Sex, Prisons, Arnold and Unmitigated Stupidity

I have something to tell you that may come as a shock. Are you all sitting down? Okay, here it is: PRISON INMATES SOMETIMES HAVE SEX WITH EACH OTHER. Yes, yes, I know. Even though, it’s against the law, it sometimes occurs anyway.

As a consequence, the nation’s prisons have become fertile breeding grounds for deadly blood-borne viruses like hepatitis C and H.I.V..

California’s disastrously overcrowded prison system is particularly at risk. (And remember, our prisons feature a health care system that is so freaking awful it’s presently controlled by a federal monitor.) California is so at risk, in fact, that the NY Times saw fit this morning to publish an editorial on the subject, which reads in part:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention underscored this point last year when it urged states without condom-distribution programs to think about starting them as a way of preventing the spread of H.I.V. behind bars. By protecting the inmates, the states would also protect the all-too-vulnerable wives and lovers to whom they inevitably return when their sentences are completed.

The California State Legislature tried to take the C.D.C.’s advice last year, passing a landmark bill that would have allowed public health agencies to enter prisons and distribute condoms to inmates who wanted them. The bill had the overwhelming support of the voting public.

And what did Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger do in response to the passage of said bill? Did he congratulate the state’s lawmakers for managing to work together long enough to pass a sensible piece of legislation?

No, he did not. He vetoed it. Condoms might would justify illegal sexual activity, opined Arnold. (He also worried that inmates might use condoms to smuggle drugs into or out of prisons. News flash. Arnold, honey, it’s already as easy to get drugs inside prison, as it is on the street. You might want to ask around about this issue BEFORE you veto an important bill next time.)

Never mind that California inmates continue to become HIV positive at a rate that is eight times higher than the general population. Ditto when it comes to acquiring Hep C.

Why, by the way, is it only the NY Times who’s bothering to take a reasonable stand this? The Daily News has ZERO. The LA Times has ZIP. And the Orange County Register—whose editorial page editors should be locked immediately in a cell with a large, overly-affectionate, condom-free inmate named Bubba—writes the following:

Perhaps the epitome of Nanny State philosophy is embodied in the “Condoms for Cons” bill, AB1334. It’s against the law for prison inmates to engage one another in sex acts, but this bill would facilitate that activity by allowing private groups to distribute condoms and other “sexual barrier protection devices” to prisoners. Nanny Staters insist that if the law is going to be broken, it must be broken their way.

I mean, why bother acting in the best interest of public health and public safety when you can advance partisan talking points, right?

Fortunately, seventy percent of Californians are in favor of condom distribution in prison—mainly because most people are not idiots.

Now a new bill, proposed by Oakland Assemblyman Sandré Swanson, is working its way through the California legislature. Let’s hope it passes, and that Schwarzenegger does the right thing.

In the interim, listen: I’m really, really against determinate sentencing laws, but maybe for certain editors exceptions could be made.