Hasn't it occurred to any of you that the crimes people go to jail to vary greatly in seriousness? Of course, if you're in jail, you're probably not an angel, but that does not mean you're a murderer either.
What I find very ironic is the distributive inequality of this so-called punishment: who, you think, rapes other inmates in jail? Obviously, it is someone who is violent by nature, who is likely to be there for a crime that involved violence. Do you think this person, who might have killed somebody, gets raped too? Of course not! It's the weaker, less aggressive inmates who get raped: not the murderers and the hardened thugs, but more often than not the petty criminals who are inside for less serious offenses.
This means that the inmates who committed the worst crimes, who ruined (or ended) their victims' lives, are less likely to get raped in jail than average Joe who likes to hit the bottle before taking the wheel. I'm not saying that drunk driving is OK, in fact I do agree that jail time is justified for such reckless and repeated behavior, but is DUI worst than rape or murder? This is what we would have to conclude if we followed this logic of jail rape being a punishment for the crime...
There is also the issue that rape can easily carry consequences that stretch far beyond the jail term. Aside from the obvious psychological trauma of rape, someone diagnosed with AIDS is condemned to a life sentence of drug cocktails, weak health and probably to a premature death. If you are sentenced to, say, five years in prison, your punishment should be over after these five years of inprisonment. Whatever crimes you committed, you should be able to go on with life after you've served your time (unless, of course, you've been sentenced to spend your whole life in the can). If you reoffend, you'll get jail time again, but otherwise nobody should be barred from becoming a useful member of society once they have been punished for their previous actions.
