Buried Alive: Stories from Inside Solitary Confinement(gq.com)
gq.com
Buried Alive: Stories from Inside Solitary Confinement
http://www.gq.com/story/buried-alive-solitary-confinement
115 comments
> The best way to make peopleunderstand these cruel practices is to imagine themselves in solitary confinement. Would you want that? Obviously no...
That's not effective unless people actually understand what solitary confinement is.
I have zero desire to spend my time living with a whole bunch of criminals and don't find the thought of being alone to be particularly scary. I doubt I'd even miss people for at least a month.
Give me a few books, a bed, desk, stationary and a toilet and it would feel like a writer's retreat.
It was only after reading accounts from people in solitary that I discovered that you get none of that. Just an empty room with a hole in the floor. The term 'solitary confinement' doesn't communicate anything beyond the fact that you're alone, but the reality is that they take a lot more than social interaction away.
That's not effective unless people actually understand what solitary confinement is.
I have zero desire to spend my time living with a whole bunch of criminals and don't find the thought of being alone to be particularly scary. I doubt I'd even miss people for at least a month.
Give me a few books, a bed, desk, stationary and a toilet and it would feel like a writer's retreat.
It was only after reading accounts from people in solitary that I discovered that you get none of that. Just an empty room with a hole in the floor. The term 'solitary confinement' doesn't communicate anything beyond the fact that you're alone, but the reality is that they take a lot more than social interaction away.
Yeah, it's not just solitary confinement. It's also, in some prisons, the complete lack of intellectual stimulation. You're locked in a box with nothing at all to occupy your mind - no books, television, radio, computer, newspaper, human interaction... nothing. There isn't even anything to write with or on.
Prisoners start smearing shit on the walls just to relieve the monotony.
Prisoners start smearing shit on the walls just to relieve the monotony.
[deleted]
Do these people not think about how cruel solitary confinement is?
According to the article:
"Researchers believe it damages the body and brain as well, but they can't test this hypothesis, because what we do to prisoners every day—house them in prolonged isolation—is illegal to do to laboratory animals. It is against the law to treat rats the way we treat people in solitary."
Yup. That's right. Illegal for lab rats. Obviously they know it is harmful. The entire point of the American justice system is to make people suffer for the crimes they have done, however, and to do so in the cheapest manner possible. And this is with some public support. It is "tough on crime" and gets folks elected.
Somewhere out there is an interview with a Norwegian prison director. His speech to new inmates says something along the lines of: *In Norway, we don't have life imprisonment nor the death penalty. Which means that one day you are getting out and might be my neighbor. I'm invested in making sure your time here is good so that when you get out, I'll be happy to have you as my neighbor". I think this is the sort of attitude we (Americans) should adopt. I think this would make a bigger difference than imagining the pain of solitary.
According to the article:
"Researchers believe it damages the body and brain as well, but they can't test this hypothesis, because what we do to prisoners every day—house them in prolonged isolation—is illegal to do to laboratory animals. It is against the law to treat rats the way we treat people in solitary."
Yup. That's right. Illegal for lab rats. Obviously they know it is harmful. The entire point of the American justice system is to make people suffer for the crimes they have done, however, and to do so in the cheapest manner possible. And this is with some public support. It is "tough on crime" and gets folks elected.
Somewhere out there is an interview with a Norwegian prison director. His speech to new inmates says something along the lines of: *In Norway, we don't have life imprisonment nor the death penalty. Which means that one day you are getting out and might be my neighbor. I'm invested in making sure your time here is good so that when you get out, I'll be happy to have you as my neighbor". I think this is the sort of attitude we (Americans) should adopt. I think this would make a bigger difference than imagining the pain of solitary.
> The entire point of the American justice system is to make people suffer...
It's interesting that the comparitively religious-leaning US has a more punishment-centric penal system, whereas the comparatively secular Europe leans towards rehabilitation. Considering the "vengeance is mine" thing and the Christian forgiveness thing you would have thought it would be the other way around.
It's interesting that the comparitively religious-leaning US has a more punishment-centric penal system, whereas the comparatively secular Europe leans towards rehabilitation. Considering the "vengeance is mine" thing and the Christian forgiveness thing you would have thought it would be the other way around.
I was raised Catholic•, in Ireland. The entire narrative is built around the idea of going to heaven while ~all the bad people~ burn forever elsewhere. From what I can see, in the context of the church, "Forgiveness" is a means of keeping control over people who feel guilty/scared. So, I'm not surprised by the comparison you noticed.
• Disclaimer: Clearly, I'm still more than a little bitter about it.
• Disclaimer: Clearly, I'm still more than a little bitter about it.
The book of Revelations includes a part where the "elect" call out for the blood of the sinners.
And Nietzsche references church fathers rejoicing at a similar thought.
Tangentially, Genealogy of Morals is a good resource for wrapping one's head around these kinds of barbarities.
And Nietzsche references church fathers rejoicing at a similar thought.
Tangentially, Genealogy of Morals is a good resource for wrapping one's head around these kinds of barbarities.
The Christian god is not exactly forgiving. If you don't behave well you will be punished for eternity and there is no way to get out of hell. So I think it makes sense for a Christian leaning country to be ok with punishment.
Normally, I don't tend to get involved in HN talks about religion/Christianity, but I'm going to make an exception this time. As someone who is a Christian (I define as a "follower of Christ", not just as someone who follows some set of rules) I actually find the common misconception that "behaving badly" getting you thrown in Hell or "behaving well" gets you a ticket into Heaven to be one of the greatest, and saddest, misconceptions about what Christianity is. In fact, there is actually only a single requirement for getting into Heaven: deciding to accept a freely-given gift of forgiveness by deciding to follow Jesus. Before that point nothing you do can get you into Heaven, after that point nothing you do can take it away from you. It has absolutely nothing to do with doing good things or bad things, and I really, really wish this wasn't such a common misconception, because the reality is much more beautiful and simpler than that.
Also saying that God isn't forgiving is an entirely other topic that means you haven't paid much attention to the Bible. The amount of times he decides to not destroy his (highly belligerent) people in the Old Testament is ridiculous, and the efforts put forward to grant forgiveness to anyone in the New Testament are unheard of in any other religious teaching. Which I'm glad about, because I am certainly a flawed, screwed up person that would never be able to earn my way into any kind of good afterlife otherwise.
Sorry for the rant/preaching/whatever. Feel free to downvote me or whatever for getting into something off topic for HN, it's internet points so it doesn't matter much to me. I just really felt a need to point out some common misconceptions about something I deeply care about.
Also saying that God isn't forgiving is an entirely other topic that means you haven't paid much attention to the Bible. The amount of times he decides to not destroy his (highly belligerent) people in the Old Testament is ridiculous, and the efforts put forward to grant forgiveness to anyone in the New Testament are unheard of in any other religious teaching. Which I'm glad about, because I am certainly a flawed, screwed up person that would never be able to earn my way into any kind of good afterlife otherwise.
Sorry for the rant/preaching/whatever. Feel free to downvote me or whatever for getting into something off topic for HN, it's internet points so it doesn't matter much to me. I just really felt a need to point out some common misconceptions about something I deeply care about.
Christianity is even odder than that, comparatively to the pretty much every other philosophy. You only need to repent (not that it's a small thing). That's it.
The story of the prodigal son shows this. Total fuck up son gets accepted back just because he repents. Doesn't do anything. The father just accepts him. The legalistic, I-did-everything-for-you son didn't have to do the works. His works didn't matter. The father says everything I have is yours. The son's works didn't do shit. He could have enjoyed the benefits of son-ship, but didn't due to constraints he put on himself.
I know of no other religion or philosophy that says you don't have to do anything. That explicitly says works don't matter for your salvation (you're supposed to do them, but they don't save you).
The story of the prodigal son shows this. Total fuck up son gets accepted back just because he repents. Doesn't do anything. The father just accepts him. The legalistic, I-did-everything-for-you son didn't have to do the works. His works didn't matter. The father says everything I have is yours. The son's works didn't do shit. He could have enjoyed the benefits of son-ship, but didn't due to constraints he put on himself.
I know of no other religion or philosophy that says you don't have to do anything. That explicitly says works don't matter for your salvation (you're supposed to do them, but they don't save you).
I temporarily attended a "born-again" church at age 18, whose patrons partook in trying to harass me by being "empowered" with information about what they speculated was my private thought process. In other words, a patron tried to make it seem like they had a connection to "Jesus Christ" or "God" or whatever it's called, and used that against me to demonstrate what was ostensibly a "power" they had over me in reading my mind through their god. They did this by harassing me via looking at me during a sermon, and telling me what they thought was on my mind at the time from the perspective of a reaction by their god to my thought at that time channeled through them. This served absolutely to alienate me from Christianity.
The same church strongly recommended to me that following Jesus Christ was more important than attending University.
I've observed many other anecdotes suggesting there is a strong connection between Christian-empowered "do anything you want, you'll get your eternal golden box", and sitting on one's okole. Of course, the world contains a seemingly never ending series of contradicting beliefs. Observe Pope Francis warning certain groups of assured eternal torture, which is in conflict with the idea of "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior just prior to death, and you will get into Heaven" belief system.
Regarding Christianity or other belief systems that involve eternal torture for humans: The whole notion of eternal punishment as existing for at least one human being in a future offspring that a human partakes in creating is simply absurd, with logical consequences that go beyond acceptable public rational discussion for the future of humanity. Such discussion would perhaps best occur at the deepest levels of international security as it pertains to both our survival, and our protection from any type of eternal torture that could be possible by a higher intelligence. Although, if a higher intelligence wished to create/simulate life and torture it eternally, even human extinction from our perspective wouldn't serve to stop it. Thus, simulating universes truly does carry eternal responsibility.
What's crazy is that this idea of religions as an underlying truth cannot really be proven or disproven, at least not for the current state of evolution for humanity. For instance, it's simply impossible to differentiate between a reality where Christianity is the truth, and a reality where a higher intelligence has control over reality of humans enough to make it impossible to know the higher intelligence is creating a complete perception of reality where Christianity (as part of this same example) is the truth. The human experiencing this would be unable to tell the difference.
Ultimately, a human, with their limited perception, simply has to formulate their own beliefs about the nature of the reality which they are presented. There is no Trinity nor Morpheus to free your mind -- at least there hasn't been for me, personally. We are limited by our ability to perceive and fill in gaps on our short-term first-person experiences, coupled with whatever programming/information we receive from our parents.
I'd like to believe I am not the only human to have a deep account of a reality containing signs of an enigmatic higher intelligence that seems very clearly to exist in this reality in some form or fashion. The existence of an intricate trail system of religion entrenched throughout our history speaks to this, truly.
To me, the fascination lies in cracking the code via ever-improving scientific understanding of reality in a way that fits with my personal experience in this short life. It's not that I don't believe in Jesus Christ as a personal savior. Rather, I just believe that the reality I am presented is really happening, and I attempt to fill in the gaps to the best of my perceptive abilities, the same as every other human being.
On a side note, I know of Christians that believe that "Jesus Christ stalks you". I find this to be dangerous dogma to spread, as it potentially empowers people or entities to stalk others. It justifies other malicious behaviors. It's extraordinarily dangerous to participate in stalking / harassing someone with the intent of trying to influence their belief system, because some people question the underlying nature of their reality and will easily misperceive any such stalking/harassment as a form of malice. These dangers have clear parallels to our centralized digital age.
Sorry for the free form digression.
The same church strongly recommended to me that following Jesus Christ was more important than attending University.
I've observed many other anecdotes suggesting there is a strong connection between Christian-empowered "do anything you want, you'll get your eternal golden box", and sitting on one's okole. Of course, the world contains a seemingly never ending series of contradicting beliefs. Observe Pope Francis warning certain groups of assured eternal torture, which is in conflict with the idea of "accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior just prior to death, and you will get into Heaven" belief system.
Regarding Christianity or other belief systems that involve eternal torture for humans: The whole notion of eternal punishment as existing for at least one human being in a future offspring that a human partakes in creating is simply absurd, with logical consequences that go beyond acceptable public rational discussion for the future of humanity. Such discussion would perhaps best occur at the deepest levels of international security as it pertains to both our survival, and our protection from any type of eternal torture that could be possible by a higher intelligence. Although, if a higher intelligence wished to create/simulate life and torture it eternally, even human extinction from our perspective wouldn't serve to stop it. Thus, simulating universes truly does carry eternal responsibility.
What's crazy is that this idea of religions as an underlying truth cannot really be proven or disproven, at least not for the current state of evolution for humanity. For instance, it's simply impossible to differentiate between a reality where Christianity is the truth, and a reality where a higher intelligence has control over reality of humans enough to make it impossible to know the higher intelligence is creating a complete perception of reality where Christianity (as part of this same example) is the truth. The human experiencing this would be unable to tell the difference.
Ultimately, a human, with their limited perception, simply has to formulate their own beliefs about the nature of the reality which they are presented. There is no Trinity nor Morpheus to free your mind -- at least there hasn't been for me, personally. We are limited by our ability to perceive and fill in gaps on our short-term first-person experiences, coupled with whatever programming/information we receive from our parents.
I'd like to believe I am not the only human to have a deep account of a reality containing signs of an enigmatic higher intelligence that seems very clearly to exist in this reality in some form or fashion. The existence of an intricate trail system of religion entrenched throughout our history speaks to this, truly.
To me, the fascination lies in cracking the code via ever-improving scientific understanding of reality in a way that fits with my personal experience in this short life. It's not that I don't believe in Jesus Christ as a personal savior. Rather, I just believe that the reality I am presented is really happening, and I attempt to fill in the gaps to the best of my perceptive abilities, the same as every other human being.
On a side note, I know of Christians that believe that "Jesus Christ stalks you". I find this to be dangerous dogma to spread, as it potentially empowers people or entities to stalk others. It justifies other malicious behaviors. It's extraordinarily dangerous to participate in stalking / harassing someone with the intent of trying to influence their belief system, because some people question the underlying nature of their reality and will easily misperceive any such stalking/harassment as a form of malice. These dangers have clear parallels to our centralized digital age.
Sorry for the free form digression.
> after that point nothing you do can take it away from you
Eternal security is a Calvinist view that is far from universally held.
Eternal security is a Calvinist view that is far from universally held.
I probably phrased that badly/didn't fully expound upon what I meant there by just trying to hit a few main points that bother me. I'm not going to try and tackle anything complicated here, but merely state that once someone has decided to follow Jesus, assuming they continue to do so, their various sins from being a flawed being aren't going to take going to Heaven away from them, which is the entire point of grace. (and yes, I'm aware of "blaspheming the Holy Spirit", which to my knowledge nobody actually knows what that means or how you do that, and I'm deliberately leaving that out of my above statement to leave it simple)
That bit has always surprised me - not just in the prison systems, but things like a safety net and healthcare for the poor.
On the safety net, it's worth remembering that Christian societies have historically had other institutions than government into which to channel their collective efforts. The notion that all "the things we choose to do together" are the sphere of government is a recent one in the West.
There is a minority of criminals who have serious mental problems and who are likely to commit crime again as soon as they are out. Are you confortable with that?
I'd call into question whether such people should be punished at all, for what's arguably not their fault.
A not-trolling, serious question...
If they shouldn't be punished, what would you recommend? I don't have a well-informed suggestion.
If they shouldn't be punished, what would you recommend? I don't have a well-informed suggestion.
The way I see it, there are two aspects you want to balance: safety of the society and cost of ensuring that safety.
When you have a person that commits crimes due to severe mental issues, you could observe that:
- punishment won't work as a deterrent
- punishment definitely won't work as resocialization tool
- it's of questionable morality to blame a person for things they have no control over
Applying punishment in such cases will cost money and make the criminal suffer, for no gain in the safety of the society. I.e. it's literally spending money just to mistreat someone.
So what are the alternatives? If the condition is treatable, let's treat it instead. If the condition is not currently treatable, you can isolate the person from society - but this will already win you all the safety you can get, so there's no point in punishing them further.
Of course the issue is complex, because most variables here have pretty blurry borders.
--
Anyway; basically, I'm of the opinion that one should use methods effective for the purpose at hand. If your goal is to ensure safety of the society, punishing mentally ill people is not helping. On the other hand, if your goal is to give the society a sense of revenge, then by all means torture people - just be honest about what the real goal is.
When you have a person that commits crimes due to severe mental issues, you could observe that:
- punishment won't work as a deterrent
- punishment definitely won't work as resocialization tool
- it's of questionable morality to blame a person for things they have no control over
Applying punishment in such cases will cost money and make the criminal suffer, for no gain in the safety of the society. I.e. it's literally spending money just to mistreat someone.
So what are the alternatives? If the condition is treatable, let's treat it instead. If the condition is not currently treatable, you can isolate the person from society - but this will already win you all the safety you can get, so there's no point in punishing them further.
Of course the issue is complex, because most variables here have pretty blurry borders.
--
Anyway; basically, I'm of the opinion that one should use methods effective for the purpose at hand. If your goal is to ensure safety of the society, punishing mentally ill people is not helping. On the other hand, if your goal is to give the society a sense of revenge, then by all means torture people - just be honest about what the real goal is.
> If the condition is not currently treatable, you can isolate the person from society - but this will already win you all the safety you can get, so there's no point in punishing them further.
We have to remember here that some prisoners are a danger even to their cellmates--I've heard of some who threatened to kill any cell mate, then did so. For that population of violent people who are a danger to everyone, isolating them could be both harmful to the prisoner, but the right move for society.
Though I suppose it's an open question whether executing such prisoners would lead to less suffering.
We have to remember here that some prisoners are a danger even to their cellmates--I've heard of some who threatened to kill any cell mate, then did so. For that population of violent people who are a danger to everyone, isolating them could be both harmful to the prisoner, but the right move for society.
Though I suppose it's an open question whether executing such prisoners would lead to less suffering.
Still, assuming an untreatable criminal like such, if you don't want to just go and execute them, solitary confinement isn't the only option. You can isolate such a person in a normal (if smaller) cell, and still provide them access to basic amenities, books and visitors.
Thanks.
It's gets interesting that when a person with a treatable condition doesn't want to be treated.
It's gets interesting that when a person with a treatable condition doesn't want to be treated.
A long while ago, the US decided to end state support for mental health treatment facilities. The hospitals and closed wards dedicated to the treatment--and confinement--of the insane were shuttered, and the patients and their families were on their own.
After several years, it became apparent that this decision simply shunted the responsibility of managing dangerous and mentally unstable individuals--particularly those too poor to afford private treatment--to the prison system.
So now all the prisons and jails are also de facto mental health clinics--plus gratuitous punishment that is virtually guaranteed to have no impact whatsoever of the recidivism rate for the subjectively crazy inmates.
Some of my fellow Americans have some rather warped and irrational opinions on mental illnesses, taking them as weakness of character, rather than diseases to be cured, treated, or managed under the direction of a competent specialist. This allows them to rationalize the management of crazy people as someone else's problem, and the struggles faced by those with mental impairments or disorders as largely their own fault. Those people often hold other irrational beliefs. They may also think that one's sexuality is a choice that can be changed. Or they may believe that week-old fetuses have greater value than their mothers. Or they may believe that using a recreational drug is criminal behavior that warrants being locked in a cage for years. And they vote. Those elected to office with the support of their votes may also support their views with legislation as a means of retaining that support for reelection. And so it goes. Rational governance loses sway in the face of an ignorant populace.
I would recommend screening all current prison inmates for objectively measurable symptoms of cognitive impairments, brain damage, and personality disorders, at state expense. Then transfer those with confirmed diagnoses to dedicated treatment facilities, not punishment boxes. And aside from the diagnosed individuals, criminal behavior is itself a symptom of a disease in society. Punishing a poor person for being ignorant and making his own selfish opportunities will not solve the underlying problem, which is that society generally expects work in exchange for the means of survival, and withholds work opportunities from those it finds to be unpopular or otherwise undesirable.
This would be much less severe a problem if the US health care industry were less oriented to private profits and more oriented towards the general welfare. And it would be less severe if "tough on crime" candidates for political office aimed for more prevention and less punishment.
After several years, it became apparent that this decision simply shunted the responsibility of managing dangerous and mentally unstable individuals--particularly those too poor to afford private treatment--to the prison system.
So now all the prisons and jails are also de facto mental health clinics--plus gratuitous punishment that is virtually guaranteed to have no impact whatsoever of the recidivism rate for the subjectively crazy inmates.
Some of my fellow Americans have some rather warped and irrational opinions on mental illnesses, taking them as weakness of character, rather than diseases to be cured, treated, or managed under the direction of a competent specialist. This allows them to rationalize the management of crazy people as someone else's problem, and the struggles faced by those with mental impairments or disorders as largely their own fault. Those people often hold other irrational beliefs. They may also think that one's sexuality is a choice that can be changed. Or they may believe that week-old fetuses have greater value than their mothers. Or they may believe that using a recreational drug is criminal behavior that warrants being locked in a cage for years. And they vote. Those elected to office with the support of their votes may also support their views with legislation as a means of retaining that support for reelection. And so it goes. Rational governance loses sway in the face of an ignorant populace.
I would recommend screening all current prison inmates for objectively measurable symptoms of cognitive impairments, brain damage, and personality disorders, at state expense. Then transfer those with confirmed diagnoses to dedicated treatment facilities, not punishment boxes. And aside from the diagnosed individuals, criminal behavior is itself a symptom of a disease in society. Punishing a poor person for being ignorant and making his own selfish opportunities will not solve the underlying problem, which is that society generally expects work in exchange for the means of survival, and withholds work opportunities from those it finds to be unpopular or otherwise undesirable.
This would be much less severe a problem if the US health care industry were less oriented to private profits and more oriented towards the general welfare. And it would be less severe if "tough on crime" candidates for political office aimed for more prevention and less punishment.
I think a corollary to adjusting and modernizing the penal process is also providing better support for those who need mental assistance. For many of these individuals, though they are dangerous, the current system basically dooms them to a life time of torture or being cast out into the streets.
It's a vicious cycle since homelessness/the mentally disturbed are an issue everyone wants to go away, but not spend a lot of money on.
It's a vicious cycle since homelessness/the mentally disturbed are an issue everyone wants to go away, but not spend a lot of money on.
Shouldn't someone with serious mental problems be in a hospital not a prison?
Obiously they should. The article hints at the sad reason they aren't: "...economical, not compassionate, reasons...". It's just cheaper to lock them up.
Housing even non-solitary confinement prisoners is pretty expensive though. Average cost is about $30K a year per prisoner in the United States (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/24/nyregion/citys-annual-cost...). Some areas of course are way more expensive: In NYC, it's $168K per prisoner per year apparently.
I think part of the issue here is that, in the past, mental health institutions itself had their own huge issues. There was a large movement to move away from mental health institutions, at least in the US, in the 1970s as a result (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation). The unfortunate consequence is that, instead of community-based mental health systems rising up to address the wrongs of the mental health institution, as envisioned by the de-institutionalization movement, the prison has ended up somewhat taken its place (https://thesocietypages.org/sociologylens/2012/07/03/deinsti...).
I think part of the issue here is that, in the past, mental health institutions itself had their own huge issues. There was a large movement to move away from mental health institutions, at least in the US, in the 1970s as a result (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation). The unfortunate consequence is that, instead of community-based mental health systems rising up to address the wrongs of the mental health institution, as envisioned by the de-institutionalization movement, the prison has ended up somewhat taken its place (https://thesocietypages.org/sociologylens/2012/07/03/deinsti...).
>I think part of the issue here is that, in the past, mental health institutions itself had their own huge issues. There was a large movement to move away from mental health institutions, at least in the US, in the 1970s as a result (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalisation).
There was a new generation of drugs people thought would end the need for institutions. I don't think they even considered the possibility people with mental illnesses would, in a state of mental soundness, decide not to take the drugs necessary to keep them there.
There was also a bit too much optimism when it came to assessing the effectiveness of the drugs.
There was a new generation of drugs people thought would end the need for institutions. I don't think they even considered the possibility people with mental illnesses would, in a state of mental soundness, decide not to take the drugs necessary to keep them there.
There was also a bit too much optimism when it came to assessing the effectiveness of the drugs.
Completely. But pre-existing (or developed, since some don't turn up until one's 20's) mental health problems are a bit different now, aren't they?
I'm not comfortable with these folks being in prison before they've had proper mental health care, honestly. Most folks with mental disorders are OK once they are stable with medication and sometimes need support to make sure they take such medication. We should more likely require by court order they stay their course and continue to receive proper help than try solitary first. This is how you treat the same folks as neighbors.
If this fails, prison is still not the proper environment - a live-in mental health hospital is much more appropriate.
I'm not comfortable with these folks being in prison before they've had proper mental health care, honestly. Most folks with mental disorders are OK once they are stable with medication and sometimes need support to make sure they take such medication. We should more likely require by court order they stay their course and continue to receive proper help than try solitary first. This is how you treat the same folks as neighbors.
If this fails, prison is still not the proper environment - a live-in mental health hospital is much more appropriate.
> a live-in mental health hospital
Much more expensive and there are much less investors for such facilities. So it's not going to be a solution anytime soon.
Much more expensive and there are much less investors for such facilities. So it's not going to be a solution anytime soon.
There are less investors because it's not a growth sector, because America increasingly criminalizes mental illness, so the mentally unwell end up in jail far more often than in mental hospitals.
It could easily be a solution if we switched away from a mass-incarceration, punishment above rehabilitation regime like in Norway as described towards the top of this thread.
It could easily be a solution if we switched away from a mass-incarceration, punishment above rehabilitation regime like in Norway as described towards the top of this thread.
Right, so let's torture the mentally ill patients to save a bit of tax money. Seems like the right solution.
Nah you're right, let's just make you pay for it all. Much better solution.
If you want to deny someone freedoms for whatevery reason, the least you can do is pay for it properly.
Do you know how much people suffer if their house is broken into, if they are robbed at gunpoint, if they are raped, etc? Not just the direct harm, but the ongoing psychological harm?
That harm is truly awful. But I believe Gandhi said something like "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
If you don't care about the people in solitary, why not at least care about their psychological state once they get out? Imagine someone who was in solitary being freed, and then deciding to harm some people. Don't you think the person from solitary, who has had a bunch of psychological issues from solitary, would be even worse than someone who hasn't been in solitary?
P.S. your original Iron Man framing makes me want to respond in kind with a strawman: imagine a person hooked on cigarettes goes to prison for a crime they didn't even commit, and then they are caught with cigarettes and put in solitary. I'd say that's also truly awful
If you don't care about the people in solitary, why not at least care about their psychological state once they get out? Imagine someone who was in solitary being freed, and then deciding to harm some people. Don't you think the person from solitary, who has had a bunch of psychological issues from solitary, would be even worse than someone who hasn't been in solitary?
P.S. your original Iron Man framing makes me want to respond in kind with a strawman: imagine a person hooked on cigarettes goes to prison for a crime they didn't even commit, and then they are caught with cigarettes and put in solitary. I'd say that's also truly awful
But why does the magnitude of that harm justify harming the perpetrator an equal amount? What is the logic of retribution?
It seems inherently fair to our animal instincts that a victim of violence should received "satisfaction" for their unjust suffering. But do the victims gain anything from this supposed satisfaction? Maybe some of them do experience a reduction in their ongoing suffering; I doubt it makes the pain of loss go away entirely for most.
But more importantly, how does the system of retributive justice impact society beyond the perpetrators and victims? I would argue that its impact is almost entirely negative. The perpetrators are themselves repeatedly victimized, often disproportionately to their original crimes - by the general dehumanization of jailing, violence at the hands of other prisoners and guards, social humiliation and pariahdom, economic and political disenfranchisement. But their victimizations are largely considered just and legal, and thus they cannot redress their grievances through the law. So what do they do? Leave jail wounded, aggrieved and with further criminal training, even more likely to commit crimes (and worse ones at that) than when they went in. Thus they create more victims, and the cycle of suffering is perpetuated and amplified.
It seems inherently fair to our animal instincts that a victim of violence should received "satisfaction" for their unjust suffering. But do the victims gain anything from this supposed satisfaction? Maybe some of them do experience a reduction in their ongoing suffering; I doubt it makes the pain of loss go away entirely for most.
But more importantly, how does the system of retributive justice impact society beyond the perpetrators and victims? I would argue that its impact is almost entirely negative. The perpetrators are themselves repeatedly victimized, often disproportionately to their original crimes - by the general dehumanization of jailing, violence at the hands of other prisoners and guards, social humiliation and pariahdom, economic and political disenfranchisement. But their victimizations are largely considered just and legal, and thus they cannot redress their grievances through the law. So what do they do? Leave jail wounded, aggrieved and with further criminal training, even more likely to commit crimes (and worse ones at that) than when they went in. Thus they create more victims, and the cycle of suffering is perpetuated and amplified.
The logic is based on the needs of any society. Every society needs a set of rules which everyone agrees to follow. History shows that the smaller the set of rules, the better, but you need to at least prevent people from infringing the life and liberty of others.
The simple reason for retribution is deterrence: there should be a negative incentive to committing crimes. The deeper reason is to make the kind of world people can live in. When everyone sees that criminals are punished, it tells would-be criminals to think twice, and it tells law-abiding citizens that someone is looking out for them.
I don't think punishment should be excessively cruel, prison is probably sufficient, and excessive solitary confinement is probably unjustified. But many people on this thread seem to think punishment in general is always unjust.
I think the underlying this is the modern belief that no-one is responsible for their actions, and that criminals are the product of social forces who need compassion and understanding. The argument against that is the standard argument against any form of determinism - if people are determined by outside forces, so are judges and prison guards, who similarly cannot help themselves from punishing criminals, and so should not face moral judgement. It's contradictory to judge judges but forgive criminals.
The simple reason for retribution is deterrence: there should be a negative incentive to committing crimes. The deeper reason is to make the kind of world people can live in. When everyone sees that criminals are punished, it tells would-be criminals to think twice, and it tells law-abiding citizens that someone is looking out for them.
I don't think punishment should be excessively cruel, prison is probably sufficient, and excessive solitary confinement is probably unjustified. But many people on this thread seem to think punishment in general is always unjust.
I think the underlying this is the modern belief that no-one is responsible for their actions, and that criminals are the product of social forces who need compassion and understanding. The argument against that is the standard argument against any form of determinism - if people are determined by outside forces, so are judges and prison guards, who similarly cannot help themselves from punishing criminals, and so should not face moral judgement. It's contradictory to judge judges but forgive criminals.
> if people are determined by outside forces, so are judges and prison guards,
false equivalency. people are determined by very different outside forces, and thats precisely why some people aren't deserving of the same levels of "moral judgement".
false equivalency. people are determined by very different outside forces, and thats precisely why some people aren't deserving of the same levels of "moral judgement".
The fundamental point is that if determinism is true then morality is meaningless. I think we have free will.
(This will probably be a controversial point on HN so to expand a little: I think consciousness is both non-mystical and non-material - the mind is entirely natural, mind and matter interact, but the mind is not the same as the brain, and is not made of atoms. Qualia and the binding problem [1] cannot be explained in material terms. Furthermore, if our thoughts are merely deterministic neurons firing, then we don't have any reliable knowledge of reality, making any debate meaningless).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem#The_combinatio...
(This will probably be a controversial point on HN so to expand a little: I think consciousness is both non-mystical and non-material - the mind is entirely natural, mind and matter interact, but the mind is not the same as the brain, and is not made of atoms. Qualia and the binding problem [1] cannot be explained in material terms. Furthermore, if our thoughts are merely deterministic neurons firing, then we don't have any reliable knowledge of reality, making any debate meaningless).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem#The_combinatio...
nice retreat into philosophical fantasy-land. doesn't do much about reality where crime occurs.
Nice response to my argument with insults. Once you're talking about moral judgement and people being determined, you're in philosophical territory.
In reality we have free will. If every action was predetermined, there'd be no point judging people.
In reality we have free will. If every action was predetermined, there'd be no point judging people.
I'm actually not arguing for an absence of punishment, but rather against punishments whose only end is retribution. Things like solitary confinement, mandatory minimums, inhumane conditions, forced prison labor and more, all very normalized within the US criminal justice system, are all suspect practices whose only definite result is an increase in suffering. Punishment could be educational and rehabilitative (and still austere and undesirable, without being purposelessly cruel).
Deterrence is commonly cited as a justification for retributive justice, but does it actually work that way? We obviously don't have a great control since we've had this system of justice for centuries so it's hard to imagine a radically different system. But the data we do have suggests that increasing the severity of punishments does little to increase the deterrence factor [1]. So we could likely make our criminal system significantly less cruel without reducing the degree of effective deterrence.
Also I wasn't arguing for moral judgements of judges and prison guards for working within the current retributive justice regime (though those who wantonly exacerbate the cruelty of the system should certainly be judged for doing so). It's a systemic issue that retribution and cruelty are the implicit end goals of the US criminal justice system.
[1]http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent...
Deterrence is commonly cited as a justification for retributive justice, but does it actually work that way? We obviously don't have a great control since we've had this system of justice for centuries so it's hard to imagine a radically different system. But the data we do have suggests that increasing the severity of punishments does little to increase the deterrence factor [1]. So we could likely make our criminal system significantly less cruel without reducing the degree of effective deterrence.
Also I wasn't arguing for moral judgements of judges and prison guards for working within the current retributive justice regime (though those who wantonly exacerbate the cruelty of the system should certainly be judged for doing so). It's a systemic issue that retribution and cruelty are the implicit end goals of the US criminal justice system.
[1]http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent...
People do respond to incentives. Deterrence isn't just about the severity of punishments but also the probability of being caught. The US justice system (I'm not an American) seems to have the worst of both worlds were many people evade justice and others are hit with overly harsh sentences. Countries with effective police forces (e.g. Japan, Singapore) have very low crime rates.
Rehabilitation makes sense for petty criminals and economic criminals, and possibly "crimes of passion". Some individuals are simply beyond redemption, though. I'd say attempting to "rehabilitate" anyone at category 11 or above on the following scale [1] is an injustice to their victims. People like Charles Manson [2] are capable of retreating into a delusional fantasy world and never acknowledge what they've done.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil#Scale_and_criminals (warning: no graphics, but extremely unpleasant content)
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-qWLlER1N0 (Manson starts one of his monologues at about 8:20)
Rehabilitation makes sense for petty criminals and economic criminals, and possibly "crimes of passion". Some individuals are simply beyond redemption, though. I'd say attempting to "rehabilitate" anyone at category 11 or above on the following scale [1] is an injustice to their victims. People like Charles Manson [2] are capable of retreating into a delusional fantasy world and never acknowledge what they've done.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil#Scale_and_criminals (warning: no graphics, but extremely unpleasant content)
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-qWLlER1N0 (Manson starts one of his monologues at about 8:20)
Will the perpetrator's suffering make the victim un-robbed?
It might make some victims feel better, which can be considered a form of a moral compensation.
It might.... under what circumstances?
some victims.... which ones?
can be considered.... by who?
Well, I would've certainly felt better knowing that the guy who robbed me got punished.
Note that we're talking about a justice system that rehabilitates vs. one that punishes. Do you care which one happens to the perp, with the knowledge that they will be back in society at some point?
Why do we have to choose between rehabilitation and punishment? The goal should be "If you did the crime, you will be punished, but while you're being punished, we can help you become a better person".
[deleted]
paradoxically, there would be less total suffering (including inmate suffering) if prisons were more humane. That reduces your statement to "Should the victims be the only ones suffering?" after a violent crime. The part you miss is that there's no PSA video warning the perpetrators about the misery of solitary they face before they choose to commit the acts. They are either mentally ill or high when most of those crimes were committed. The only way you'd have a valid argument is if the criminal had a huge ctrl-z button, and once solitary "broke" them , and caused them to hit CTRL-Z, undo the victims' suffering, and everyone goes home. Then solitary would be an amazing, 99.99% effective punishment.
This is not even touching on the fact that a lot of these solitary inmates never commmitted heinous offenses. They just misbehaved in prison or were mentally ill and ran afoul of prison regs.
This is not even touching on the fact that a lot of these solitary inmates never commmitted heinous offenses. They just misbehaved in prison or were mentally ill and ran afoul of prison regs.
I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but:
But it's not effective, and there doesn't appear to be proper oversight, and that's what upsets me.
> Do these people not think
> about how cruel solitary
> confinement is?
But it's not effective, and there doesn't appear to be proper oversight, and that's what upsets me.
Sorry, I don't care what you label yourself as, but if you think it's justifiable to use cruel punishment as long as its "effective", you might be a bit morally defective. Torture is a human rights violation.
You think a punishment is bad when it crosses a certain arbitrary severity threshold. I think a punishment is bad when it's ineffective, its application doesn't benefit society as a whole, and when there's no oversight.
A morality that's consistent, dependable, and based on greater good to society is rather more useful than one based on arbitrary feels.
A morality that's consistent, dependable, and based on greater good to society is rather more useful than one based on arbitrary feels.
Torture has historically been thought to be the use of pain to coerce. Lets admit it, we use all sorts of pressures to coerce people. We can't label them all as 'torture'.
Don't get me wrong, I think solitary is wrong. And if we redefine 'torture' to mean 'permanently disfiguring a person mentally or physically for coercive purposes' then it neatly fits.
Don't get me wrong, I think solitary is wrong. And if we redefine 'torture' to mean 'permanently disfiguring a person mentally or physically for coercive purposes' then it neatly fits.
I don't want to be imprisoned, so should I oppose all imprisonment?
Edit: sorry if that came off as blunt, but this seems like a legit problem with your application of the Golden Rule. Could you reformulate it, or explain why nothing undesirable should ever happen to anyone "because you wouldn't like it"?
Edit: sorry if that came off as blunt, but this seems like a legit problem with your application of the Golden Rule. Could you reformulate it, or explain why nothing undesirable should ever happen to anyone "because you wouldn't like it"?
Have you ever noticed that "cruel and unusual punishment", the famous standard for what will be considered the acceptable limit of legal punishment, in fact implicitly sanctions cruelty in our legal system? If severe cruelty is the norm then it is considered just, indeed even fair and necessary, that that cruelty be normalized and extended to all those under the punitive regime.
There is a deep vein of cruelty in American history. I personally believe it is significantly rooted in Puritan theology - self-denial and self-abnegation are both forms of self-inflicted cruelty, and if one is cruel to oneself, both in daily practice and in the broader sense of ones philosophical beliefs and worldview (i.e. believing you are a sinner, believing you are in a state of perpetual spiritual disgrace), then cruelty becomes a foundational principle of your relationship with the world and other people.
There is a deep vein of cruelty in American history. I personally believe it is significantly rooted in Puritan theology - self-denial and self-abnegation are both forms of self-inflicted cruelty, and if one is cruel to oneself, both in daily practice and in the broader sense of ones philosophical beliefs and worldview (i.e. believing you are a sinner, believing you are in a state of perpetual spiritual disgrace), then cruelty becomes a foundational principle of your relationship with the world and other people.
On the intellectual level I have absolutely no reason to doubt the scientific evidence or the countless accounts of people who were subjected to solitary imprisonment and describe it as torture and worst thing that ever happened to them. I remember a documentary (probably NatGeo's "America's hardest prisons") episode where a violent and seemingly fearless thug was reduced to a crying baby by 2 weeks of solitary confinement. Yet, for some reason I am completely unable to empathize with it. And it's not for general lack of empathy either - I am quite horrified by pretty much everything else I learn about the experience of prisoners. But even after reading this article I feel like I'd choose solitary over sharing a cell with others. I suspect that points to some peculiarity/defect in my psyche. Does anyone else feel the same way?
I'm guessing in your case it's either a misunderstanding of what solitary would be like, or a misunderstanding of how bad it would be to share a cell with the average prisoner.
Solitary is not just getting the room to yourself. It's 24 hours a day of total isolation and really nothing at all to do. Your human contact would be limited to having guards slide food trays into your cell and once a day having a guard escort you to and from a slightly larger rec room (and you are alone there also). You would not have access to amenities that other prisoners have, like TV, computers, or possibly even books. I have seen descriptions of some solitary cells that are dark 24/7, and some that remain lit all day. Some people are in solitary for decades. I think staring at the wall all day and not having a meaningful conversation for years on end easily constitutes torture.
Solitary is not just getting the room to yourself. It's 24 hours a day of total isolation and really nothing at all to do. Your human contact would be limited to having guards slide food trays into your cell and once a day having a guard escort you to and from a slightly larger rec room (and you are alone there also). You would not have access to amenities that other prisoners have, like TV, computers, or possibly even books. I have seen descriptions of some solitary cells that are dark 24/7, and some that remain lit all day. Some people are in solitary for decades. I think staring at the wall all day and not having a meaningful conversation for years on end easily constitutes torture.
I am honestly not trying to sneakily argue for the use of solitary :)
For example, if I was asked right now to vote on it, I'd use my rational judgement to conclude that it's unethical and would vote against. However as soon as I imagine myself in both of these situations, having cellmates feels significantly more frightening even though I'm fully aware that I'd be 5-10 times as likely to kill myself without them.
As others have pointed out, it might be because I have direct experience of conflict but not of isolation. However, I also don't have any direct experience of physical torture and still it scares me more than torture by isolation, so it's probably not that simple.
For example, if I was asked right now to vote on it, I'd use my rational judgement to conclude that it's unethical and would vote against. However as soon as I imagine myself in both of these situations, having cellmates feels significantly more frightening even though I'm fully aware that I'd be 5-10 times as likely to kill myself without them.
As others have pointed out, it might be because I have direct experience of conflict but not of isolation. However, I also don't have any direct experience of physical torture and still it scares me more than torture by isolation, so it's probably not that simple.
When I saw the title of the article, "buried alive", I thought to myself: let's not hyperbolize. But after reading your description, I realized that ending up in a permanently dark solitary is in a way worse than getting buried alive - at least, in the latter case, you eventually suffocate or starve to death. In solitary, they use your survival instinct against you. You'll be fed and kept physically healthy, so you can't escape the isolation.
Really, how many people get to stay DECADES in prison? In Brazil the most horrible crimes have a de facto threshold of 6 years in jail.
Generally speaking, those who commit violent felonies are relatively likely to serve sentences like that. So rapists, murders and that sort of thing.
Part of the rationale is that it keeps people who willingly do such things away from society. So it's not simply punitive (and there's very little in the way of rehabilitation), it's more a matter of keeping them away from new victims. A point frequently lost in these conversations.
Part of the rationale is that it keeps people who willingly do such things away from society. So it's not simply punitive (and there's very little in the way of rehabilitation), it's more a matter of keeping them away from new victims. A point frequently lost in these conversations.
Yes, that's what I always say too. And it is a strong argument.
But still, in Brasil take 4 years and murderers 6 years in jail.
But still, in Brasil take 4 years and murderers 6 years in jail.
According to the article, some are spending decades in solitary :(
> Yet, for some reason I am completely unable to empathize with it.
It's simple, if you want to. You just haven't had a comparable experience.
Lock yourself in a room with no contact with the outside world for a month or two. Remove any niceties a prison would not allow. Probably a room with no windows, mirror, or books.
If you aren't willing to do it, explore what you lose in life. Try doing it for a day or even an hour.
Maybe the difficulty in empathizing comes from the difference from anything you consider a normal life.
It's simple, if you want to. You just haven't had a comparable experience.
Lock yourself in a room with no contact with the outside world for a month or two. Remove any niceties a prison would not allow. Probably a room with no windows, mirror, or books.
If you aren't willing to do it, explore what you lose in life. Try doing it for a day or even an hour.
Maybe the difficulty in empathizing comes from the difference from anything you consider a normal life.
It's a reasonable assumption, but I don't think that's all there is to it. Prison is generally not a comfortable place (where I live, lack of windows is standard, for instance, even in multi-person cells). And yet, people who experienced solitary are all seem to be putting an emphasis on the lack of human contact. They are not begging for books or windows. I got an impression from the article that it's at least somewhat common to have access to books and even TV, and it's still just as torturous. They are begging to be allowed to spend time with other humans.
> I'd choose solitary over sharing a cell with others
Is it possible that you would regret this after five or ten or more years or almost no contact with another person?
Maybe you're focusing on the physical sharing aspect at the expense of not fully comprehending the more abstract time aspect. Which is totally understandable: I don't know how anyone can realistically imagine what this experience would be like.
Is it possible that you would regret this after five or ten or more years or almost no contact with another person?
Maybe you're focusing on the physical sharing aspect at the expense of not fully comprehending the more abstract time aspect. Which is totally understandable: I don't know how anyone can realistically imagine what this experience would be like.
> Is it possible that you would regret this after five or ten or more years or almost no contact with another person?
Certainly. In fact this is the only aspect that gets through to my feelings. Weird.
Certainly. In fact this is the only aspect that gets through to my feelings. Weird.
I kinda get where you're coming from. Just to preface this, I agree that the practice of solitary confinement in prison is basically tantamount to torture and should be legally prohibited or severely restricted and regulated. That out of the way...
For me it might come down to the details of solitary confinement. From the sounds of it, I probably wouldn't want to be in the kind of solitary confinement that's imposed in prison. But if I had access to books (say, public library loans by mail), I too, emotionally, have a preference for solitary, even though I rationally think the evidence suggests I would be driven insane.
It's rather unsettling TBH. Are you a particularly introverted person (in the Myers-Briggs sense of the word)?
For me it might come down to the details of solitary confinement. From the sounds of it, I probably wouldn't want to be in the kind of solitary confinement that's imposed in prison. But if I had access to books (say, public library loans by mail), I too, emotionally, have a preference for solitary, even though I rationally think the evidence suggests I would be driven insane.
It's rather unsettling TBH. Are you a particularly introverted person (in the Myers-Briggs sense of the word)?
> Are you a particularly introverted person (in the Myers-Briggs sense of the word)?
I am introverted, but not to an outstanding degree.
After a bit of reflection I am coming to the conclusion that it all rather has to do with my unhealthy level of aversion to conflict. I feel sick even when seeing it in movies, sometimes to the point of having to pause. And I am also under the (likely false and irrational) impression that conflict is what the daily life in prison all about.
I am introverted, but not to an outstanding degree.
After a bit of reflection I am coming to the conclusion that it all rather has to do with my unhealthy level of aversion to conflict. I feel sick even when seeing it in movies, sometimes to the point of having to pause. And I am also under the (likely false and irrational) impression that conflict is what the daily life in prison all about.
Whenever I start to think that solitary confinement might not be so bad, I remind myself that everyone in solitary can always have someone like Tyler Durden for their cellmate.
The isolation cell is a crucible for whatever crazy you may already have inside of you, and when they finally release you, it has been purified and sharpened.
That strikes me as an incredibly dangerous thing to gamble with. You may be turning a person with sociopathic tendencies into a stone-cold serial killer. Or you may be turning a slightly neurotic person into a helpless, useless wreck. Or you may be turning a slightly self-destructive person into a suicide. Do you really want to completely remove someone's societal feedback for extended periods of time, and then see how their compensation strategies work when they are expected to reintegrate with civilization? Solitary has literally trained a person to function only inside a tiny box with no one else in it. What would you expect to happen afterward?
The isolation cell is a crucible for whatever crazy you may already have inside of you, and when they finally release you, it has been purified and sharpened.
That strikes me as an incredibly dangerous thing to gamble with. You may be turning a person with sociopathic tendencies into a stone-cold serial killer. Or you may be turning a slightly neurotic person into a helpless, useless wreck. Or you may be turning a slightly self-destructive person into a suicide. Do you really want to completely remove someone's societal feedback for extended periods of time, and then see how their compensation strategies work when they are expected to reintegrate with civilization? Solitary has literally trained a person to function only inside a tiny box with no one else in it. What would you expect to happen afterward?
I don't want this to sound snide, but have you read the whole article? Inmates are literally driven insane by solitary confinement, driven to self harm and suicide.
It's not like you just get a cell for yourself as you would wish for in, say, a hospital; you are actually completely alone for months on end, with hardly any recreational activities, maybe none at all. That's much worse than having to cope with a celly who might be a bit unpleasant.
It's not like you just get a cell for yourself as you would wish for in, say, a hospital; you are actually completely alone for months on end, with hardly any recreational activities, maybe none at all. That's much worse than having to cope with a celly who might be a bit unpleasant.
I did read the entire article and that's exactly my point. Despite my rational mind being fully on board with the fact that solitary is a hundred times worse my feelings remain skewed in the other direction. So much that they would override rational judgement if given an opportunity. This is quite an uncomfortable feeling for someone who considers himself a rational person and I'd like to investigate it.
I have actually read an article similar to this one about horrors of sharing a prison cell with someone else. Think about years of sharing a small windowless bathroom 23 hours a day with someone who is crazy, violent, and stronger than you. Oh yeah, and he's doing life for killing a bunch of people because he simply didn't like them, or couldn't control his rage.
Absolutely. I am sociable enough, but given the choice, I'll take solitude any day.
I would tend to agree with both comments but I think it's because we don't know what we're talking about.
We all have experienced being in a closed space with people we don't know or like, but we usually have never experienced complete isolation for extended periods of time.
I need lots of time alone, but being absolutely alone for two weeks and having zero interaction with anyone or even an animal or a plant? That's something else entirely.
We all have experienced being in a closed space with people we don't know or like, but we usually have never experienced complete isolation for extended periods of time.
I need lots of time alone, but being absolutely alone for two weeks and having zero interaction with anyone or even an animal or a plant? That's something else entirely.
That could be. I am even pondering a self-experiment where I'd spend some time in complete isolation. But I don't think I have the guts to do it without an option to abort at any moment. And the very presence of such option would probably make the experience very different to that of a prisoner.
I have sailed across the Atlantic, alone, in a small (9.3m) yacht. 29 days alone with nothing much to see except what is close by (the sea, is.. unchanging, but ever changing). The solitude did not bother me though others have said it would bother them, but then I was more or less in control of my destiny. I had no option to abort (technically, I guess I could have called a ship on the radio and claimed an emergency). My food and water ration was limited but under my own control. I did speak to other vessels on the radio now and again (every few days) which may be comparable to shouting down the toilet at your neighbours.
I don't think it would be in any way similar to being in solitary confinement in a prison.
I don't really know if I would manage OK in solitary or not. On the face of it, it sounds like nothing much.. but there are a whole lot of other things relating to the environment and the people who end up there that would be relevant and which just don't apply to me.
I don't think it would be in any way similar to being in solitary confinement in a prison.
I don't really know if I would manage OK in solitary or not. On the face of it, it sounds like nothing much.. but there are a whole lot of other things relating to the environment and the people who end up there that would be relevant and which just don't apply to me.
Also, being in nature is a deep and positive experience, so it might compensate for loneliness.
Personally, I don't find loneliness a serious problem and I think that is behind a lot of folks idea that solitary confinement wouldn't really be a problem. On my voyage, I was marking the chart with my daily position and could see the distance to destination getting smaller, which gives me a measure of control, of marking the difference between the days.
Those in solitary are just waiting - even if they end up getting out after a month, they have no way of knowing that will happen. Well, in Europe perhaps they do since largely there are finite limits - and where those limits are exceeded, I would hope the treatment is not as the folk in the article claimed they had been treated. Even for Breivik we can treat him humanely even if we cannot let him out.
Those in solitary are just waiting - even if they end up getting out after a month, they have no way of knowing that will happen. Well, in Europe perhaps they do since largely there are finite limits - and where those limits are exceeded, I would hope the treatment is not as the folk in the article claimed they had been treated. Even for Breivik we can treat him humanely even if we cannot let him out.
You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
Neither you, my friend.
How do you know?
"There are still significant variations within Europe in the maximum permissible duration for solitary confinement allowed as punishment. In Belgium, eight days is the maximum permissible duration, whereas Finland allows 14 days; Poland, England, and Wales allow 28; France and Estonia allow 45; and Ireland allows up to 60. But overall, the dangers of solitary confinement have been recognized." [1]
[1] http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2015/11/beyond-solitary-...
[1] http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2015/11/beyond-solitary-...
Regarding Sweden, does Breivik's prison sentence and stay (solitary confinement) constitute torture?
"1 March 2017, the Court of Appeals upheld part of Brevik`s appeal that Article 3 of the convention on human rights had been breached, that he has been subjected to degrading treatment but that his solitary confinement did not violate Breivik's rights" (source: wikipedia)
Or what about the solitary confinement of Gottfrid Svartholm, co-founder of ThePirateBay?
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/the-swedes-have-the-pirat...
Regarding The Netherlands, the killer of Theo Van Gogh, Mohammed B., is also held in solitary confinement. Do all of these constitute torture or an inhumane treatment?
Regarding The Netherlands, the killer of Theo Van Gogh, Mohammed B., is also held in solitary confinement. Do all of these constitute torture or an inhumane treatment?
Breivik's solitary confinement is also much, much different than the little rooms in the US. He has 3 rooms to move around in. He can cook for himself, play instruments, has exercise equipment. He has a computer, though I think his internet access is limited to nil. He has medical and mental health care at his disposal. He can have visitors, though they are through glass.
They made an exception to that glass before his mother died - he was allowed direct physical contact with his mother.
Not only that, but I'm pretty sure he can earn his way outside of solitary. And theoretically, he'll wind up getting released. I've heard it is possible to label him a threat to society, in which case he's more likely to wind up in a mental institution at that point - but it really depends on what he does in the next 10 years or so.
They made an exception to that glass before his mother died - he was allowed direct physical contact with his mother.
Not only that, but I'm pretty sure he can earn his way outside of solitary. And theoretically, he'll wind up getting released. I've heard it is possible to label him a threat to society, in which case he's more likely to wind up in a mental institution at that point - but it really depends on what he does in the next 10 years or so.
I strongly doubt that Breivik will ever be let out of solitary confinement unless the Norwegian high court finds that the Norwegian penal system violates Norwegian law. I doubt that even a conviction in the European court of human rights would cause Norwegian authorities to change the practice.
The official explanation for the solitary confinement is that other prisoners would kill him if they had access to him. The word punishment has never been been used to describe his extraordinary sentencing conditions. Actually, it's pretty ironic to have this discussion the same week that a convicted child sex offender was killed in a Norwegian prison after numerous warnings.
Breivik killed dozens of children of Arbeiderpartiet politicians, one of the biggest parties and the ruling party at the time. Norwegian society, great though it is in many ways, is still not capable of admitting that our relationship with the rule of law is somewhat selective.
Note: This is not in _any_ was a defence of Breivik's actions or ideology, rather a commentary on how legal principles are difficult for even a principled society to uphold in extreme cases. (It's also worth pointing out that Norway has been repeatedly criticised by the UN for our use of solitary confinement against arrestees that are not yet charged with a crime).
The official explanation for the solitary confinement is that other prisoners would kill him if they had access to him. The word punishment has never been been used to describe his extraordinary sentencing conditions. Actually, it's pretty ironic to have this discussion the same week that a convicted child sex offender was killed in a Norwegian prison after numerous warnings.
Breivik killed dozens of children of Arbeiderpartiet politicians, one of the biggest parties and the ruling party at the time. Norwegian society, great though it is in many ways, is still not capable of admitting that our relationship with the rule of law is somewhat selective.
Note: This is not in _any_ was a defence of Breivik's actions or ideology, rather a commentary on how legal principles are difficult for even a principled society to uphold in extreme cases. (It's also worth pointing out that Norway has been repeatedly criticised by the UN for our use of solitary confinement against arrestees that are not yet charged with a crime).
> Actually, it's pretty ironic to have this discussion the same week that a convicted child sex offender was killed in a Norwegian prison after numerous warnings.
That an inmate gets killed in a Norwegian prison is extremely rare. As you mention it did happened this week, but the last time before that was in 1982 (according to http://frifagbevegelse.no/nffmagasinet/drapet-i-ringerike-fe... )
That an inmate gets killed in a Norwegian prison is extremely rare. As you mention it did happened this week, but the last time before that was in 1982 (according to http://frifagbevegelse.no/nffmagasinet/drapet-i-ringerike-fe... )
Breivik would be in Norway. He is not completely isolated btw, as he has visitors (IIRC, from an organisation that normally visits the lonely or elderly — he is not permitted to choose his own visitors).
Breivik is Norwegian.
I wonder where that quote has collected its data. At least in Finland prisoners may be isolated from other prisoners for specific reasons (like waiting until the drug cache comes out of the digestive system the normal way), but not as a punishment, and not for more than 7 days.
It's insane that prisoners are treated poorly. It's also ridiculous that statistics like "rate of recidivism" do not seem to even consider what effect the incarceration itself had on the offender.
Stories of torture at the hands of the state, in a domestic correctional context, are everywhere. This is a confirmed, observable phenomenon, not subject to much conjecture or doubt.
And it's time to smash it. Thinking that some slow, incremental legislative progress is going to fix this problem is pulling a blanket of privilege over eyes and ears.
When Washington falls, which it will, we must immediately turn to our states and ensure - by whatever nonviolent means necessary - that they do not fill in the budget vacuum currently filled by a hodgepodge of federal grants and instead close prisons en masse.
In the mean time, we need to form pen-pal relationships with prisoners, shame people who decide to work in the prison industry (I know this sounds cruel, but it's less cruel than refraining from doing so), and speak out in square company.
Enough is enough.
And it's time to smash it. Thinking that some slow, incremental legislative progress is going to fix this problem is pulling a blanket of privilege over eyes and ears.
When Washington falls, which it will, we must immediately turn to our states and ensure - by whatever nonviolent means necessary - that they do not fill in the budget vacuum currently filled by a hodgepodge of federal grants and instead close prisons en masse.
In the mean time, we need to form pen-pal relationships with prisoners, shame people who decide to work in the prison industry (I know this sounds cruel, but it's less cruel than refraining from doing so), and speak out in square company.
Enough is enough.
Your plan would make things unbelievably worse.
And I don't understand how you don't see this.
You reject a legislative process, and also want to shame people who work in prisons.
So basically you are blocking the only two possible paths to accomplish your goals: Either new laws, or reform from the inside.
How can you be so short sighted?
And I don't understand how you don't see this.
You reject a legislative process, and also want to shame people who work in prisons.
So basically you are blocking the only two possible paths to accomplish your goals: Either new laws, or reform from the inside.
How can you be so short sighted?
What makes you think that these tactics represent "the only two possible paths?"
> shame people who decide to work in the prison industry (I know this sounds cruel, but it's less cruel than refraining from doing so), and speak out in square company.
Not everyone working in the prison system is evil. There are good people there wanting to help people.
Not everyone working in the prison system is evil. There are good people there wanting to help people.
Absolutely - I acknowledge that.
But at this point, I assert that we need to deprive the system of labor, especially from good people.
I think it's a very legitimate form of protest.
But at this point, I assert that we need to deprive the system of labor, especially from good people.
I think it's a very legitimate form of protest.
> But at this point, I assert that we need to deprive the system of labor, especially from good people
You are delusional. You want to reform the prison system by only hiring bad people to run it?
You are delusional. You want to reform the prison system by only hiring bad people to run it?
I have expressly said that I don't want to "reform" the prison system. I used the word "smash" - I'm not sure how much further from "reform" you can get.
I want prisons gone completely from this land, as they were for most of our history.
I want prisons gone completely from this land, as they were for most of our history.
What's your plan for criminals then? Say, someone who mugged someone at gunpoint?
Before I answer this, are you asserting that crime has gone down during the relatively short human experiment with prisons? If so, can you demonstrate that this is a casual connection?
I think that the burden of proof is on prisons as a concept, and I don't think that they have done any good for society. In addition, they are places of great evil and suffering.
I think that the burden of proof is on prisons as a concept, and I don't think that they have done any good for society. In addition, they are places of great evil and suffering.
So basically you are thinking corporal punishment? Lashing probably?
In the olden days thieves who could not repay what they stole would be sold as time-limited slaves. Are you planning that too?
In the olden days thieves who could not repay what they stole would be sold as time-limited slaves. Are you planning that too?
I had an experience with solitary confinement and I was tormented by it.
The memories don't effect me much anymore and I now can write about it.
It resulted from a mental break down, causing an arrest which was not justified legally but the officer at the scene was annoyed by me. The charge were eventually dismissed but still haunts me like it would for any person.
I'm transgender which is related to the situation; at the time I had troubles communicating what I was going through and an attempt at failing 'x' which caused a wreck. Luckily nobody other than me was injured physically or mentally by the wreck.
I was told by other officers & firemen, "I would not be arrested as I had done nothing illegal" but the leading male officer decided to arrest me regardless and I ended up in the place for mentally ill criminals.
I either pissed off the officer by asking to speak to the female officer instead when questioned or he had something against me by how I looked.
I've never had a mental illness or have been diagnosed with any mental illness or even depression but I somehow ended up on haldol for schizophrenia which was shortly decided a day after the arrest without seeing any medical professional qualified for making such a diagnosis which needs 6 months observation anyway.
It all happened in Texas, almost ruined my life and has influenced other events in my life by negligence of others not understanding; leading to discrimination with other things by negligence.
I'm trying to pursue some justice for connections to what I've experienced resulting from negligence of others, so I can sleep better but let me now get on to the solitary confinement story.
The solitary confinement I was put in (while stripped of all clothes) had a button/speaker system to an supervising law enforcement person.
None of the law enforcement in charge of watching would make any indication to sympathy and would say things which would escalate any grief a person communicated even if it was a sane request.
Talking by button/speaker you would hear short responses made to sound annoyed and I was told to "get used to this as how am I going to survive when I go to prison" which to this day I cannot understand how messed up a person must be to feel the need to say something like that to a person in the situation I was in.
The confinement smelled similar to bleach or some really strong chemical odor, it would make my throat dry and people would be screaming for water. Other inmates in solitary confinement would scream they are Lucifer or that they are on true crime TV with nonsense stuff.
There were bars on the floor forming a 2 by 2 square for #1 or #2. Meals would consist of a paper bag containing an apple past it's prime, a milk carton, chips/pretzels and a small sandwich of tuna.
So you're stuck in this small space with a camera watching you and no clothes. Eventually I became anxious where I needed to know the time and ended up annoying the guard on duty by repetitively asking for it. I only had to stay in there for close to 2 days, until my lawyer managed to come and get me out of there. Bail was set at 50k which luckily I have parents that paid for it and it was returned to them after the dismissal.
Anyway I think it's reasonable for a person to prefer death when experiencing solitary confinement because I would have preferred death to that experience.
I really do enjoy life though but going through that was just wow.
It resulted from a mental break down, causing an arrest which was not justified legally but the officer at the scene was annoyed by me. The charge were eventually dismissed but still haunts me like it would for any person.
I'm transgender which is related to the situation; at the time I had troubles communicating what I was going through and an attempt at failing 'x' which caused a wreck. Luckily nobody other than me was injured physically or mentally by the wreck.
I was told by other officers & firemen, "I would not be arrested as I had done nothing illegal" but the leading male officer decided to arrest me regardless and I ended up in the place for mentally ill criminals.
I either pissed off the officer by asking to speak to the female officer instead when questioned or he had something against me by how I looked.
I've never had a mental illness or have been diagnosed with any mental illness or even depression but I somehow ended up on haldol for schizophrenia which was shortly decided a day after the arrest without seeing any medical professional qualified for making such a diagnosis which needs 6 months observation anyway.
It all happened in Texas, almost ruined my life and has influenced other events in my life by negligence of others not understanding; leading to discrimination with other things by negligence.
I'm trying to pursue some justice for connections to what I've experienced resulting from negligence of others, so I can sleep better but let me now get on to the solitary confinement story.
The solitary confinement I was put in (while stripped of all clothes) had a button/speaker system to an supervising law enforcement person.
None of the law enforcement in charge of watching would make any indication to sympathy and would say things which would escalate any grief a person communicated even if it was a sane request.
Talking by button/speaker you would hear short responses made to sound annoyed and I was told to "get used to this as how am I going to survive when I go to prison" which to this day I cannot understand how messed up a person must be to feel the need to say something like that to a person in the situation I was in.
The confinement smelled similar to bleach or some really strong chemical odor, it would make my throat dry and people would be screaming for water. Other inmates in solitary confinement would scream they are Lucifer or that they are on true crime TV with nonsense stuff.
There were bars on the floor forming a 2 by 2 square for #1 or #2. Meals would consist of a paper bag containing an apple past it's prime, a milk carton, chips/pretzels and a small sandwich of tuna.
So you're stuck in this small space with a camera watching you and no clothes. Eventually I became anxious where I needed to know the time and ended up annoying the guard on duty by repetitively asking for it. I only had to stay in there for close to 2 days, until my lawyer managed to come and get me out of there. Bail was set at 50k which luckily I have parents that paid for it and it was returned to them after the dismissal.
Anyway I think it's reasonable for a person to prefer death when experiencing solitary confinement because I would have preferred death to that experience.
I really do enjoy life though but going through that was just wow.
I'm sorry you've had to endure this and am happy you are doing a bit better. Thank you very much for sharing the experience.
The sad thing was how so many inmates there were so kind and the stories they shared were so awful.
Jail is really just a cheap way to justify money not going to healthcare for improving mental health of people that need it.
US has to dry up all the tax money for war it seems. :/
Also thanks!
Jail is really just a cheap way to justify money not going to healthcare for improving mental health of people that need it.
US has to dry up all the tax money for war it seems. :/
Also thanks!
When can we move to fixing people, not just punishment?
Our current system is selfish. The suffering is a show for everyone else.
It's supposed to suck. Nobody has a beef with that. But it doesn't have to destroy.
Our current system is selfish. The suffering is a show for everyone else.
It's supposed to suck. Nobody has a beef with that. But it doesn't have to destroy.
Mindfield, the new series by vsauce, tackled this in its first episode, which recently became free to watch.
It was an interesting watch, although I couldn't really take the experiment seriously after the segment with the former inmate who had spent way more time confined in a cell with even less stimulation than the one Michael was about to enter.
Anyhow, prolonged isolation(>3 days, maybe less) and willful disruption of circadian rhythms should definitely be considered torture.
Also, doing this to people who will reenter society is just so shortsighted and dumb, regardless of the total lack of morality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqKdEhx-dD4
It was an interesting watch, although I couldn't really take the experiment seriously after the segment with the former inmate who had spent way more time confined in a cell with even less stimulation than the one Michael was about to enter.
Anyhow, prolonged isolation(>3 days, maybe less) and willful disruption of circadian rhythms should definitely be considered torture.
Also, doing this to people who will reenter society is just so shortsighted and dumb, regardless of the total lack of morality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqKdEhx-dD4
Also see: This Blinding Absence of Light[1], true story of an Morrocan coup attempt gone wrong, and the 18 year punishment that ensued.
Disturbing and beautiful account; it's amazing what humans can endure, pushing toward the inner light amidst its complete absence.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Blinding_Absence_of_Light
Disturbing and beautiful account; it's amazing what humans can endure, pushing toward the inner light amidst its complete absence.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Blinding_Absence_of_Light
[deleted]
That is the most telling line about how the Government thinks. Do these people not think about how cruel solitary confinement is?
The best way to make people understand these cruel practices is to imagine themselves in solitary confinement. Would you want that? Obviously no, so why would you wish it or allow it on somebody else? Slightly tangential, but people who are openly racist or hate certain religions, ask them to imagine themselves as the people they hate.
The recent elections, and articles such as these are reminders that humanity is still very medieval. Sad!