Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site bridge2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!crsp!pesnta!conejo!bridge2!jsz
From: jsz@bridge2.UUCP (Jay S. Zusman)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Strip Searches
Message-ID: <114@bridge2.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 2-Feb-85 04:19:45 EST
Article-I.D.: bridge2.114
Posted: Sat Feb  2 04:19:45 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Feb-85 09:35:33 EST
References: <604@unmvax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Bridge Communications, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 28

> "SAN FRANCISCO (October 20, 1983)
> 
> Female inmates of San Quentin prison will have to endure strip searches and
> showers under the scrutiny of male guards, says a Federal judge who ruled that
> privacy is secondary to security.
> 
> U.S. District Judge Spencer Williams yesterday dismissed a class-action suit
> brought by three inmates who complained it was humiliating to be naked in front
> of male guards at the maximum-security facility.  They also complained some of
> the male guards verbally harassed them.
> 
> Williams said use of male guards didn't violate the inmates' constitutional
> right to privacy and said security needs justified the physical observation
> and hands-on searches by correctional officers, including men.
> 
> The ruling protects men's employment rights in correctional facilities, said
> California Attorney General John Van de Kamp."
> 
> I don't like it!  Seems to me there it shouldn't be hard to hire female guards
> for that purpose.  What do others think?
> 
> 			--Cliff

A person convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison loses certain
rights. Among these lost rights is the right to privacy. I have no
sympathy. If you behave as an animal you should not complain about
being treated as one. After all, we are talking about San Quentin,
not detention hall after school.