Convicted Rapist Seeks Right to Starve to Death

[The Straight Story]

Convicted Rapist Seeks Right to Starve to Death

Convicted Rapist Seeks Right to Starve to DeathA state court has agreed to hear the case of a prisoner who's protested his rape conviction by hunger-striking for the past four years. Being force-fed is "torture," he says—and not just because prison food tastes bad.

William Coleman, a British-born, 49-year-old former college football coach, is currently serving an eight-year sentence in a Connecticut prison after being convicted of raping his ex-wife. Coleman claims he's innocent, and has spent the past four years subsisting mostly on liquid foods as part of his hunger strike. Eating solid food now causes him pain, which is why he filed suit against the state—which has tried to keep him alive by force-feeding him. In 2009, a court ruled that force feeding Coleman was permissible, but now the state's highest court has agreed to hear the guy out and decide whether he can wither away and die on the state's watch if he so desires. The ACLU is backing him, and international law seems to support his position.

Do you think Coleman's commitment to his cause lends credibility to his innocence claim? His supporters seem to believe so, pointing to his extreme weight loss (he's now half his former size) and dedication to his campaign. A website made in Coleman's defense states that he's has been offered his parole papers, but has refused to sign them because doing so would mean admitting to his crime. At his trial, Coleman's lawyers pointed out that his ex-wife hired a divorce lawyer before reporting the rape to police, and made her allegation after Coleman sought sole custody of their children. Coleman apparently passed a polygraph test about the rape, but polygraph results aren't admissible evidence in Connecticut.

Ultimately, Coleman's conviction rested on his ex-wife's testimony, but that's enough evidence to convict; at trial, she testified that Coleman was "controlling" and made her feel like a prisoner. Several witnesses, including two cops, provided corroborating testimony, and the jury believed her case was stronger.


Read more: http://jezebel.com/5722262/convicted-rapist-seeks-right-to-starve-to-death#ixzz19uJJsg2o

[hlthe2b]

1. Are they providing him adequate psychological intervention?

I doubt it. I have to wonder if this is not symptomatic of the desperation from severe untreated, poorly treated, or intractable depression.
Granted if he is innocent and been branded a "rapist," and sent to jail, he has reasons to be so, but so too does CT need to effectively intervene.

[freshwest]

2. NOT bashing CT, but this is the same state that did this:

http://www.foxnews.com/us...ication/?test=latestnews'

In which the state forced medication on a man whose crime was not medicating himself with government approved drugs. The crime was growing and possessing marijuana. It was the quantity of the drug, and not violent crime, as far as I've been able to find, that the judge used in an argument that it was serious enough to take such measures. I found this to be wrong.

At the same time they gave a lot of leeway to a man who had numerous accidents and finally killed a boy while driving, but the drug he was medicating himself with was legal:

http://www.grist.org/arti...n-bike-sues-boys-parents

BTW, I'm not trying to derail the thread from the focus of the ACLU and granting this man some freedom to choose in whatever he can to live his life behind bars. I'd like to see him given all the liquid nourishment he can handle. I know people who can have nothing else and this man seems to have done this already.

But since this went into whether the man needed psychological care which usually means drugging him, it seemed similar to me.

And don't get me wrong, I am firmly in favor of psychological services in many more venues and places than they currently exist. The field of psychiatry and psychology have been decimated by the constant barrage of Michael Weiner attacks and the religious right who see all mental problems as moral failings or demon possession.

Nor do I have any personal interest in legalizing marijuana except that as was said here in a story on Willie Nelson being arrested. The writer quoted this:

'Comedian John Fugelsang pointed out that while Willie Nelson was arrested in Texas for 6 ounces of cannabis, "God, who produces it naturally across the globe, is still at large."'

I think we need to really think about what the 'law' is forcing people to do or not do with their own bodies. What other barrier is there in life, when we don't control that?

http://www.readersupporte...justice/4065-dangerous-o

The point to me is that the man whether he is innocent or not, is apparently being tortured by being force fed. This is a human body we are talking about, but the law seems to be just about rules and control in this case as it is with the pot case I cited.

And I'm not bashing Connecticut in any way, I have some fine friends there and I'm sure there are millions of progressive, high minded people that make it a great place to live and work. It's just that this is one of several stories about CT I've been offered online in other places. And I'm sure other states are just as bad.

I feel strongly that any invasion of the human body with state power, no matter what the excuse, is dangerous to all of us and an offense against our dignity as human beings. That we are on the hook for Abu Graib, water-boarding, war crimes, the prison system as a whole and a barrage of desensitizing media garbage is pointing us in a direction that many of us refuse to endure.

[hlthe2b]

3. Wow.. that society has so many of us concluding that

effective psychological intervention always equates to drug therapy, says a lot about the state of psychological therapy in this country. :shrug: Perhaps he simply needs to be able to explore a larger purpose for surviving his current situation-- one that could motivate his moving past the despondency. (and no that does not always equate to "finding religion")

To not be providing adequate psychological care to any prisoner who 1. is having great difficulty adapting to his current situation in prison; 2. goes on a hunger strike; 3. is suicidal, is the issue. One can argue whether force feeding is torture and it might well be. Arguable to force feed without trying to deal with the underlying problem, just means that the GITMO attitude is alive and well in Connecticut prisons. I'm not even arguing against the possibility that he has the ultimate right to decide he wants to starve himself, per the ACLU lawsuit. What I am arguing is that they have a responsibility to ensure that severe, untreated depression is not the reason and thus his response to circumstances is not potentially temporary and reversible.

[freshwest]

5. Yes, it seems we have handed psychological care over to big pharma.

And I'm not arguing that he should even be able to starve himself. A person on a liquid diet does not have to die. So that part of this I think we all agree that his life is worth saving, but not by means of making him suffer this way.

For the man to have decided that death is preferable to living in prison is not unknown. Some prisoners on death row or others facing life without parole, while proclaiming to be innocent have faced that they will not be listened to, refuse their appeals.

I think the ACLU is simply saying that the state can go so far and no farther. Anymore than a hospital is allowed to refuse a DNR order or other parts of a living will to save their reputation or get more money for treatments the patient may not want.

I am definitely not ruling out that this man is very depressed, I'm sure he is. But is his situation hopeless? I think not. That indicates he needs a big intervention. As you say, it's reversible.

Okay, I feel conflicted on this issue. Because I've seen where people who needed long-term psychological treatment were given what was a cheaper alternative, a load of prescriptions and not cognitive therapy or any of the other alternatives to get them over their depression. There are many that have been rejected by the APA but are now being given a chance to be used.

We are on the same page, really. I'd like to see this man live through this and I understand his reasons for not going along with what they want him to sign to get out. If he's delusional and not just guilty, or a supreme egotist to not confess, well, that's a lot to decide here on the net.

I just don't like any state or corporation forcing things on people.

Thanks very much for your response.

[MattBaggins]

4. Just as a devils advocate here.

"she testified that Coleman was "controlling" and made her feel like a prisoner"

Is perhaps the hunger strike indicative of a control freak and attention seeker?

[freshwest]

6. Like anorexia?

Can't control anything else in my life, but I can control this one what goes in my body?

I've had two friends with it, and that's what they told me.

But we may be over-thinking this.

[Maru Kitteh]

7. I'd say that's a fair catch. n/t