Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[7]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[7]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[7]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-11-19 03:32:49.460
	1	+2016-11-19 03:32:49.0

Caselist.CitesClass[7]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,37 @@
	1	+I affirm and value morality due to word ‘ought’ in the resolution which implies obligation.
	2	+
	3	+The standard is minimizing structural oppression defined as promoting the material conditions necessary for inclusion. Prefer this standard for 3 reasons:
	4	+1. omitted
	5	+2. omitted
	6	+3. omitted
	7	+The aff methodology for confronting structural violation is reforming the prison industrial complex. This allows for inclusion. Loyd 2k11:
	8	+Faculty Fellow in the Humanities @ Syracuse University Dr. Jenna M. Loyd, (PhD in Geography from UC Berkeley. Has held postdoctoral positions with the Island Detention project in the Department of Geography @ Syracuse University, the Center for Place, Culture and Politics @ CUNY Graduate Center, and in the Humanities Center @ Syracuse University) “American Exceptionalism, Abolition and the Possibilities for Nonkilling Futures,” Nonkilling Geography, Edited by: James Tyner and Joshua Inwood (2011)
	9	+The relative invisibility of domestic state violence vis-à-vis war constrains the imagination and imperative for building just, free, and peaceful futures, internationally and domestically. Domestic practices of state violence (namely policing and imprisonment) are frequently treated as inherently more legitimate than war-making because these practices are founded in popular sovereignty. Yet, these institutions reproduce racial, gender, class, and sexual relations of hierarchy and domination that contribute to family separation, community fragmentation, labor exploitation and premature death. Building a nonkilling future, thus, means challenging the state’s organization for violence that are practiced domestically in the form of defense (military-industrial complex) and in the form of prisons and policing as the “answer” to social and economic problems ranging from poverty, to boisterous youth, to human migration, and drug use (Braz, 2008; Gilmore and Gilmore, 2008). It takes sustained ideological work to contain “war” as the only form of state violence and to contain the good sense that war’s harms cannot be confined to weapons, neatly demarcated battlefields, and declarations of wars’ conclusions. Building critiques of and movements against state violence means confronting hegemonic frames that understand state violence as exceptional, rather than as normal practices structuring both international relations and domestic governance. It means asking why denunciations of the “war at home” sound hyperbolic to some Americans. It means asking in what ways domestic practices of state violence are practiced elsewhere and international practices are imported. Such cross-boundary traffic in practices (and personnel) of policing, and imprisonment and war-making are important for showing that the lines between foreign and domestic, war and peace, civilian and military are constantly blurred. This in turn highlights the tremendous ideological work that goes into maintaining these boundaries, and the material consequences such geographical imaginations have on people’s lives and the places in which they live. This is not to say that the war at home and war abroad are the same or necessarily have the same intensity. Rather it is to trace the frame of exceptionalism that structures the relations between these places in ways that facilitate violence in both places. As we have seen, the invisibility and naturalization of state violence in the form of the prison is one of the most overlooked sites of American exceptionalism, critiques of US state violence, and of antiwar efforts. For precisely this reason, attentions should be placed on challenging the prison regime as one aspect of building nonkilling futures. For this historical moment, Dylan Rodríguez argues that undoing the naturalization of such commonplace violence, centers squarely on an abolitionist pedagogy that works “against the assumptive necessity, integrity, and taken-for-grantedness of prisons, policing, and the normalized state violence they reproduce” (2010: 9). Dismantling prisons is about dismantling relations of white supremacy, heteropatriarchy and economic exploitation that undermine the possibilities for freedom and human flourishing. Prison abolition has an expansive antiviolence imperative that necessarily demands an end to connected practices of war, colonial dispossession, and imperial rule.
	10	+Part 2 is the plan – Resolved: The United States Supreme Court will limit qualified immunity for police officers who work in prisons. I am willing to clarify any part of the plan in cross-x.
	11	+
	12	+Contention 1 is cruel and unusual punishment.
	13	+Prison officials get away with torture against prisoners because of current qualified immunity loopholes. Sheng 2k12:
	14	+Sheng, Philip. "An "Objectively Reasonable" Criticism of the Doctrine of Qualified Immunity in Excessive Force Cases Brought Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, 1 Mar. 2012. Web. 4 Nov. 2016. http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1459andcontext=jpl.
	15	+Apart from the concerns that (I) the Court is affording law enforcement officers too much protection from liability and (2) the Court is splitting hairs to distinguish Graham's fact-based protection from Harlow's law-based protection, 5 4 this paper's main criticism of Saucier is that the Court offered no clear guidance concerning the "appropriate level of specificity" needed for a law to be clearly established. Subsequent cases have only made it less clear. For instance, in f!ope v. Pelzer, a prisoner brought a civil rights lawsuit against three prison guards for cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. 55 After getting into a fight with one of the guards, the prisoner was chained to a hitching post at both arms. 5 r' The guards removed the prisoner's shirt and let him bake under the sun for seven hours. He was given no bathroom breaks, only two drinks of water, and was taunted by the guards throughout the ordeal. 5 x The Eleventh Circuit held that although the prisoner's Eighth Amendment rights were clearly violated, the guards were entitled to qualified immunity because the law concerning the use of the hitching post was not clearly established. Although it could be "inferred" from "analogous" case law that the guards' conduct was illegal, the Eleventh Circuit held that the case law needed to have "materially similar" facts in order to be considered clearly established law. In other words, to overcome qualified immunity, the prisoner would have had to cite case law that prohibited a prison guard from chaining a prisoner to a hitching post for seven hours, without a shirt, without bathroom breaks, without water, and while taunting him. 62 This was how many circuit courts interpreted Saucierrll but the Supreme Court rejected such a narrow approach. M The Court adopted a "fair warning" standard in Hope, and held that prior case law did not need to have materially similar f~1cts to serve as the basis for clearly established law.1 ' 5 In fact, no factual similarity was needed at all-"officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates clearly established law even in novel factual circumstances."66 As long as the current "state of the law" gave the officer "fair warning" that the conduct was unlawful, the officer is was not entitled to qualified immunity.67 This holding greatly relaxed the standard that was purportedly announced in Saucier, making it "much easier for civil rights plaintiffs" to overcome qualified immunity. 68 Up until the time Hope was decided, cases were routinely being dismissed due to the lack of materially similar cascs.m Though Hope was an Eighth Amendment case and not a Fourth Amendment case, one would expect Hope to apply fully to excessive force cases; after all, cruel and unusual punishment is not too far removed from the use of excessive force. 70 Interestingly however, in the only excessive force case to be heard since Hope where clearly established was at issue, the Court seemed to completely ignore Hope.
	16	+And, inmates are coerced to the point of suicide. Gilna 2k15:
	17	+Gilna, Derek. “Supreme Court Rules Qualified Immunity Shields Prison Officials from Suicide Claim.” Prison Legal News – Human Rights. July 31, 2015. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/supreme-court-rules-qualified-immunity-shields-prison-officials-suicide-claim/
	18	+In what can only be considered a step backward for holding corrections officials accountable for the preventable suicide of prisoners in their custody, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from liability in a case involving a prisoner who killed himself. As a result, a federal lawsuit filed by the family of Christopher Barkes, who allegedly committed suicide due to an inadequate intake screening, was dismissed. According to the Supreme Court, there was no question that Barkes was “a troubled man with a long history of mental health and substance abuse problems.” Following his arrest for probation violations in 2004, he was confined at the Howard R. Young Correctional Institution in Delaware, where an intake evaluation was performed that included a brief mental health screening. The nurse performing the screening, who was employed by a private contractor, used a form approved by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care (NCCHC). The form covered 17 suicide risk factors and required immediate suicide countermeasures if 8 or more factors were reported. The nurse found only two indicators of suicidal tendencies, and thus failed to alert prison staff to the possibility of Barkes harming himself. Shortly after his arrival at the facility, Barkes called his wife and told her he was going to commit suicide; she did not notify anyone at the prison. The next day he hanged himself in his cell. The lawsuit filed by Barkes’ family raised claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and alleged that the correctional institution and its employees had violated Barkes’ civil rights; the suit further alleged that prison officials were not following updated NCCHC suicide prevention standards, as the intake screening form they used had been developed in 1997. The defendants’ motions to dismiss were denied and a divided panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that in light of the many facts in dispute, summary judgment was inappropriate and qualified immunity did not protect the defendants from liability, as there was a clearly established right to “the proper implementation of adequate suicide prevention protocols.” The Supreme Court granted cert and reversed on June 1, 2015, finding that qualified immunity applied in this case and the clearly established right relied upon by the Third Circuit did not exist: “To be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.” The Court continued, “When properly applied qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” The Court was not persuaded that Third Circuit precedent had put the defendants on notice of a requirement for proper suicide screening protocols. “In short, even if the Institution’s suicide screening and prevention measures contained the shortcomings that respondents allege, no precedent on the books in November 2004 when Barkes died would have made clear to petitioners that they were overseeing a system that violated the Constitution. Because, at the very least, petitioners were not contravening clearly established law, they are entitled to qualified immunity.”
	19	+Only court reform like the aff can solve – it usurps the legitimacy of legal constructs and spurs reform. Bell 99:
	20	+Cheryl Bell. Martha Coven. John P. Cronan. Christian A. Garza. Janet Guggemos. “Rape and Sexual Misconduct in the Prison System: Analyzing America 's Most "Open" Secret.” Yale Law and Policy Review. 1999 http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1385andcontext=ylpr
	21	+Another seemingly impervious barrier that inmates face when bringing claims of cruel and unusual punishment is the one presented by the modern interpretation of the qualified immunity defense. Historically in prisoners' rights cases, the qualified immunity standard effectively balanced government's administrative interests in keeping the "fear of being sued ... from unduly hampering official decisionmaking"' 8 against an individual's interests in protecting her/his constitutional rights. However, the recent decision by the Carrigan court has severely compromised this balance by placing placed an arguably unrealistic burden upon inmates to prove that there is established law invalidating a prison official's qualified immunity protections. 189 Before Carrigan, the Court in Scheuer v. Rhodes'9° declared that if an official has no "reasonable grounds for the belief formed at the time and in light of all the circumstances, coupled with good-faith belief," her/his claim to a qualified-immunity defense would fail.' 91 Further, in Wood v. Strickland,'92 the Court tweaked its reasoning to establish that qualified immunity depended on whether an official knew or reasonably should have known that s/he violated a constitutional right. 93 After Wood, a series of cases seemed to reiterate the Court's commitment to balancing the scale equitably by giving as much weight to individual inmates' rights as to government officials' rights. Procunier v. Navarette 94 extended Wood's high standards, helping define a legitimate qualified immunity defense for prison S • 195officials being sued under section 1983 by inmates. Knell v. Bensinger imposed personal liability upon those prison officials who disregarded the constitutional rights of inmates and the clearly established legal developments in inmates' rights. During this period (the late 1960s through the early 1980s), individual inmates won a fair number of judicial victories. They made several successful section 1983 claims against prison officials,'96 and the courts began setting limits on how far claims of ignorance by prison officials could go unchallenged.'9 The debilitating impact of Carrigan on inmates' claims of rape and sexual misconduct is clear. Before Carrigan, individual inmates could make viable Eighth Amendment and section 1983 claims based largely on meeting the first "objectively inhumane conditions" prong set forth in Farmer v. Brennan, because the Court had already outlined some circumstances under which the subjective "state of mind" prong would necessarily fail. Also, simple legislative reforms9 ' could have worked to buttress an inmate's claims against a qualified immunity defense. However, the Court has all but upset the equity it had been trying to establish in its previous prisoners' rights cases, by creating a qualified immunity defense that functions like absolute immunity. Even if an inmate can decisively prove the first prong of the Farmer test, without law that limits a prison official's qualified immunity defense, an inmate can never successfully meet the second prong of the Farmer test. In the interest of justice, the Court would do well to reassess its current Carrigan standard and bring it more in line with the precedent it set in its earlier cases-thus bringing individual inmates' rights back in balance with those of government officials.
	22	+And, the plan prevents lower court confusion which helps with rights claims on a larger basis. Stephan 2k16:
	23	+Lindsey De Stefan. “‘No Man Is Above the Law and No Man Is Below It:’ How Qualified Immunity Reform Could Create Accountability and Curb Widespread Police Misconduct.” The article claims it’s from 2017 but let’s just go 2016 to be safe. Seton Hall University. http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1861andcontext=student_scholarship.
	24	+Altering the qualified immunity doctrine is an excellent way to begin the path to restoring trust by establishing a much-needed sense of accountability. Civil remedies are a good jumping off point because, as repeated failures to indict officers—even in the face of video footage—have demonstrated, accountability via the criminal law is a far-off possibility, if it is possible at all. Prosecutors are generally disinclined to bring charges against law enforcement officers, 140 and grand juries are equally as hesitant to indict them.141 Independent investigations, as suggested by the Task Force, are an excellent idea, but establishing a feasible system nationwide would take time. On the other hand, Supreme Court amendment of the stringent immunity afforded to police officers could take effect relatively quickly. Of course, this is easier said than done. The Court has increasingly enlarged the immunity afforded to police officers in its recent decisions, and any 180-degree turnaround would likely require a change in Court composition. But the current Court can nevertheless begin to firm up qualified immunity doctrine by simply providing more guidance and clarification, thereby enhancing accountability and reaffirming trust between law enforcement and their respective communities. The concept of a clearly established right is, in many ways, a problem that requires solving. A substantial number of cases are disposed of on the premise that a right was not “clearly established”—yet lower courts have struggled for years with what those words actually mean. Arguably, then, at least some officers are escaping liability simply because of the Court’s repeated failures to establish consistency in its qualified immunity jurisprudence. But if the Court used qualified immunity opinions to demonstrate what qualifies as a clearly established right by meticulously outlining its reasoning in answering whether a set of facts implicates such a right, the Court could alleviate some confusion. In other words, rather than taking cases simply to overturn the lower courts’ denial of immunity, it could take cases to affirm those denials or, alternatively, to reverse lower courts’ grant of immunity. By so doing, the Court can give examples of what constitutes a right that is “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right,”142 and can give lower courts somewhat of a guide to follow. By elucidating the contours of the clearly established right, the Court would alleviate some of the confusion of lower courts and ensure that they are in fact applying that part of the test properly. Proper application of this prong directly promotes accountability, as the public can rest assured that, at least in that regard, cases are not being disposed of based merely on perplexity and uncertainty. Moreover, increased confidence about the clearly established prong could foster a willingness to take on the second part of the test and, in so doing, advance the development of constitutional law and clarify further constitutional rights. The Court could also accept that its attempts at a general standard for all classes of officials that are not otherwise entitled to absolute immunity has been problematic and hugely unsuccessful. Though the Court apparently fears “complicating” qualified immunity, the doctrine is quite complicated as is, and adopting more particularized classes of officials with different standards of immunity would not only assist lower courts in properly analyzing immunity, but would promote justice in constitutional tort litigation. For example, the Court could classify officials based on the approximate number of people with whom they come in contact, so to speak, and that might therefore bring civil suits against them. A governor, for example, could theoretically face a lawsuit from any resident of the state, and would thus be afforded more stringent protection—much like the standard afforded to all officials now. But law enforcement officers, who come in contact with only the residents of one town, city, or perhaps county, risk possible suits from a much smaller pool of people. The threat of litigation would therefore be much less crippling on governmental function, and immunity protection need not be so rigorous. In the case of allegations of Fourth Amendment violations, in light of the already-existing reasonableness standard, immunity may be inappropriate altogether. In addition, the Court could do its proverbial homework and take notice of the widespread indemnification of officers that often results in a complete absence of financial or employment related consequences for law enforcement. If the Court stopped relying on its own intuition, and instead came to grip with the facts, it would likely realize that it has been overzealous in protecting low-level officers, and be inclined to alter course somewhat. By beginning to mend the qualified immunity doctrine in these ways, the Court will allow more civil suits for the vindication of constitutional rights to succeed. This will help to reduce the public mentality—strengthened by recent events—that cops get away with everything, in every regard. Civil suits avoid subjecting law enforcement to any criminal liability that, because of recent events, many laypersons believe is warranted. While this may be true in select circumstances, reality demonstrates that criminal charges are highly unlikely to stick against a police officer. But allowing more civil suits to go forward will serve as an important reminder to both civilians and law enforcement that the police are not above the law, and that they are held accountable for their wrongdoings. In turn, this accountability will begin to heal the relationship between law enforcement and communities by serving as the first step on what will surely be a long path to rebuilding the trust that is so crucial. By adopting different immunity standards for high-level and low-level officials, clarifying the vagueness surrounding the definition of a “clearly established” right, and acknowledging the real-world effects of indemnification, the Court can begin to repair some of the substantial flaws in its qualified immunity jurisprudence. As it does, it will permit more constitutional tort suits to succeed, thereby fostering law enforcement accountability. Because criminal liability is nearly impossible as a practical matter, and because strategies like improving police training and recruiting tactics will likely take years to effectively implement, civil suits are the (relatively) fastest way to demonstrate to the country that our officers are our guardians and that they are accountable to us. It is thus the most immediate way to rebuild trust and begin healing the citizenpolice relationship.
	25	+Contention 2 is sexual abuse.
	26	+The right from sexual abuse isn’t ‘clearly established’ which causes it to perpetuate in prisons. The plan solves. Buchanan 2k7:
	27	+Buchanan, Kim Shayo. “Impunity: Sexual Abuse in Women’s Prisons.” Harvard University. 2007
	28	+Prison guards and institutions also enjoy qualified immunity for conduct that is not clearly unlawful:253 prison guards and oficials cannot be held liable for torts committed in the course of their employment unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known” under the law of that time.254 Unfortunately, the law does not clearly prohibit all forms of custodial sexual abuse. Although the illegality of forcible rape is suficiently clear to overcome qualified immunity, it is not ªrmly established that other forms of sexual abuse, such as sexual harassment and sexual threats, are clearly unlawful.256 Courts have held that many forms of sexual abuse short of rape, such as sexual harassment without touching257 and sexual activity to which the guard alleges the prisoner consented,258 are not clearly unlawful. In states that have not criminalized all sexual contact between guards and prisoners, even sexual touching and quid pro quo sexual exploitation short of rape may not be clearly unlawful. Qualified immunity may particularly impede allegations of institutional failure to investigate sexual abuse, as it is not clear how cursory an investigation must be before it will be found clearly unlawful.259 The usual justifications for the application of qualified immunity to government actors do not ªt the context of civil claims for custodial sexual abuse. First, an important justification for the qualified immunity rule is to avoid “unwarranted timidity,”260 or the fear that “government oficials who are exposed to money damages for the full costs of their constitutional violations will become overly cautious or quiescent, reducing their activity to suboptimal levels and shying away from socially beneficial risks.”261 This concern is irrelevant within the context of sexual contact between prisoners and guards, as there is no optimal level of custodial sex which the threat of liability might overdeter.
	29	+The impact of sexual assault cannot be isolated by singular causal claims, they transcend throughout ontology. STARS No date:
	30	+Sexual Assault and Assault Response Services (STARS). “Effects of Sexual Assault.” No Date http://www.stars-elpaso.org/get/effects-of-sexual-assault
	31	+Sexual assault is a personal and destructive crime. Its effects on you and your loved ones can be psychological, emotional, and/or physical. They can be brief in duration or last a very long time. It is important to remember that there is not one "normal" reaction to sexual assault. Therefore your individual response will be different depending on your personal circumstances. In this section, we explain some of the more common effects that sexual assault victims may experience. Depression: There are many emotional and psychological reactions that victims of rape and sexual assault can experience. One of the most common of these is depression. The term "depression" can be confusing since many of the symptoms are experienced by people as normal reactions to events. At some point or another, everyone feels sad or "blue." This also means that recognizing depression can be difficult since the symptoms can easily be attributed to other causes. These feelings are perfectly normal, especially during difficult times. Depression becomes something more than just normal feelings of sadness when the symptoms last for more than two weeks. Therefore, if you experience five or more of the symptoms of depression over the course of two weeks you should consider talking to your doctor about what you are experiencing. The symptoms of depression may include: Prolonged sadness or unexplained crying spells Significant change in weight or appetite Loss of energy or persistent fatigue Significant change in sleep patterns (insomnia, sleeping too much, fitful sleep, etc.) Loss of interest and pleasure in activities previously enjoyed; social withdrawal Feelings of worthlessness, hopelessness or guilt Pessimism or indifference Unexplained aches and pains (headaches, stomachaches) Inability to concentrate, indecisiveness Irritability, worry, anger, agitation, or anxiety Thoughts of death or suicide If you are having suicidal thoughts, don't wait to get help. Call us or the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-TALK (8255) at any time. Depression can affect people of any age, gender, race, ethnicity, or religion. Depression is not a sign of weakness, and it is not something that someone can make him/herself "snap out of." Rate your risk for depression Flashbacks: when memories of past traumas feel as if they are taking place in the current moment. These memories can take many forms: dreams, sounds, smells, images, body sensations, or overwhelming emotions. This re-experience of the trauma often seems to come from nowhere, and therefore blurs the lines between past and present, leaving the individual feeling anxious, scared, and/or powerless. It can also trigger any other emotions that were felt at the time of the trauma. Some flashbacks are mild and brief, a passing moment, while others may be powerful and last a long time. Many times you may not even realize that you are having a flashback and may feel faint and/or dissociate (a mental process in which your thoughts and feelings may be separated from your immediate reality). If you realize you are in the middle of a flashback: First, Get Grounded: The first thing to do is sit up straight and put both feet on the floor. This will help you to feel grounded. Be In the Present: It can be helpful to remind yourself that the event you are reliving happened in the past and you are now in the present. The actual event is over, and you survived. Breathing: Try focusing on your breathing. One way to do that is to count to four as you breathe in. Count to four as you hold that breath and then count to four as you exhale. If you do this and keep repeating it, you may find that you can become calmer and can be in the present. Pay Attention to Surroundings: Another way to help yourself feel like you are in the present is to pay attention to your surroundings. What is the light in the room like right now? Touch something around you that is grounded like a table or a chair. What does it feel like? Can you smell anything? Do you hear any sounds? Self-Soothing: Are there things that normally make you feel safe and secure like wrapping a blanket around yourself or making some tea? Normal: Also, remember that it can take time to recover. You are not crazy. This is a normal reaction. Take care of yourself: Give yourself time to recover after a flashback. Reach out to loved ones or counselors who will be supportive. Rape Trauma: a common reaction to rape or sexual assault. It is a normal human reaction to an unnatural or extreme event. There are three phases to rape trauma: Acute Phase: occurs immediately after the assault and usually lasts a few days to several weeks. In this phase, you can have many reactions but they typically fall into three different categories: Expressed: when you are openly emotional Controlled: when you appear to be without emotion, and act as if "nothing happened" and "everything is fine" Shocked disbelief: when you react with a strong sense of disorientation Outward Adjustment Phase: resume what appears to be your "normal" life, but inside you are still suffering from considerable turmoil. This phase has five primary coping techniques: Minimization: pretending that everything is fine or convincing yourself that "it could have been worse" Dramatization: you cannot stop talking about the assault and it dominates your life and identity Suppression: you refuse to discuss the event and act as if it did not happen Explanation: you analyze what happened, what you did and what the rapist was thinking/feeling Flight: you try to escape the pain (moving, changing jobs, changing appearance, changing relationships, etc.) Resolution Phase: the assault is no longer the central focus of your life. While you may recognize that you will never forget the assault, the pain and negative outcomes lessen over time. Often you will begin to accept the rape as part of your life and choose to move on. NOTE: This model assumes that you will take steps forward and backwards in your healing process and that while there are phases it is not a linear progression and will be different for every person. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: a normal human reaction to an extreme or abnormal situation. Each person has a different threshold for what is perceived as a traumatic event. PTSD is not a rare or unusual occurrence, in fact, many people experience PTSD as a result of a traumatic experience such as rape or sexual assault. You may be experiencing PTSD if you have experienced the following symptoms for at least a month: Shown symptoms of intense horror, helplessness, or fear Experienced distressing memories of the event Regularly avoided things or triggers that remind you of the event Shown significant impairment or distress due to the event Shown at least two symptoms of increased arousal (sleep difficulties, difficulty concentrating, hyper vigilance, an exaggerated startle response, or irritability or outbursts of anger/rage) Pregnancy: Because rape, just like consensual sex, can lead to pregnancy, it is important for female victims to be tested after an assault. If you need additional information visit Medline Plus Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs): Victims of sexual violence are at risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections. If you went to the emergency room for a rape exam, you should have been offered preventive treatment (antibiotics) for sexually transmitted infections and given information about where to go for follow-up testing. If you need more information about this, or did not receive preventive care, call us and we can help you figure out what resources are available. If you did not get medical care after your attack, it's still important to get tested for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The Centers for Disease Control recommend follow-up testing two weeks after a sexual assault and blood tests to rule out HIV infection 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after an assault. If left untreated, STIs and HIV can cause major medical problems, so it's very important to get tested (and treated, if necessary) as soon as possible. Suicide Some survivors of sexual assault may get so depressed that they think about ending their own life. Suicidal thoughts should be taken very seriously. If you or someone you know is having suicidal thoughts, please get help immediately. If you have already taken steps, or feel that you can't avoid harming yourself, call 911 or go to the nearest emergency room. You can also call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline for help 24 hours a day at 800-273-TALK (8255). If you are having suicidal thoughts or you know someone who is, they can listen and help. If you are worried that a loved one is contemplating suicide, it's okay to ask them about it directly. Suicide experts say that asking someone about suicidal thoughts will not lead them to consider suicide if they're not already contemplating it. Effects for Adult Survivors of Childhood Sexual Assault: There are many reactions that survivors of rape and sexual assault can have. But for adult survivors of childhood sexual assault there are reactions that may either be different or stronger than for other survivors. These include: Setting limits/boundaries: because your personal boundaries were invaded at a young age by someone that was trusted and depended on, you may have trouble understanding that you have the right to control what happens to you. Memories/flashbacks. Anger: as a child, your anger was powerless and had little to no effect on the actions of your abuser. For this reason, you may not feel confident that your anger will be useful or helpful. Grieving/mourning: being abused as a child means the loss of many things: childhood experiences, trust, perceived innocence, and a normal relationship with family members (especially if the abuser was a family member). You must be allowed to name those losses, grieve them, and then move forward. Guilt/shame/blame: you may carry a lot of guilt because you may have experienced pleasure or because you did not try to stop the abuse. There may have been silence surrounding the abuse that led to feelings of shame. It is important to understand that it was the adult who abused his/her position of authority and should be held accountable, not you Trust: learning to trust again may be very difficult for you. Coping skills: as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, you may have developed skills in order to cope with the trauma. Some of these are healthy (possibly separating yourself from certain family members, seeking out counseling, etc.); some are not (drinking or drug abuse, promiscuous sexual activity, etc.). Self-esteem/isolation: low self-esteem is a result of all the negative messages you received and internalized from your abusers. And because entering into an intimate relationship involves trust, respect, love, and the ability to share, you may flee from intimacy or hold on too tightly for fear of losing the relationship. Sexuality: many survivors have to deal with the fact that their first sexual experience came as a result of sexual abuse. You may experience the return of body memories while engaging in a sexual activity with another person. Body Memories: when the memories of the abuse you experienced take the form of physical problems that cannot be explained by the usual means (medical examinations, etc.). These maladies are often called "psychosomatic symptoms" which does not, as many people think, mean that it is "in your head." Rather, it means that the symptoms are due to the connection between the mind and the body. Physical problems that can come of these somatic memories include:
	32	+Underview
	33	+1. CX- Checks
	34	+
	35	+2. Neg abuse outweighs aff abuse - the 4 minute 1AR puts me at a strategic disadvantage since the neg can craft a perfect strategy to the aff-supercharged by 6 minute 2nr which allows them to collapse to any issue and crush me on it.
	36	+
	37	+3. The state is inevitable – refusal to engage it cedes the political to authoritarian elites and abdicates social responsibility – that makes all crises inevitable and turns K alts.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-11-19 03:32:52.446

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+x

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+x

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+7

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+1

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Sunset bhat Aff

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+ND - 1AC - Prisons

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+x