Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Man Seeks Bail to Have Sex
- Thread starter themadchemist
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh please! Please let me out of jail so I can have sex.
In the US he would already be getting enough sex in prison!
In the US he would already be getting enough sex in prison!
Dr. Dastardly said:Oh please! Please let me out of jail so I can have sex.
In the US he would already be getting enough sex in prison!
Probably not to his liking though
MongoTheGeek said:
Not all prisons allow conjugal visits. My think is that prisons are not made a place to relax. If a person committed a crime they need to pay for that crime. They should have thought of there need for sex prior to committing the crime. I do think that stricter enforcement in prisons should maintained so that sex by fellow inmates would end. We due owe a prisoner his safety.
themadchemist said:
Perhaps, but you know I wouldn't be at all surprised if this came up in the U.S. too.
Did this guy have his hands cut off or something?
wdlove said:
Oh please! This is the lamest excuse I've seen in a while.
"I think I'll not go ahead with my terrorist plot to set fire to a train filled with 100s of people, killing as many as possible, because if I get caught I won't be able to have sex with my wife...." I don't think there are many individuals who are going to about killing others that are all too worried about the consequences.
Try applying a little perspective to this. He doesn't want to be in jail and he's trying to figure a way out.....
D
Not to get off-topic from the guy's unique proposal for bail...but I had to mention this guy has been in Jail for 2.5 years under a blanket anti-terrorism law with 95 other people...and the Authorities admit the train fire these people are being held for (evidently w/o trial), may have merely been an electrical malfunction.
I hesitate to peg this individual as a criminal mastermind...and feel that the Authorities probably owe him a chance for some nooky...and perhaps an apology...
Just an opinion...
I hesitate to peg this individual as a criminal mastermind...and feel that the Authorities probably owe him a chance for some nooky...and perhaps an apology...
Just an opinion...
People who are in prison are stripped of their rights, hence the term "prison."
They are allowed food, shelter, and safety. Anything above that is considered a privilege.
NO SEX FOR YOU!
They are allowed food, shelter, and safety. Anything above that is considered a privilege.
NO SEX FOR YOU!
Dr. Dastardly said:Oh please! Please let me out of jail so I can have sex.
In the US he would already be getting enough sex in prison!
Too bad hes not in a mexican jail////
Hemingray said:Did this guy have his hands cut off or something?
Oh, come off it!
India actually tends to be quite liberal when it comes to protecting minority rights and at least open-minded to considerable prisoners' rights (at least, I gather this from their willingness to consider this request), though there have been a few notable exceptions. The affirmative action policy in India, which was started before that in the US, is far more extensive. Moreover, in order to protect the varied religious interests of a culturally diverse population and to prevent oppression of minority Muslims by majority Hindus, India actually makes a number of concessions in the law to Muslims that it does not to Hindus. For example, because sharia allows it, Muslims in India can engage in polygamy.However, I think that India overdoes it sometimes, and this is one of those cases.
But the "hands cut off" joke I actually found kind of offensive, seeing as there are many, many people who would confuse such different countries as India and say, Saudi Arabia, just because the people there are "all brown."
blackfox--I agree with you that the blanket holding is somewhat questionable. At least, the fellow has access to an attorney to the extent that he can file a brief and to his wife to the extent that he can complain of marital trouble. However, I think two and a half years is a little excessive to hold someone without beginning criminal proceedings. In that sense, maybe this request has something to it.
On the other hand, I think it is generally accepted that the incident in Gujarat was not an electrical mishap, but a violent attack. As far as I know, the belief that it was an accident is a fringe one. Similarly, vicious violence by Hindus against Muslims in retaliation were deliberate and probably more virulent, in light of their larger scale. Neither incident is surprising, though, considering the great deal of bloodshed through numerous conflicts between the groups in various parts of India. We can only hope that the future holds the promise of a greater peace, but it seems unlikely to be close at hand.
i concur. stop complaining! you're lucky to even have the privelige to ASK for bailApple Hobo said:Tell him to **** and go wank it.
homerjward said:
Well, I think being able to ask for bail is a right. And he asked. Now he should probably be denied.
The real problem comes up when the asking becomes a privilege and oppression becomes an allowable option.
agreenster said:
Exactly what I was thinking.
You know, people don't go to prison for no reason, this guy did something, and he paid the consequences. The consequences include, but are not limited to: NO SEX!!!!
And dude, has this guy ever heard of masturbation?
it could be against his religion (i dont know that much about islam) after all that's why he wants to get out on bail, because his religion prohibits sex outside marriage.musicpyrite said:And dude, has this guy ever heard of masturbation?
I think its a bit sad you're all just willing to jump on the bashing bandwagon a comment on the situation without any thought as to what he's been going through. Sure, he's probably guilty, but he still has to deal with being in prison for over 30 months, and this is prison in India. I'm sure there are better conditions to have to serve your time in. I know I wouldn't even want to visit his prison as a tourist....
This only got press because of its absurdity. I'm willing to bet that there are some other inmates who are wishing they came up with this angle.
I also don't think he's going to get out for a *visit*.
D
This only got press because of its absurdity. I'm willing to bet that there are some other inmates who are wishing they came up with this angle.
I also don't think he's going to get out for a *visit*.
D
I don't think the guy should get bail for this, since one would think they could arrange a conjugal visit in the prison somewhere.
But, I think you guys who say that being in prison means no sex, should rethink your position. It's been shown that prisoner reform and reintegration into society is aided by having family support on the outside. This means that prisoners are also less likely to reoffend when they eventually get out. Now, don't you think that someone's wife will be less likely to ditch out if they can still have sex, and thus remain to support the prisoner? Isn't that a good thing? Would we prefer broken homes, with more divorce, and fatherless children?
Plus, I think that sex between a man and his wife is more than recreation, it's a physical expression of their love. I mean, they are already allowed some visitation, so why rule out private visits? Of course, I would make it conditional on good behaviour though.
But, I think you guys who say that being in prison means no sex, should rethink your position. It's been shown that prisoner reform and reintegration into society is aided by having family support on the outside. This means that prisoners are also less likely to reoffend when they eventually get out. Now, don't you think that someone's wife will be less likely to ditch out if they can still have sex, and thus remain to support the prisoner? Isn't that a good thing? Would we prefer broken homes, with more divorce, and fatherless children?
Plus, I think that sex between a man and his wife is more than recreation, it's a physical expression of their love. I mean, they are already allowed some visitation, so why rule out private visits? Of course, I would make it conditional on good behaviour though.
At first I agreed with everyone else, prison should be punishment for the crimes committed. But thinking about it, it is far better to reform the prisoner and make them productive citizens. Part of this reform should be to make them decent human beings. And that would involve intimacy, more than just sex. Humans need touch, and maybe its sappy but I wonder how many criminals are completely lacking loving touch both as a kid and as adults.
Maybe it would be a good thing to add proper conjugal visits into reform programs.
Maybe it would be a good thing to add proper conjugal visits into reform programs.
Mr. Anderson said:
I don't think it's sad that I jumped on the bashing band wagon for two reasons:
1)He committed a crime. Plane and simple, he broke the law. He deserves to be punished.(though you might be right about the way prisoners get treated in India, but I can really comment about that because I've never gone to prison in India) Countries have laws for a reason, and if we bend or break those laws enough, it will eventually get out of hand. Think what happen to Simpson, that is the first instance that comes to mind, but I could think of others.
2) I have gone over 15 and a half years without sex. What do you say to that?
I'm sorry, but this guy needs to get control over his 'urges' and suck it up. He broke the law, and now he's paying for his mistakes.
musicpyrite said:
Well, we don't know that he broke the law yet. He's being investigated, right? He hasn't been convicted yet.
But as far as prison in India, I can't comment on it either, but I don't think that it's riddled with human rights violations to the extent of more repressive nations. While I'm sure that it's probably somewhat worse than the United States, it's probably not by that much. After all, Club Fed went bye-bye here. Now, we've just got federal pound-you-in-the-ass prisons, to quote from one of my favorite movies.
musicpyrite said:2) I have gone over 15 and a half years without sex. What do you say to that?
pre-pubescence doesn't count.
(I am not picking on anyone in particular here, but this quote happens to pretty well illustrate what I'm going to talk/rant about.)
Wrong, wrong, wrong. He is suspected of commiting a crime, and has been held for 2.5 years awaiting trial. He has not been convicted of a crime. I have to make a fairly safe assumption that India works on the same principle as most democratic governments - that being if someone is accused of a crime, they are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. He may well have been involved, but it is the state's job to prove that in a court of law, and until they have done so he is presumed innocent.
I am quite surprised that either people here don't seem to know the difference between "bail" and "parole", or more appallingly seem to think that simply because the state has accused him of a crime, he must be guilty and should be tossed in prison forthwith, and the key disposed of. It is exactly this kind of thinking and attitude which has given us all these "anti-terrorism" laws, which allow the government to strip anyone of their rights simply by labeling them a "terrorist" (it would seem from reading this story that India has developed is own form of the so-called "Patriot Act" - lovely). These laws alone represent a greater threat to our way of life than any terrorist ever has. Laws are being bent and broken, and things certainly are out of hand - but I'm not talking about common criminals here, I'm talking about the various legislative bodies around the world contraveneing our basic civil rights in the name of "fighting terrorism".
If, after my comments, you still think he should have been imprisoned for 2.5 years awaiting trial, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the basic rights guaranteed by your country of residence. (Hint: in the US, The Bill of Rights; for the UK (and likely members of the 'Commonwealth' as well) you'd probably start with Magna Carta.) Then consider why these documents exist - you might need to review some history too.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. He is suspected of commiting a crime, and has been held for 2.5 years awaiting trial. He has not been convicted of a crime. I have to make a fairly safe assumption that India works on the same principle as most democratic governments - that being if someone is accused of a crime, they are presumed innocent until proven otherwise. He may well have been involved, but it is the state's job to prove that in a court of law, and until they have done so he is presumed innocent.
I am quite surprised that either people here don't seem to know the difference between "bail" and "parole", or more appallingly seem to think that simply because the state has accused him of a crime, he must be guilty and should be tossed in prison forthwith, and the key disposed of. It is exactly this kind of thinking and attitude which has given us all these "anti-terrorism" laws, which allow the government to strip anyone of their rights simply by labeling them a "terrorist" (it would seem from reading this story that India has developed is own form of the so-called "Patriot Act" - lovely). These laws alone represent a greater threat to our way of life than any terrorist ever has. Laws are being bent and broken, and things certainly are out of hand - but I'm not talking about common criminals here, I'm talking about the various legislative bodies around the world contraveneing our basic civil rights in the name of "fighting terrorism".
If, after my comments, you still think he should have been imprisoned for 2.5 years awaiting trial, I suggest that you familiarize yourself with the basic rights guaranteed by your country of residence. (Hint: in the US, The Bill of Rights; for the UK (and likely members of the 'Commonwealth' as well) you'd probably start with Magna Carta.) Then consider why these documents exist - you might need to review some history too.