should  female police be able to strip search male prisoners?
914248
i mean if the person says its ok then y not....but they cant either way
758312
Maybe. If it could be guaranteed they would not be raped if captured, yes, but that can't be guaranteed, so no. The specter of women being abused, beaten or raped, would break most men rather quickly. If they were to be allowed to the front, they should have to pass the same standards as the men, not 'equivalent' standards for a female, because sometimes there's only one there to get a wounded guy back to the medics.
616066
I think if they did their time, then under supervision etc then no. However, for parole definitely-it is much fairer! \nIn some cases the victim is not even alerted when their attacker is released! In many cases the attacker has ruined the victims life or at least has ruined a big chunk of it. No matter what anybody says the victim will never forget, get over it, or have the same life as before. To some extent they will have ruined the victims life, so It is totally fair that the victim gets a say in it all! In so many sexual assault cases the victim is treated appallingly. The police are meant to make it easy to come to them, when they have just experienced something horrific. However, they don't bother to tell them anything that is happening a lot of the time and make the process for the victim so much harder.\nI also do not understand why the prosecution has to prove it, why can't the defence prove they did not. Also, the defence get to view all the evidence, so can create a false story around it, where as the victim is not allowed to see it. The justice system is not fair at all, and victims need more rights and help if we want more attackers locked up! \nI think it is a good idea.
529728
There shouldn't be...period.\n\nI've served in combat and I assure you there's no "difference in physical readiness standards for men and women" once hot barrels get pointed at you.\n\nI don't want to catch one because a female soldier had to get special treatment. If a person can't meet the standards they don't deserve to be there (male or female).
529094
Obtuse is a good word to use.  These women live in a fantasy world.  These men can't leave them, cheat on them, and are really sweet because they are in jail and need some attention.  The women block out any negativity, believe that the men were wrongly incarcerated and are just wonderful guys.
185039
Your friend still has rights, but generally one of the terms that your friend may have agreed to as part of the agreement for probabtion is that the police can search without cause any time they want as often as they want. Your friend would be subject to the same type of "harrassment," as you put it, if he/she were in jail or prison. The purpose being that, while you friend is not in jail or prison, you friend needs to obey the law at all times to avoid being sent to jail or prison.
159209
State laws on strip searches vary, so it's impossible to accurately answer your question without knowing what state you're in.  You also need to define exactly what you mean by "strip search"...in California, it's very specifically defined in the law, so you'd need to be equally specific.\n\nIf the warrant allows it, then it's pretty likely it was legal.\n\nIf it was done in your home, I'd be pretty suspicious.\n\nIn short, there's not enough information provided in your question to give you an answer.
1143011
Your father is correct.  Just fess up, don't get smart or have an attitude.   You would be amazed how it can work.  Now if you get pulled over by a female cop, forget it.. you're getting a ticket!
701541
In America I don't believe there are co-ed prisons even if the prisoners were supervised. For one reason there just is not enough correctional officers to watch them. Second, females are more prone to be violated my male prisoners.
933200
Only if they are personally repsonsible - which is unlikely. You cannot impose collective punishments, particularly for historical events - to do so would be as unjust as the original crime. It would be no more justified than arresting every black man in a town because one black man committed murder 30 years earlier.\n\nIt should also be borne in mind that it was not only white men that indulged in slavery - many slaves were captured and sold into slavery by rival tribes or by arabs. Slavery at the time was not generally recognised as wrong - attitudes and recognition of basic human rights have come a long way in the last 200 years. No slave trader would have considered that they were doing anything wrong (as indeed they weren't on a strictly legal basis). If any slave traders should be punished, it should be those who continued after slavery was made illegal.\n\nTony Blair's intention to use the 200th anniversary of the Abolition of Slavery in the UK to express regret at slavery is about right (I guess he had to get something right eventually). There is no need to apologise because the people who should be apologising are dead, as are the people who should be apologised to and the slavery industry was not recognised at the time as anything other than a legitimate business, taken in the context of the times. It is only now with hindsight that we see how truly awful slavery was and in that respect an expression of regret to the descendants of those affected by slavery seems about right.\n\nNeither racism nor sexism are by any means exclusively the failings of white men.
332135
Yes...like most of the public you have good and bad police officers.  Bad police officers make up just a small percent of the entire law enforcement community.\n\nThe police powers are you speaking off, the powers of arrest.\n\nIn order for police officers to do their job well, they are vested by the state with a monopoly in the use of certain powers. These include the powers to arrest, search, seize, and interrogate; and if necessary, to use lethal force. In nations with democratic systems and the rule of law, the law of criminal procedure has been developed to regulate officers' discretion, so that they do not exercise their vast powers arbitrarily or unjustly.\n\nIn U.S. criminal procedure, the most famous case is Miranda v. Arizona which led to the widespread use of Miranda warnings. U.S. police are also prohibited from holding criminal suspects for more than a reasonable amount of time (usually 72 hours) before arraignment, using torture to extract confessions, using excessive force to effect an arrest, and searching suspects' bodies or their homes without a warrant obtained upon a showing of probable cause. There are exceptions or exigent circumstances such as an articulated need to disarm a suspect or searching a suspect who has already been arrested (Search Incident to an Arrest). The Posse Comitatus Act prevents the use of the U.S. military for police activity, giving added importance to police SWAT units.\n\nBritish police officers are governed by similar rules, particularly those introduced under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but generally have greater powers. They may, for example, legally search any suspect who has been arrested, or their vehicles, home or business premises, without a warrant, and may seize anything they find in a search as evidence. All police officers in the United Kingdom, whatever their actual rank, are 'constables' in terms of their legal position. This means that a newly appointed constable has the same arrest powers as a Chief Constable or Commissioner. However certain higher ranks have additional powers to authorise certain aspects of police operations, such as a power to authorise a search of a suspects house (section 18 PACE) by an officer of the rank of Inspector, or the power to authorise a suspects detention beyond 24 hours by a Superintendent.\n\nPolice officers face many dangers in their jobs. Police officers are constantly being faced with the unknown and the unpredictable. They never truly know the outcome of any situation they enter into. This can make policing a dangerous profession. Dangers faced by police include death, increased risk of infectious diseases, and serious and minor trauma, both physical and emotional. These dangers are encountered in many different situations i.e. apprehension/arrest and investigation of criminals, conducting vehicle stops, investigating people and crimes, protecting the public from dangerous situations or individuals, investigating traffic accidents and witnessing the carnage that often results from those accidents, responding to suicides and directing traffic.\n\nHowever, many police officers do derive a genuine sense of job satisfaction from their work, especially when a long investigation has been successfully completed. On a day-to-day basis, officers can often see the results of their work in their ability to help members of the public, even with incidents of relatively minor importance.
166673
I concur it makes us woman <ahhh I don't know the word...It's not militant but... Unrespectful of males!>...it's been around since the Hippies let all that bad stuff outta 'Pandora's Box' <free sex, drugs, avoiding responsibilites, and womanizing>.  It's too late ... asking to take it away would be like taking away all magazines similar to "Playboy"... we can wish, but it's not going to happen.
861033
I have known a couple that have been sent to prision,  they are determikned as to male or female by thier birth certificate and how they are determined.\n\nBut even in prison, they are keep in lock down, protective custody and will not be ever in general population.\n\nThe one "gentlemen" I knew was in there for a simple drug crime but was doing his 5 years in complete lock down.
502079
What do you mean, legally entitled to commit theft? We men just have to be, more strict and controlling now days, to keep women from deciving, betrayi8ng and stealing. It would help to catch them red handed, too.
608269
Well go ahead! You have my permission! With all the details you have given like his name and stuff It shouldnt take more than 200 years to find him....at least we can eliminate women and girls!
712460
In the UK - yes as you were bound over. In 1983, if you had been found 'not guilty' they would have had to have been destroyed, but nowadays they remain on file even if you are acquitted - as does your DNA and photograph.\nI'm a police officer, but I still think that this is a gross infringements of our human rights, and building up a DNA database by the back door....\nAnd yes, I do read The Guardian....
371588
As an ex cop I can assure that they can in certain cases. Most officers search you to check for weapons and if they find drugs in the process, then it's a valid charge. There are some places where they have to have your consent to search, like your home but if it's your vehicle and you're arrested they have to inventory the car so that is a valid search. If they have probable cause like seeing marijuana or something in plain view, then you can be arrested. If they stop you and want to look in your trunk, unless there exigent circumstances, like they think theres a person you're holding captive in there or an animal, then they can search without a warrant. A pat-down search is legal for officer safety reasons. To search things like your bags or glove compartment they need your consent again, unless you've been arrested. If they have reason to believe that you are going to reach for a weapon they can search the immediate area. Best thing to do is not to carry illegal things my friend. Cops are savvy and we take no chances. If you break the law, you deserve to go down but I do believe in protecting peoples civil rights as well. I always protected my prisoner's rights because I may to make a judgement due to the situation and what has to be done, but I am not judge, jury and executioner and most police officers try to keep this in mind. Even if I didn't like a person I'd dealt with before, I was still fair and respectful unless they gave me a reason to get tough with them. Good luck.