September 5, 2009

Convicted of manslaughter and attempted rape, a man who has not yet had sex reassignment surgery wins the right to be transferred to a woman's prison.

This legal right — under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights — was recognized by the High Court of London:
The prisoner is in her 20s and serving a life sentence for manslaughter and attempted rape....

Describing her as “a woman trapped inside a man’s body”, her barrister, Phillipa Kaufman, said the final step to her achieving full womanhood is gender reassignment surgery - but she had been told she cannot have it while in a men’s prison.

Doctors have refused even to consider her for the operation unless she fulfills the “living role requirement” - living as a woman for an extended period; so she has no hope of getting the surgery she so desperately wants unless moved to a women's jail.

The barrister told Judge David Elvin, QC, that, although the woman has now served her minimum jail term, she has been told by the Parole Board that she remains an unnacceptable risk to the public, still has “a great deal of work to do” and is “nowhere near release”.

That, Miss Kaufman argued, was a direct result of her intense frustration at being unable to have gender reassignment surgery...

Regardless of any extra cost involved, the judge said that to block her progress towards full gender reassignment surgery was irrational and would only increase her risk to the public.
Risk to the public? But this person is serving a life sentence!
The transsexual prisoner, referred to in court only as “A”, was convicted of manslaughter and jailed for five years after smothering her boyfriend with a pillow and strangling him with a pair of tights.
5 years have been served for this killing, and the court finds a right of this person to be put with women in order to do "a great deal of work" and win release.
Her life sentence tariff, the minimum period she must serve before being considered for parole, expired in 2007.
So 3 years was enough for murder!
The judge said that her detention in a men’s jail had both scotched her desire to live fully “in role” as a woman - and thus qualify for a full gender reassignment - and had also had a “serious adverse effect” on her ability to take part in work aimed at reducing her risk status and moving towards release.
Just a little lesson in European-style human rights for you this morning. The linked article says nothing about the human rights of the women prisoners who now must live with a very angry person who: 1. attempted rape and still has a penis, and 2. was strong enough to smother a man with a pillow and tights.

***

How long does it take to smother someone to death with a pillow? 2 to 3 minutes, if he doesn't manage to struggle the pillow away for a gulp of air. Try to picture what this person was able to do 5 years ago and think about why 3 years — 1 year for each minute of strongly applied murderous pressure to a struggling human being — is an adequate sentence.

64 comments:

Synova said...

There was a rapist in California that decided that in order to solve his "problem" he should kidnap a little girl and have babies with her.

He seems to think it worked. Inspiring story of redemption!

So maybe this will work for this guy too.

Fred4Pres said...

This is truly madness. The underlying issue is the criminal act, not his gender confusion (sorry he is a he until he gets the thing he attempted to rape his victim with removed). Any gender issues should be resolved after he leaves prison.

And while I definitely do not promote rape in prison, I am pretty sure he could "live" like a woman in a male prison population.

bagoh20 said...

England has been, to some extent, the point of the spear in the fight for human rights. Now that spear has pierced through the target and is entering innocent victims beyond. This is what happens when the spear has no conscience behind it only force and direction.

The Drill SGT said...

The irony of the Brits not funding care for the elderly, but reassignment surgery is a "right" if of course you are younger.

I bet there is at least one Battle of Britain Alum who'd be willing to take the surgery job and cut her nuts off for less than the NHS wants for the job.

Maybe the father of the rape victim wants the job?

On the other hand, some dyke cellmate might do it for free if she gets the wrong look from our gal.

David said...

Off with her heads.

bagoh20 said...

I'm a sexy hot 20 something trapped in an old body. I need my age reassignment surgery. Seriously, why is this any different. It similarly prevents me from, having the sex life I want. I am equally distressed by the mismatch of my mind and body. In fact, it will eventually kill me. I want it. I want it now!

rhhardin said...

I don't think he'll be able to rape and murder more than a couple more before somebody notices, in a women's prison.

rhhardin said...

Murder is only a serious offense in Britain if you're defending yourself.

REVULVR said...

Funny, I was really looking for your comments on the al-Kidd case. Because, you know, that's sort of important, with him being an American citizen and all that.

But I guess English transsexual murders get priority...

miller said...

How unfair for Ann to talk about things she wants to and not things you want to!

Too bad you can't start your own free blog and post your own views. I mean, there are so few choices.

WF: mulari, song by Bobby Van about his love for mules. Or something.

miller said...

Good thing we don't look to Britain for justice. First Lockerbie, and now this.

WV: suroot, the real reason there are so many lawsuits.

John Lynch said...

A sad victory of abstract ideas over reality.

EDH said...

I concur with this comment in the source article.

The Human Rights Act is a weapon against the law abiding public.

Freeman Hunt said...

I hate that people have convinced themselves that "mercy" (read: not mercy, but easy flabby-heartedness) is the pinnacle of civilization.

Justice is foundational to civilization.

Pretending everyone is nice and good-hearted and surely didn't really mean to do anything bad is foundational to Barney and Friends.

It is a little child's fantasy.

You cannot build civilization on that.

Freeman Hunt said...

Plus, if you smother someone or strangle them with tights, hanging seems apropos.

Bender said...

Describing her as “a woman trapped inside a man’s body”, her barrister, Phillipa Kaufman, said the final step to her achieving full womanhood is gender reassignment surgery.

Notwithstanding this assertion of reinventing reality by her Joophin barrister, all her client will end up being is a man with mutilated genitalia.

traditionalguy said...

What about the basic human rights owed to this inhuman murderous monster? You all must submit to the State's view of morality, or else. But there shall be no mercy shown to anyone guilty of any public expression of faith in the God who gave us morality in the Torah, because that is the only offense that this State never forgives.

knox said...

I hate that people have convinced themselves that "mercy" (read: not mercy, but easy flabby-heartedness) is the pinnacle of civilization.

Freeman, I don't like it either.

But for a lot of people who advocate this sort of thing, "mercy" is not the goal. A redefinition of "right" and "wrong" is the goal.

daubiere said...

"
Pretending everyone is nice and good-hearted and surely didn't really mean to do anything bad is foundational to Barney and Friends.

It is a little child's fantasy.

You cannot build civilization on that."

but you can certainly destroy one with it. have you been to england lately? they're doing a bang-up job of taking the wrecking ball to their civilization. but at least they have free medical care!!!

John Althouse Cohen said...

Is there any reason to think he is actually going to get the surgery? The article keeps saying he can't get the surgery if he's not transferred to the women's prison. That strongly suggests he will get the surgery if he is transferred to the women's prison, but it doesn't quite say that. As far as I can tell, he is going to have a penis, not a vagina, for the entire time he's in the women's prison. Am I missing something?

The Drill SGT said...

JAC,

I'm not going to read the rubbish again, but I think you are correct.

some panel says he can't have his dick snipped until he lives as a woman foir a period. e.g skirts and lipstick etc.

his men's jailors clearly won't allow that suicidal behavior.

he wants to move to the women's prison as a fully intact rapist who is taking hormones

once he proves he can fasten a bra behind his back, he'll apply to have his dick snipped.

The same shrinks that authorized his previous medical theraphy would seem disposed to agree.

Me, I'd trim his balls before a transfer, which I'd not approve as well :)

Paul Zrimsek said...

What else could they do? No one in the Middle East was willing to take this guy in an oil swap.

Let no one forget, these are the people whose good opinion is the ultimate test of our foreign policy.

Jeff with one 'f' said...

Keep cases like this in mind the next time a Justice mentions America's need to keep up with our betters in the "International Community".

Ralph L said...

Since he's attracted to men, let's put him in a women's prison and leave him there. The hormones must have addled his brain, if he ever had one.

prelft - shampoo that's tethered to a shelf, so you won't drop it in the prison shower.

John Althouse Cohen said...

Since he's attracted to men, let's put him in a women's prison and leave him there.

How do we know he's not bisexual?

daubiere said...

"How do we know he's not bisexual?"

hes a convicted rapist and murderer who has a confused "gender identity". id wager that his "sexuality" (if he even has one) is not so easy and neat to categorize.

reminds me of one of Lecters speeches from "silence of the lambs":

"Billy is not a real trans-sexual, but he thinks he is. He tries to be. He's tried to be a lot of things, I expect... Billy hates his own identity, you see, and he thinks that makes him a trans-sexual. But his pathology is a thousand times more savage and more terrifying."

Ralph L said...

How do we know he's not bisexual?
Or do you mean "confused?" (that's a given)
If he was passionate enough about his boyfriend to murder him, he doesn't do girls, he just wants to be one. Unless the boyfriend was also transgender, which I doubt.

How did they prove attempted rape?

WV - proinq - the sound the scalpel makes when it slices the corpus cavernosa.

Big Mike said...

Dickens was right. The law is an ass.

montana urban legend said...

"If he was passionate enough about his boyfriend to murder him, he doesn't do girls, he just wants to be one."

Bingo.

And still, it's amazing that the "moral indignation is a good excuse for lacking insight" crowd didn't get that.

JAL said...

Hey REVULVR -- you haven't been here enough to remember the professor does not like people telling her what she should blog about in the comments section.

Snippy thing, isn't she?

wv= dombs
what some commenters is

daubiere said...

Wow so we're not allowed to get "moral indignant" about a convicted attempted rapist and murderer??

what do you get morally indignant about, montana? non-organic foods? george bush? incandescent light bulbs?

EKatz said...

Off the main point, but - what's the definition of manslaughter exactly? What distinguishes it in this case from murder? (in the UK law system). Would murder by smothering and strangulation be considered manslaughter also in the US under certain circumstances?

Matthew said...

i look forward to the day when a female prisoner is given a transfer to a male prison. this decision strikes me a paramountly sexist and paternalistic

Matthew said...

i look forward to the day when a female prisoner is given a transfer to a male prison. this decision strikes me a paramountly sexist and paternalistic

montana urban legend said...

Apparently insight is not the only ability some here lack. Grammatical ability and knowledge of proper quotation would be examples of two others. And in the 7:33 PM comment, basic reasoning (such as NOT confusing moral indignation in itself with the use of moral indignation as an excuse for lacking something else) is just all shot to hell.

But at least the individual in question got to go on a boring political rant and try out the trendiest memes in the ridiculous culture war. Which is nice. And completely irrelevant.

Synova said...

"And still, it's amazing that the "moral indignation is a good excuse for lacking insight" crowd didn't get that."

What is there to "get" MUL?

So the guy *wants* to be a girl. So? It didn't make him KILL anyone. It didn't make him RAPE anyone.

So what insight is lacking here?

He's eligible to get out of prison (which is shocking by itself) but is not being released because he is considered *DANGEROUS* because he really really wants to be a girl.

What exactly is the insight here that is missing?

Unreassigned transgender people are dangerous psychotics who should not be free to prey on the public?

Are you sure that's the argument you want to make? Either being transgendered is the *cause* of this person's violent behavior, or changing his physical gender to female WILL NOT HELP.

daubiere said...

Ah instead of an answer I'm greeted by a boring college student in possession of a thesaurus who's written way too many sociology papers. lose the fake intellectual affect, write and answer questions directly.

so you're agreeing that murdering someone is an expression of "passion" and an affirmation of someone's sexual orientation??

you see no problem with putting a male murderer and rapist among female prisoners? i thought rape wasn't about sex but about violence?? you think that someone with the obvious sexual confusion of this criminal will necessarily make gender distinctions if again compelled to violence??

again a lack of direct writing leaves me uncertain as to WHAT you're trying to say? my guess is that you're just looking for another excuse to laugh at the "wingnuts".

montana urban legend said...

I dunno, Synova. Maybe if you had any passion in your life then you wouldn't be so clueless about the motivations behind crimes of passion.

montana urban legend said...

"lose the fake intellectual affect, write and answer questions directly."

Answering your "questions" directly would be an affront to your stupidity.

montana urban legend said...

Next Headline in The Onion: "RAPE OF WOMEN BY GAY MEN REACHES EPIDEMIC PROPORTIONS!"

Gay men LOVE to exert power and control over women by raping them. Didn't ya know it?

Just because some people among the conservative country folk rape their farm animals (despite being attracted - at least ostensibly - to humans), that doesn't mean that gay men rape women. It means some of you need to get a life and learn about the world as it actually is.

bagoh20 said...

Man MUL! Major projection going on there. That's far out. You need a mirror, dude.

Ralph L said...

Would murder by smothering and strangulation be considered manslaughter also in the US under certain circumstances?
Dominick Dunne's daughter's murderer strangled her on the sidewalk and got 3 years for manslaughter in California. Dunne wrote about taking justice into his own hands but didn't.

Synova said...

"I dunno, Synova. Maybe if you had any passion in your life then you wouldn't be so clueless about the motivations behind crimes of passion."

?

I think I'm going to use this in a book, somehow.

"I wouldn't hit you if I didn't love you, baby."

It's not *passion* that leads to murder.

daubiere said...

"Just because some people among the conservative country folk rape their farm animals (despite being attracted - at least ostensibly - to humans), that doesn't mean that gay men rape women. It means some of you need to get a life and learn about the world as it actually is."

wow. that's an amazing amount of ignorance in one comment. First off, a transsexual person who seeks sex reassignment surgery is not the same as a gay man. i know to the average left wing political jerkoff, gay/transgender/lesbian are all the same thing basically, i.e. people who are on "our side". differentiation is not important as long as the queers keep to themselves and keep voting for left wingers. but there is a difference. gay men don't want to become women, dude.

second, this man is a CONVICTED MURDER AND ATTEMPTED RAPIST. Hello! maybe "gay men" don't rape women but CONVICTED MURDERS AND ATTEMPTED RAPISTS should reasonably be assumed to be more likely to commit such acts in the future. rape is AN ACT OF VIOLENCE, separate from distinctions of sexual "preference". to put a criminal convicted of attempting this crime among any prison population, especially one of the OPPOSITE SEX, some of who may presumably be physically weaker than him by virtue of biological differences in male and female physiognomy, is irresponsible. there is a reason that even in the most "enlightened" countries, you don't find co-ed prisons. also he's a MURDERER not just a convicted attempted rapist so who's to say he won't murder a female prisoner. presumably a mentally deranged killer and rapist might be capable and interested in committing the same crimes against even people he doesn't want to sleep with.

and further, your condescending class-ist tone is something I hear with distressing frequency from so-called liberals these days. note to the politically minded leftist: the so-called animal raping rubes you seem to be so fond of belittling these days VASTLY outnumber you preening overpaid urban elite and probably wont take kindly to being ruled over by sneering overlords for much longer, something not even your Machiavellian chicago ward-heelers will be able to fix.

people are tired of your insults and tired of paying for your destructive futile and failed projects and tired of propping up your sorry snotty asses. i don't trust or like populism or populist movements but you seem intent on fomenting a very dangerous one with your arrogance.

you make a lot of embarrassing mistakes and assumptions and assertions for someone who feels the need to tell others to "learn about the world". your comments tell me that youre as we say in france a voyageur en chambre who hasn't actually seen much of anything but likes to pretend he has.

daubiere said...

"I think I'm going to use this in a book, somehow.

"I wouldn't hit you if I didn't love you, baby."

he hit me (and it felt like a kiss)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_Hit_Me_%28It_Felt_Like_A_Kiss%29

"It's not *passion* that leads to murder."

I know this creepy idea about murder being passionate... remind me never to sleep with montana urban legend! lol

Eric said...

Dominick Dunne's daughter's murderer strangled her on the sidewalk and got 3 years for manslaughter in California.

That was 1982. The laws have gone from too lax past reasonable and off into draconian since then.

There has to be a happy medium between three years for murder and fifteen years for dealing pot to your friends.

EKatz said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/3161209.stm

According to the BBC, this individual strangled the boyfriend because he refused to pay for the sex-change operation (stated a few paragraphs into the article).

We've got a murderer who slowly choked the life out of someone, attempted rape, and also has a vast sense of entitlement - what (s)he wants is more important than anything that other, lesser mortals want, and let no one stand in the way.

"Dominick Dunne's daughter's murderer strangled her on the sidewalk and got 3 years for manslaughter in California."

That's gruesome and outrageous. Still, I don't understand the legal distinction made between manslaughter and murder.

montana urban legend said...

"and further, your condescending class-ist tone is something I hear with distressing frequency from so-called liberals these days."

Hey, what can I say? Paybacks are a bitch!

Oh that's right. The topic of conversation was anal rape.

And of course, culture wars are never classist, right? Who was the dumbshit who started it with this:

"what do you get morally indignant about, montana? non-organic foods? george bush? incandescent light bulbs?"

But if your salt of the earth bullshit doesn't earn you points, I suppose you could always fall back on threats of violence:

"i don't trust or like populism or populist movements but you seem intent on fomenting a very dangerous one with your arrogance."

Nice.

You imply that you're in France. Don't you know that's not the best venue from which to represent your side in the "culture war"? But it would explain the ease with which you legitimize violent revolutions, at least from a historical standpoint.

Apres moi le deluge.

montana urban legend said...

Apparently the conservatives have now gone to war with the English language, the way the politically correct lefties did in the nineties. Forget changing the word "women" to "womyn". We will now have to strike the term "crimes of passion" from our lexicon.

Get a fucking grip.

montana urban legend said...

"gay men don't want to become women, dude."

Nor do they, or pre-op transgenders for that matter, rape women.

I dare you to provide any evidence to the contrary.

Not that I'd expect you to know it, but there was a point that you seem intent to avoid addressing.

montana urban legend said...

"That's far out. You need a mirror, dude."

Hey! Look who's talking. The guy with the seventies porn mustache!

montana urban legend said...

Wait, so passion is not necessarily the same thing as love? Or is it? Synova is confusing me. That tricky Synova!

montana urban legend said...

Ok. Enough commenting for tonight. I think I'm going to go out and find me some passio-- I mean, some love!

Geoff Matthews said...

The mean jail time for a life sentence (with mandatory release - how does this make a life sentence?) is 11 years. W/o mandatory release, is 18 years.

This is why it is a problem.

amba said...

Blackmail! Reassign me or I'll rape again.

amba said...

And how politically correct the reporter who will call someone whatever gender they demand to be called!

vw: paineure

amba said...

The presumably randomly generated verification word for this blank is "menses."

albert venn dicey said...

"David Elvin QC was called to the Bar in 1983 and took silk in 2000 and is called to the Bar of Northern Ireland. He is member of the Middle Temple and of the Inn of Court of Northern Ireland. He was awarded the Bar Prize for Finance, Commerce & Industry in 1982. In October 2007 he was named as the Silk of the Year 2008 in Environment and Planning at the Chambers & Partners Bar Awards.

He specialises in planning, environmental and public law (including most aspects of local government, highways, compulsory purchase & compensation) as well as property related matters and the human rights and European Union law aspects of those areas of practice.

David appears frequently in court and at inquiries at all levels and before many different tribunals. During his time as Treasury counsel, he appeared in many planning and public law cases and acted for a wide range of government departments and bodies. Since taking silk he has appeared in the High Court, Court of Appeal, House of Lords, European Court of Human Rights and European Court of Justice. He has also appeared on judicial reviews in the High Court in Northern Ireland and advised on issues in Hong Kong."

I like him.

Maguro said...

MUL - Are you arguing that the judge did the right thing by transferring this person to a women's prison? If so, why not just say that instead ranting incoherently about gay men, bestiality and the "culture wars"?

You've got a lot of chutzpah to tell someone else to "get a fucking grip".

knox said...

... and MUL steps in and demonstrates exactly my point.

Mr. Smarterthanyou said...

I love the way the article and the judge referres to this person with a penis as "she" and "her".

This continues to show that liberalism is a mental disorder.

montana urban legend said...

"If so, why not just say that instead ranting incoherently about gay men, bestiality and the "culture wars"?

You've got a lot of chutzpah to tell someone else to "get a fucking grip"."

And you've got a lot of chutzpah to criticize what I say without bothering to read what it is in response to, Maguro.

Availing yourself of some context just might provide you with a more coherent understanding of what you've read. I encourage you to try it.

montana urban legend said...

How self-indulgent of you to assume I was proving your point, Knox - or even addressing it, for that matter.

Given that your last comment was about redefining right and wrong or somesuch, I'll take the liberty of concluding that you mean I have redefined rape as an act that is no longer wrong. If that's the case, then why did I make no argument for not punishing the murderer/attempted rapist? Why did I never assert that the individual shouldn't be incarcerated?

It might boggle your mind to know that even prisoners have some rights. But that's not my reaction. I can actually draw a distinction between admitting the commission of wrong and still admitting for the existence of a right (or arguing for it) on behalf of the wrongdoer.

Many people here seem to think that the convict will rape the women with whom (s)he will be incarcerated. I have yet to see the evidence for this, or even the cogency of such an argument. Yes, someone with a penis may rape a female, but we don't assume that possession of a penis alone confers a reasonable risk of this. Especially if the person in question - regardless of gender - has a likely sexual aversion to females and may have even been chemically altered to that effect. In that case, it's more likely that the female prisoners - for whom you feign such an exaggerated sense of concern - would be molested in some way by other female inmates or even the guards than by the inmate who was described.

So, my argument was made upon the basis of reason - the reasoning provided by Ralph's comment - and not on a desire to change the definition of right and wrong. That is a figment of your imagination.

Of course, I could be wrong in this. Perhaps I have erred and should have assumed that rapists do assault people of genders in which they lack any interest - or even envy in terms of sexual identity. But if you think so, do what I have bothered to do. Make an argument that holds water.

This is about the likelihood of one to rape members of a certain gender. Not whether rape is right or wrong. What a lazy dodge you have made.

Nichevo said...

MULe, the clearest and shortest framing of your incoherence is this: you declare that this man has an aversion to females, so would not likely rape -

1) his entire struggle, which it seems you are onside with, is to BECOME a woman. Become that thing he hates? He is willing to do X, Y and Z to make himself more hateful to himself?

2) He HAS raped! Or tried to. The very headline says he was convicted of it. You think that what someone has tried once, they will not do twice?

What is your pretext here - that he only covets men? I suppose then by removing him to women's prison, you are protecting all the helpless male inmates from rape by him. Sure, I'm sure the whole block will breathe a collective sigh of relief when he leaves, and K-Y futures will plummet.

But the women will be safe how exactly? Women who you say he hates? Women who he will have the easy opportunity to rape, fish in a barrel? Women who can function as the catamite in sodomy just as well as men - as I'm sure you are aware, or let me know if this goes over your head and you can't extract it from Anais Nin's Delta of Venus.

Perhaps he will only pick on waifish, boyish women, ones with short hair or tattoos or deep voices or flat asses or whatever are his triggers. You really think a man in his circumstances can afford to be picky?

The only thing he can be denied in women's prison is the chance to be inseminated by his, er, colleagues. As a tradeoff, he goes from the 5th %ile of relative strength in men's, to the 95th %ile of strength in women's lockup. Even if he will only make them paint his toenails, that is a coercion whose power will be gifted unto him by such a decision.


The truth is, on a strict utilitarian basis, everybody would be better off if he had just been killed while resisting arrest. I certainly don't think he should get any treats.

I will say, if his corpus is fit and healthy, he might be allowed to pay for surgery by donating organs. NHS can do that, right? ;>


(TW: forson - or daughter in this case?)