an administrative fark up.

"He doesn't deserve to be able to control his own destiny at this point. He doesn't deserve to have his death on the conscience of the state of Virginia," she said.

What about the guy he already killed and other people he may kill? Why is this even an issue? Just kill the guy! It's not like he's going to be rehabilitated or find Jeebus or something.

If they won't take care of him, maybe the next victim will be a prison guard. Wouldn't that be lovely?

Well someone isn't adapting to prison life very well.

This is what happens when you use Prisons as de facto asylums. His cellmate should have been in state care. Before 1980, when the federal and state governments started closing down state mental health facilities to "shrink government", his cellmate would have been under state care. Instead, a marginally dangerous, obviously deranged person was put into a cell with a man who quite simply cannot control his violent impulses. This happens in our prison system everyday because we would rather criminalize insanity than treat it. The murderer is right; Watson didn't deserve to die, but Gleason is simply that type which can only control himself so far. Gleason is about as responsible for killing Watson as a gun; he warned the prison officials, they laughed, and Watson died. This story shows quite clearly what's wrong with our prison system and our views on crime, the insane, and incarceration.

thinks_on_feet: Daedalus27, You are a moron.

Bears repeating.

It's astounding how the COs acted in this case, from the moment they put Watson in the same cell with Gleason. Intervention should have happened much sooner - sounds like Watson was receiving grossly inadequate mental health treatment. But at the very least, the moment Gleason said he was going to kill Watson, Gleason should have gone to administrative confinement pending disciplinary actions for spoken threats, and/or Watson should have been placed in protective management.

Moreover, it's highly suspicious that it took 15 hours for someone to notice the man was dead, considering his propensity for yelling, singing, throwing urine, etc.

The COs, it appears, wanted him dead. Sorry if I'm repeating what's already been stated.

thinks_on_feet: Daedalus27: Where was this torture? He had a cell mate who was odd, mentally ill, and disliked.

He had a cellmate who chronically masturbated, drank urine and sang constantly. The inmate was known to be a retard. The guards put him in that cell, intentionally -- and when an inmate indicates he's going to kill his cellmate?

The prudent course of action is to transfer the inmate (or the cellmate) to AdSeg for a housing move -- yeah, it's super inconvenient, but so are murder investigations and bad press and administrative hearings to fire guards and the resulting labor union beef, etc.

Savings to the taxpayer? It's on the side of just moving someone before the guy before he kills his cellmate; but again: This situation was created to torture the inmate, not to resolve anything in a humane and expedient, cost-effective way.

If you don't realize this to be true, you're stupid.

Guess what, thats the prison population. This guy wasn't beat on or made to fight, he had a personality conflict with his cell mate. He asked to be moved, and it was denied. That doesn't mean that he has a free pass to kill his cell mate.

You're stupid. And I change my mind: You're not a CO. You've obviously never even been in a prison.

The fact is, cell assignments are done on the basis of security needs and availability.

You don't know shiat.

I am arguing the general because we don't have the specific facts in this case. Do you know if a cell was available with this inmates needs in mind? I don't, and neither do you. We don't know whether there was a cell available to move this inmate to, assuming there was a justification for the move, which isn't clear.

You're an idiot.

Your believing the words of the inmate in question are gospel.

Well, he said he was going to kill his cellmate, and then he did. You, on the other hand, work as a clerk at Wal-Mart and got all your information off TV. I'm going with the inmate's version on this one.

I mean after all, inmates are so trustworthy and would never lie or make something up to get what they want... If you ran the prison based on what the inmates wanted, it wouldn't be a prison.

I doubt you would know what an inmate is like. I've never advocated running a prison based on inmate wants. I am responding to the article, which mentioned the callous response (and the subsequent result, which could have been avoided).

If this person wanted a transfer so desperately, he didn't need to kill him. Threaten suicide, beat up his cell mate, or any number of methods outside of bounding him up, gagging him, and strangling the life out of him.

Obviously, not.

From your position and viewpoint, it sounds like you almost believe the Corrections Officers did the murder to set up this poor innocent inmate.

No; I believe the guards got him to do their bidding.

Inmates have been convicted of acts which forfeits many of their rights.

No, prison is a forfeiture of freedom to live outside custody. You don't get torture as part of a prison sentence in this country, you stupid fark.

One of those is the freedom to determine where they live, the actions they can undertake, the people they associate with, etc. I have never said they were not human, but they are not entitled to the freedoms and protections that law abiding citizens take for granted. If you don't want to have your freedoms taken away, don't kill another person (as this inmate had done prior to killing his cell mate).

You are a moron.

The article does not say he threated to kill the cell mate prior to doing it. It says he begged for a transfer. Your reading facts into the story to try and paint a picture you want to see. Unfortunately, someone probably has to be this mentally ill persons cell mate and this murderer was assigned him.

Adseg spots don't grow on trees and are only given when absolutely necessary. If you had to adseg anyone who complained about a cell mate, half the prison would be adseg with untold costs to the state. You seem to think that this is some sort of security conscious dorm at a college where you can run to the housing office and immediately get what you want. Space is limited and transfers have to be for a good reason. At the time, there doesn't appear to be enough evidence that it was warranted and we don't know if he could have been transfered to another cell.

From your responses and selective reading, you don't have a clue. Your assuming facts we don't know and demanding the prison be run in such a way that would cause chaos and even more harm every time an inmate raised the slightest objection to something. Having a poor cell mate is not torture and there were other steps that every inmate knows that could have been taken to get the transfer desired short of killing the cell mate.

We will have to agree to disagree, but while I bring facts, you hurl insults. You seem to live in some fantasy world where inmates only make reasonable requests, the state has unlimited funds and resources available to meet their every need, and we can find everyone a cell mate who they will like. Instead of pointing the finger at the system, how about you look at the murderer who bound up the cell mate and strangled the life out of him when casting the blame around. The system is far from perfect, but sometimes bad things happen in prison regardless the actions taken to stop them.

Daedalus27

These are criminals, not guests at a Bed and Breakfast. These are Corrections Officers, not bellhops, maids, and front desk operators.

If you have just a moment of your time, I'd like to try to point out, in terms you can understand, just how utterly null and void your argument is.

You see, the guy actually approached the authorities of the prison and warned them that he was going to snap and kill this guy if they didn't intervene. They didn't intervene, and he snapped and killed the guy.

This is EXACTLY like if someone wandered into the local police station, said 'Listen, my wife is really driving me crazy with her constant nagging, I've beaten her up like 3 times this week and if you don't get her out of my farking house I'm going to beat her head in with a baseball bat'. And the cops did nothing, and then a week later he did it.

And then upon you voicing your disgust in a forum, an off-duty cops chimes in with 'It's a police station, not marriage counseling, they're police officers, not social workers, it's not their job'.

Now just sit back and absorb what a ridiculous, and negligent statement that is. Because that is EXACTLY the same statement you made, only with a few interchangeable words replaced.

Aside from that, if you don't realize that your very job description as a CO includes an obligation to look out for the safety of your inmates, you probably shouldn't be a CO.

badhatharry: It's scary how rational this guy is. He even had sympathy for his crazy cell mate.

Damn, I was thinking the same thing.

This guy seems so rational. Even though he had to kill that man, he doesn't sound like an evil person.

danielscissorhands: When I read about his cellmate, I ALMOST couldn't blame him for killing him. Btw, what is "clobbered milk?"

"Watson (his cellmate) was serving a 100-year sentence for killing a man and wounding two others in 1983 when he shot into his neighbor's house in Lynchburg with a 10-gauge shotgun. According to prison records, Watson suffered from "mild" mental impairment and was frequently cited for his disruptive and combative behavior.

Watson was sent to Wallens Ridge on April 23, 2009, a day after he set fire to his cell at Sussex II State Prison. Gleason and Watson became cellmates on May 1, 2009.

In the days the two spent locked in an 8-by-10-foot cell, Watson would talk about how he had "drowned" two television sets because they "had voodoo in them," Gleason said.

He would also belt out "I wish I was in the land of cotton" from the song "Dixie" and other songs at all hours, scream profanities and masturbate. In the chow hall and in the recreation yard, Watson would get inmates to give him cigarettes for drinking his urine and clabbered milk."


Honestly though, I agree. If I were a badass murderer, and then I get to be cellmates with the most annoying fark in the world? He deserves a half assed hero tag. I mean hell, a man can only take so much annoying shiat, until he farking snaps and destroys whatever it is that annoys you, and its especially true when you've already killed once.

glassbottomboatcaptain: Daedalus27

These are criminals, not guests at a Bed and Breakfast. These are Corrections Officers, not bellhops, maids, and front desk operators.

If you have just a moment of your time, I'd like to try to point out, in terms you can understand, just how utterly null and void your argument is.

You see, the guy actually approached the authorities of the prison and warned them that he was going to snap and kill this guy if they didn't intervene. They didn't intervene, and he snapped and killed the guy.

This is EXACTLY like if someone wandered into the local police station, said 'Listen, my wife is really driving me crazy with her constant nagging, I've beaten her up like 3 times this week and if you don't get her out of my farking house I'm going to beat her head in with a baseball bat'. And the cops did nothing, and then a week later he did it.

And then upon you voicing your disgust in a forum, an off-duty cops chimes in with 'It's a police station, not marriage counseling, they're police officers, not social workers, it's not their job'.

Now just sit back and absorb what a ridiculous, and negligent statement that is. Because that is EXACTLY the same statement you made, only with a few interchangeable words replaced.

Aside from that, if you don't realize that your very job description as a CO includes an obligation to look out for the safety of your inmates, you probably shouldn't be a CO.

Read the exact phrasing. Here it is from the article:
For seven days, Robert Gleason Jr. begged correctional officers and counselors at Wallens Ridge State Prison to move his new cellmate. The constant singing, screaming and obnoxious behavior were too much, and Gleason knew he was ready to snap.

Begging for a transfer is not the same as threatening to kill the cell mate. It doesn't say he told them he was going to snap or kill him, he says he knew he was going to snap if he didn't get a transfer. We don't know exactly what he conveyed to the Corrections Officers, Counselors, etc.

Now on to your example. If he confessed to a crime (as domestic violence is) then the police would be obligated to investigate or arrest them. Ignoring an actual criminal act would be disgusting and worthy of scorn, litigation, and seeing those officers removed from their job. However disliking your cell mate and even wishing him dead are not criminal activities so the example isn't exactly correct in this regard.

However lets say the guy walks into the police station and says he can't take his wifes constant nagging and he is going to snap. I think the cops would turn him away because there is only the most tenuous charge that could be made and would likely be laughed out of the DAs office at any rate. They would probably turn him away and tell him to seek counseling or leave his wife. If he were arrested, I am sure there would be outrage on how the overeager police are violating his rights.

Naturally this prisoner was at the mercy of officials and couldn't leave like in your example. However there were many steps short of murdering his cellmate that he could have take for some relief. He could have faked an illness, threatened suicide, assualted the cellmate or other inmate short of killing. All of these steps would have granted him temporary relief or a transfer he was being denied. Instead he murdered the cell mate.

COs have to look out for the well being of all inmates. Not just cater to the desires of one or two. We don't know if they were able to move this inmate due to lack of space or security concerns. Given this inmates history, there is no guarantee that he wouldn't have murdered his new cell mate the same way. He has a violent history and who knows how unreasonable he is regarding behavior he will tolerate or kill over.

Daedalus27: The article does not say he threated to kill the cell mate prior to doing it. It says he begged for a transfer. Your reading facts into the story to try and paint a picture you want to see. Unfortunately, someone probably has to be this mentally ill persons cell mate and this murderer was assigned him.

No, jackass. The article CLEARLY states he made them aware of what he was going to do if they didn't get the guy out of his cell. Now I'm thinking maybe you are a CO, because you have a reading comprehension level hovering somewhere around 2nd grade.

Adseg spots don't grow on trees and are only given when absolutely necessary. If you had to adseg anyone who complained about a cell mate, half the prison would be adseg with untold costs to the state.

You are truly an idiot. Any cell can become a segregation cell, if a designated AdSeg bed is unavailable. All it requires is one inmate gets removed from the cell, in most cases.

You are completely overlooking the point: The guards did this INTENTIONALLY.

You seem to think that this is some sort of security conscious dorm at a college where you can run to the housing office and immediately get what you want. Space is limited and transfers have to be for a good reason. At the time, there doesn't appear to be enough evidence that it was warranted and we don't know if he could have been transfered to another cell.

We don't know much, apparently, because WE includes you and me... and you're lowering the average. I, however, know for a fact, in a prison, where the law says you can't just let people murder other people, there's always a way to prevent murder that's clearly going to happen, simply by moving one of the two parties into another housing situation.

You're definitely not a CO. You're just a troll.

From your responses and selective reading, you don't have a clue. Your assuming facts we don't know and demanding the prison be run in such a way that would cause chaos and even more harm every time an inmate raised the slightest objection to something. Having a poor cell mate is not torture and there were other steps that every inmate knows that could have been taken to get the transfer desired short of killing the cell mate.

Troll.

We will have to agree to disagree, but while I bring facts, you hurl insults. You seem to live in some fantasy world where inmates only make reasonable requests, the state has unlimited funds and resources available to meet their every need, and we can find everyone a cell mate who they will like. Instead of pointing the finger at the system, how about you look at the murderer who bound up the cell mate and strangled the life out of him when casting the blame around. The system is far from perfect, but sometimes bad things happen in prison regardless the actions taken to stop them.

Ok, Troll.

The cellmate story sounds alot like myself and a few of my college roommates.

...which is why I haven't had a female roommate ever since graduation.

syrynxx: He would also belt out "I wish I was in the land of cotton" from the song "Dixie" and other songs at all hours, scream profanities and masturbate.

His killer was clearly a stickler on using the subjunctive mood.

"It's 'I wish I _were_', not 'I wish I _was_'! You used the past tense to describe a hypothetical situation!"



Funniest thing Ive read all week. Thanks for the laugh. I needed that.

I'm on the fence about the death penalty but then even I know sometimes you have to put a sick puppy down.

Sounds like the guy wants to be on death row, probably because prisoners there get to have cells to themselves. And he found a way to make the state give him what he wants. Unless by bragging about it he will lose what he thinks he has won. How could the state be so obtuse?

tchau: My friend Helen has the unfortunate luck of sharing the same name as Helen Thomas. Poor thing.

So of course I'll share a shoot we did last year. Link goes to basic portraiture and figure work.

thinks_on_feet: No, jackass. The article CLEARLY states he made them aware of what he was going to do if they didn't get the guy out of his cell. Now I'm thinking maybe you are a CO, because you have a reading comprehension level hovering somewhere around 2nd grade.

If it so clearly says it, please point it out. Quote it. It should be easy for you since your reading comprehension is so high apparently.


You are truly an idiot. Any cell can become a segregation cell, if a designated AdSeg bed is unavailable. All it requires is one inmate gets removed from the cell, in most cases.

You are completely overlooking the point: The guards did this INTENTIONALLY.

That may be true and its so easy to do since prisons are so empty right now they have cells lying empty. Just because they can theoretically put someone in single status doesn't mean they can do it willy nilly. Most prison systems are way over capacity and are using every cell to maximum capacity or beyond. If you put one inmate in a single cell, you have to find a spot for another. That may not be available.

They intentionally denied the request. So what? If you use the word intentionally does it make it worse? I intentionally ate breakfast. That sounds evil now doesn't it?

We don't know much, apparently, because WE includes you and me... and you're lowering the average. I, however, know for a fact, in a prison, where the law says you can't just let people murder other people, there's always a way to prevent murder that's clearly going to happen, simply by moving one of the two parties into another housing situation.

We don't know the facts in this case. We have a story with one side and incomplete facts (because the prison system won't comment probably due to pending litigation). I recognize this, you choose to imagine the facts that support your viewpoint and assume they are true. If it turns out there was an empty cell on the other side of the block that they easily could have moved this inmate to, I will happily change my tune. However that is not known at this time and given the realities of the prison system in many states I have doubts that this was the case.

Bad things happen in prison. You can't stop violent individuals with poor impulse control from doing bad things sometimes. If we housed each inmate in isolation perhaps there would be less chance of this occuring, but there would be other side effects. Poor mental health, extreme pressure on state budgets, and increased risk when isolated inmates returned to society. If we make prisons safer, what costs do you want to save elsewhere, cut education, end health services, what? You can't have everything and for good or ill, most states treat prisons as a lower budget priority.

When you can't respond to things in a rational way, you simply label it trolling or make a dismissive remark. Contrary to your warped worldview, other people may have an opinion that differs from you. I have responded to your points, you choose to dismiss mine. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.