Holder and DOI just keep getting weirder

The U.S. Department of (In)Justice has threatened to sue South Carolina if the state doesn't end its practice of housing HIV-positive inmates in a different prison than uninfected inmates.

The state's director of prisons said Tuesday he received a letter from the DOI in June, giving the state 90 days to mingle the two groups or face a federal lawsuit.

Since 1998 South Carolina has tested all inmates for HIV and placed over 400 HIV-infected inmates in a separate facility. Alabama is the only other state that separates infected inmates.

The American Civil Liberties Union says officials should should house all inmates together, and should give prisoners condoms and syringes to prevent the spread of AIDS.

Justice Department may sue South Carolina over segregating infected inmates
08/05/2010

"In 1985, 46 states segregated HIV-positive prisoners from the general population. Over the years, the practice drew negative fire from AIDS activists, pressure groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and liberal media outlets. Most states reintroduced HIV-infected prisoners into the regular prison routine and now only South Carolina and Alabama house such prisoners separately."

Let's see if I've got this straight: 25 years ago, 46 states kept prisoners with HIV (the virus almost universally acknowledged to cause AIDS) away from the general population. But thanks to relentless pressure from the ACLU and "liberal media outlets," in all but two states prisoners with HIV mingle with the general population. Okay, got it.

Now, South Carolina's prison system--which still stubbornly keeps the two populations apart--claims to have had only one case of HIV transmission to a previously uninfected prisoner since 1998. Wonder what the average rate of new infection of prisoners is in the states that have mixed populations?

I can see how people who have HIV or AIDS and are *not* in prison have a good case that they shouldn't be kept from mingling with the uninfected population. But in a prison setting--where homosexual rape is many times more common, and where residents are barred by the state from moving away or taking effective protective measures-- I think the case for mixing the populations is greatly and possibly fatally weakened.

In any case, it's hard to dispute that in arguing against keeping the two groups apart, the ACLU and "liberal media outlets" have granted rights to a favored group by diminishing the rights of a different group--i.e. increasing their risk.

One wonders how tolerant ACLU attorneys and members of "liberal media outlets" would be if, say, a person with tuberculosis applied to teach at their kid's school? Would they defend the right of a person with the Ebola virus to travel freely?