20 ms·

Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement

401 points by nols 11y ago

corywatilo 11y ago
> As president, my most important job is to keep the American people safe The author, er, the President is incorrect. His most important job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He says this constantly, and, politics aside, it is important for every American to remember what the actual duty of the President is, as affirmed when sworn into office. Side note: Why is this on HN?
- akiselev 11y ago
  Because according to the guidelines: 》 On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. (Emphasis mine) If it's on the front page, enough people have found it interesting and within the guidelines.
  - ojbyrne 11y ago
    More concretely, The US Prison System is clearly broken and doing great harm. It's an obvious opportunity for making things better, which can lead to entrepreneurial opportunities.
    - lowmagnet 11y ago
      I don't know about that. Thus far, those "entrepreneurial opportunities" have lead toward more incarceration, not less. For-profit prisons have contracts that guarantee a certain level of incarceration, resulting in occupancy of the prisons they run. This is definitely one of those things that I'd much rather not be in the hands of entrepreneurial entities.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Here's a counterexample: https://pigeon.ly https://pigeon.ly They're focused on making it easier and cheaper to communicate with inmates, who often suffer from ridiculous price gouging for things like phone calls. It's pretty small potatoes compared to private prisons, but it's something.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - krapp 11y ago
      I suppose by definition, if someone finds a story interesting, that makes them a "good hacker."
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- rayiner 11y ago
  While I appreciate the point you're trying to make, I don't think it's accurate. You're quoting the Presidential Oath, which reads: > I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Note the order: first responsibility is to execute the office, the second is to protect the Constitution. The responsibilities of the Office of the President are laid out in Article II of the Constitution, starting with Section 2. The very first one is: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States[.]" It's not unreasonable for him to say his most important job is to keep America safe. Indeed, the historical evidence shows that one reason the Constitution created a strong executive (where the Articles of Confederation had no executive), is because the failure of the government under the Articles to quell certain internal rebellions.
  - Steko 11y ago
    Just as relevant is the vesting clause that begins Article II: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America This executive power is the vehicle by which various acts of legislation which "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (I.8) take effect.
  - laotzu 11y ago
    The founding fathers had a lot to say about a strong executive who is primarily interested in providing security as opposed to liberty and its inevitable corruption: >In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. -James Madison, Speech at Constitutional Convention, 1787 >A politic minister will study to lull us into security, by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue, which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war, and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our assistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin, and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us!—remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of our countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices ? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood, and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. -Samuel Adams, American Independence Speech, 1776
- notdonspaulding 11y ago
  I'd like to say I read that line in disbelief that the POTUS could so completely misunderstand his own role in our government, but at this point, I'm afraid I'm used to it. (For those not from the U.S.: The way it's supposed to work is that Congress makes the law, the President executes the law, the Court upholds the law)
  - ggreer 11y ago
    From The American System and Misleading Labels[1]: > Brad Templeton, chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was present; and he said: "The legal status of AIs is ultimately a legislative question, and in the American system of democracy, legislative questions are decided by the Supreme Court." > Much laughter followed. We all knew it was true. (And Brad has taken a case or two to the Supreme Court, so he was speaking from experience.) The whole post is worth reading. It's a little dated and a lot oversimplified, but it drives home a useful point: just because something is named X, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with X. 1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/mh/the_american_system_and_misleading_labels/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/mh/the_american_system_and_misleadin...
- voynich61 11y ago
  Your comment is pedantic. A school bus driver's job is to get kids from their homes to school and back. If she says her most important job is to keep the kids safe, it doesn't mean that she's not going to do her job! Instead, it means that she'll do her job in such a way that it keeps her safe, and in no way implies a conflict of interest between her job description and safety.
  - jMyles 11y ago
    If that's so - and it may well be - then it is different in kind from this matter, where "safety" and liberty are, and have been, in conflict. The job of the POTUS has little do with safety, but much to do with liberty.
  - notdonspaulding 11y ago
    The POTUS is using this "my job is to keep Americans safe" line to make a very tenuous tie to a position he wants to take on solitary confinement. Using your analogy, imagine the bus driver said "It's my job to keep the kids safe, therefore I'm going to start requiring all the kids to give me their cell phone numbers in case there's an emergency." Could that be construed as "keeping the kids safe"? Sure, but that wouldn't necessarily make you any more comfortable with the bus driver gaining more intimate access to your children. I know analogies are never perfect, but another nitpick with this one is that the POTUS holds a position of power and authority that you wouldn't typically have to worry about in your average bus driver, so additional scrutiny into "Just what did he mean by that?" is occasionally warranted.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - voynich61 11y ago
      Justifying the move as a step to keep America safe is the right move in this political context. America is generally fearful right now, so Obama's political adversaries will attack this move as eroding the safety the prison system attempts to maintain. "My job is to keep Americans safe" is an acceptable justification for limiting solitary confinement. It would not be an acceptable justification for extrajudicial killings.
- r00fus 11y ago
  I'd bet a good portion of the HN reader base has had an uncomfortable police encounter. Also the prospect of going to jail for hacking or whistleblowing crimes is pretty harrowing - look what happened to Aaron Swartz. Yeah, I'd say it's relevant to discuss here.
  - username223 11y ago
    > I'd bet a good portion of the HN reader base has had an uncomfortable police encounter. Rich, white tech dudes? I doubt it. Even if they have, a bit of mouthing "sorry, Officer" probably solved the problem.
    - int_handler 11y ago
      Yeah, just saying, "sorry, Officer," obviously solved the problem for Aaron Swartz.
      - 1stop 11y ago
        Yeah, one privileged guy had problems and everyone remembers it forever... Isn't really comparable to the thousands of underpribileged who's lives are just as tragically ruined...
        int_handler 11y ago
        Nobody is discounting the problem of police brutality for the thousands of underprivileged. Acknowledging that problem should not mean that we should simply ignore other forms judicial overreach, such as the abuse of the CFAA in Aaron Swartz's case. Both are major problems that need to be discussed. Keep in mind that another major reason people remember Aaron Swartz because of everything he has contributed to the world of technology [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Life_and_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Life_and_works
        1stop 11y ago
- galago 11y ago
  Perhaps its a limitation of our form of democracy, but if voters think the presidents job 'is to keep the American people safe' and they vote in said direction--well, that's the de-facto job. If the president is comfortable outright saying that his effective job is not the one legally defined, that's kind-of a HN topic in itself.
- jhancock 11y ago
  The U.S. Constitution is structured in traditional contract form. It starts with stating its purpose (preamble) and continues with rules to support methods of execution of purpose. It is not unreasonable that a U.S. President may consider these recent statements as fitting to "...promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
ThomPete 11y ago
Coming from Denmark where life is max 16 years and where people rarely go to jail just because society does not know what else to do with you and then moving to the US, the justice system when it comes to petty crimes, always seemed very draconian and counter productive. For most people — just the mere notion of being in conflict with the law — is enough to send chills down their back. How sad that something that could have been used to actually function as a mild punishment ends up completely destroying a life and the potential of being part of society. In a hundred years from now people are going to look back at things like the war on drugs as one of the most barbaric, absurd and useless pieces of legislation ever to have been implemented. A war which ended up destroying more lifes than it saved. I for one applaud Obama for finally taking a stanse against this unnecessarily strict legislation and hoping that normal otherwise law abiding citizens wont get their lifes completely destroyed for things anyone could have done. I love the US but the legislation I could certainly do without.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  In a hundred years from now people are going to look back at things like the war on drugs as one of the most barbaric, absurd and useless pieces of legislation ever to have been implemented. A war which ended up destroying more lifes than it saved. Here in the US, most of us think of Prohibition in exactly those terms.... but that didn't stop us from doing the exact same thing all over again and calling it good.
  - Consultant32452 11y ago
    I hope history doesn't look at the war on drugs as having anything at all to do with drugs. It was all about having a way to lock up blacks and hippies for reasons that seemed legit on paper. Drugs were ancillary. Then of course it morphed into a for-profit industry and is the clusterfuck we have today.
    - shams93 11y ago
      Yup it started out as Richard Nixon's war on the counterculture, imagine if Steve Jobs had been taken out in the war on drugs we'd all be stuck using windows 10 at work instead of having nice macbook pros lol.
chishaku 11y ago
The story of Kalief Browder is heartbreaking. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-2015 http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-...
- themartorana 11y ago
  What a terrible story. And it's one of thousands of others that never get told. Just... You said it. Heartbreaking.
jMyles 11y ago
Far too little and probably too late. Come on Mr. President - you had the past 8 years to visit jails and prisons, to make sweeping changes to the Federal Prison System, and to push for legislation to seriously curtail solitary confinement, for children and adults alike, throughout the state systems. This may serve as a bit of notoriety on your legacy, for the position you take here will surely only gain traction and be looked upon as utterly obvious, but it does little to help those poor souls suffering needlessly and alone tonight.
- pstuart 11y ago
  True, but bear in mind that being "soft on crime" is something no politician wants to be accused of.
  - wanderingstan 11y ago
    Bush Sr. used this to defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988, after an inmate committed a crime while on a furlough program Dukakis said could help rehabilitation. Republicans eagerly picked up the Horton issue after Dukakis clinched the nomination. In June 1988, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, said "By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton#Horton_in_the_1988_presidential_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton#Horton_in_the_19...
    - LordKano 11y ago
      Dukakis pretty much did everything wrong. He was opposed to the death penalty when the country was overwhelmingly for it. He talked about how civilians shouldn't be permitted to own guns. He was arguably soft on crime.
    - hellofunk 11y ago
      Dukakis also suffered a major character blow in the eyes of the public during one of the televised debates when he said he would not support death penality even if his wife had been murdered (or something along those lines). It was an awful question to ask, but his reply was seen as unemotional to the audience when he reiterated that he still would not support the death penalty. I often wonder what the U.S. would have been like had he been elected. In any case, the American public apparently had a similar notion, since they kicked out Bush Sr to elect a Democrat anyway, just 4 years later. But that moment in the debate is often held as the defining moment that crashed his chances to win. A little silly, I think, but that's politics.
IIAOPSW 11y ago
If I had to characterize Mr. Obama's administration, I'd say he all too often says exactly the right things (and maybe even believes them) but the implementations (if any) leave an endless amount to be desired. But this, like everything the last 8 years, will come out to little more than an eloquent WashPos article. Thanks Obama. Edit: TIL the president cannot pardon state level crimes. oops
- chris11 11y ago
  I'm not arguing that some of Obama's policy implementations are lacking. But it seems like people are expecting too much out of him. I think that solitary confinement is definitely unethical. But I also think the idea of mass pardons for prisoners if states don't reform solitary confinement would be political suicide. Republicans would be running ads saying that Obama wants violent criminals to be released because prison isn't comfortable enough. Democrats wouldn't support it. And I think it might sink the democratic party's chances in the presidential election. Sure there are more things that Obama could have done to solve specific problems. But I don't think some complaints would have been fixed under any president.
  - LordKano 11y ago
    I also think the idea of mass pardons for prisoners if states don't reform solitary confinement would be political suicide. He's a lame duck with less than 1 year remaining in his term. His political career is over. He has already peaked.
    - chris11 11y ago
      I think it would also be political suicide for the democratic party, not just Obama.
- x5n1 11y ago
  Yes the drone strikes are often killing around 90% civilians, but please, lets not abuse the prisoners through solitary confinement, it's inhumane.
- 11y ago
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jqm 11y ago
Not only is the criminal justice system abusive (a problem itself) it plain isn't working. The thing is... there are some extremely bad people in the system who know the ins and outs and consider prison just another place to abuse others while being taken care of. We have too many laws. We spend to much time worrying about little stuff and not enough about big stuff. My personal opinion (I realize this is not likely to be a popular one) is that we need to stop locking people up for little things and return to public hanging for big things. Smoking crack might be stupid but is it really a crime? On the other hand someone brutally killing a child for fun doesn't deserve to even breathe our air. Something like this is beyond rehabilitation. It is broken. Put an end to it without delay and return the raw material to the earth. But don't monkey around with solitary confinement. It is inhumane and in my opinion probably more so than hanging.
- tempestn 11y ago
  I don't agree with capital punishment at all, for a number of reasons that I won't get into here, but I can at least see a reasonable case being made for it. But public hanging? In what way could that possibly be good for society? If regular capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent, I can't imagine that making it public would do much better. Although after seeing public hangings the will for capital punishment in general would probably drop sharply, so maybe that would be a benefit. Seriously though, the idea of public hangings is barbaric. I don't disagree with you as far as not locking people up for things like drug use though.
  - jqm 11y ago
    And how is what we are doing now not barbaric? Which is actually more barbaric? It turns out people sometimes see the barbarism in others while missing their own. There is a reason public executions happened for so long (and still happen in vast swaths of the world). Partially to serve as warning and as a deterrent and maybe partially so society feels they are participating in punishment (or revenge if you prefer). Is it effective? I would assume to some extent. Maybe we need to revisit some of the concepts of public shame (ok..maybe old school hanging is a bit extreme.. but jut to throw ideas around) rather than hiding offenders behind bars at the hands of sadistic guards and fellow inmates in some grey bureaucracy. Which is my estimation not only doesn't really work but is even more barbaric.
busterarm 11y ago
Chelsea Manning very publicly spent 10 months in solitary confinement and the President didn't say anything then...
- pluma 11y ago
  But everybody knows it's okay to do bad things as long as you do them to evil people. And Manning is a traitor and thus obviously evil. /s
haberman 11y ago
It is so hard for me to imagine that socializing with hardened criminals (and being subject to violence at their hands) could be better for me psychologically than being alone. In some ways, that makes solitary even more scary to know that this is true.
- o0o0_ooo 11y ago
  It's not true. Most people in prison, even some murderers, are not as inhuman as you might believe.
  - haberman 11y ago
    I'm confused. "It's not true" -- you seem to be saying that solitary confinement is better/safer than normal prison life. But then you say that people in prison are not so bad. I don't think that people in prison are "inhuman", but I do think that they are "hard" in a way that would be extremely difficult for me as a very sensitive person. I think they'd have to be to get by in an environment like that. For example I can't watch Orange is the New Black -- it stresses me out.
  - tempestn 11y ago
    Both your statement and your parent's are probably true. Extended forced isolation is incredibly psychologically damaging. Likely more so than being forced to interact only with "hardened criminals".
  - mason240 11y ago
    Would want to share a cell with someone who has history of hurting or killing others?
    - vkou 11y ago
      Solitary confinement is not 'not having a cellmate'. Solitary confinement is being locked in a tiny concrete cell, with no bars, no windows, and no chance to speak with another human being. Indefinitely.
blfr 11y ago
Jimmy Carter 2.0: after decades in power, now he wants to rethink policy. Maybe tomorrow he will condemn extrajudicial executions? Or Guantanamo? And sky's the limit once he's out of office. It's one thing that politicians try this but why do people, even smart people, buy it?
- skj 11y ago
  Decades in power?
  - blfr 11y ago
    Obama has been holding various public offices since 1997, Carter between '63 and '80.
rogersmith 11y ago
"i order drone strikes on innocent civilians on a weekly basis but i think the way we treat criminals in the US is inhumane"
tempodox 11y ago
Will he be able to actually do something or will they all block each other so nothing changes? Won't the Tea Party find out that less solitary confinement will utterly destroy the U.S. and make it totally Un-American?
runarb 11y ago
The article has: 16-year-old named Kalief Browder from the Bronx was accused of stealing a backpack "stealing a backpack" doesn't sound so bad, but in the newyorker[0] ha is out on parole and "charged with robbery, grand larceny, and assault". Robbery and assault by someone out on parole are a fare way from stealing a backpack. I totally agree that the use of solitary confinement is probably to widely used and the story of Kalief Browder is sad, but after reading a bit more about it I feel a little bit tricked by this story. I wish the journalist cold better lay out the whole premises at the start, so I can easier make up my own opinion. 0: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law
DanielBMarkham 11y ago
I'm with the president on this. Sure wish he'd actually do something, though. As an example of what he could do, there are a few folks from both parties who share agreement that the prison system needs reform. It wouldn't have been too difficult to have co-wrote this piece with them. Heck, then at the end we could have read about the actual legislation sponsored, instead of him just hoping somebody, somewhere will send some to him. Perhaps this president has a different idea of his job than I do. He seems very interested in pretending to be outside the system, dispassionately analyzing it, announcing where we've all failed and where we might do better. This is a great skill for a candidate, and it'll probably serve him well after he leaves the job, but right now? Might be better to do less preaching and a little more compromising. Perhaps I'm being too tough on him. Don't know. Apologies if that's the case. I do note that observers from both parties have described him as being distant and disengaged. This reminds me of the question researchers asked many years ago. Doctor A comes in and takes his time with you, he's polite and interested. Doctor B is gruff and rushed, doing only as little as he thinks necessary to get the work done. Which is the better doctor? The answer is, of course, you don't know. Without seeing results, all you can really comment on is style. Ideally you'd want a doctor that had both technical and interpersonal competence. But without taking a hard look at what kinds of results occur, all a layman can do is comment on the stylistic nature of what they've observed. So it is here. This is a very-well written piece. My intent here is not to criticize the president or play politics, simply to point out that the tech community has a lot of issues we care about, no matter what our party is. And there are a ton of folks who can make a good case for one thing or another. It's important that we sort out folks who can make a great speech but get little done from those who might not be able to put seven words together -- and could actually implement the changes we have to have.
- MrZongle2 11y ago
  "Sure wish he'd actually do something, though." ...kind of sums up most of his presidency, doesn't it?
drinchev 11y ago
There is a guy that is in solitary confinement since 1983 [1]. I was shocked when I read about him. It's a fascinating story, nevertheless so shameful for the society. 23 hours a day in a room for more than 30 years. :( 1 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Silverstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Silverstein 2 : https://thomassilverstein.wordpress.com/ https://thomassilverstein.wordpress.com/
- emptybits 11y ago
  Thanks for the Thomas Silverstein fact. TIL. The "other side" does explain their rationale, valid or not: > "When an inmate kills a guard, he must be punished," a Bureau of Prisons official told author Pete Earley. "We can’t execute Silverstein, so we have no choice but to make his life a living hell. Otherwise other inmates will kill guards too. There has to be some supreme punishment. Every convict knows what Silverstein is going through. We want them to realize that if they cross the same line that he did, they will pay a heavy price." The solitary confinement practice needs a spotlight on it. A long-term "no human contact" order seems like torture. I'm glad Obama recognizes the risk of this in juveniles at least.
  - tveita 11y ago
    That sounds like a straightforward admission of cruel and unusual punishment. Is there any criterion the quote doesn't nail?
  - mason240 11y ago
    That seems like a very appropriate response to someone with a history of killing others.
    - pluma 11y ago
      They're not doing it to stop him from killing others. They're doing it to make him an example so others don't kill guards. The quote pretty much straight up says that it's an intentional cruel punishment to deter others from doing the same.
  - 11y ago
Pietertje 11y ago
The example he gives is heartbreaking, however the solution he poses is only treating, in this particular case, symptons of two other issues: Why does it take 2 years to stand trial for a petty crime? Why is the accused sent to prison while awaiting trial for a petty crime? Edit: added 'in this particular case'
- qrendel 11y ago
  I'm not familiar with this particular case, but there are people who get completely lost in the Rikers island prison system. This actually almost happened to me, though not at Rikers island: I was arrested under a false accusation of a crime I didn't commit, and while I was supposed to have been released after an hour, there was some mess up where they thought I'd already been released and so kept me in there for around an extra 12 hours. It only even got fixed that fast because my lawyer made a huge deal out of it. Now imagine the same thing happening, but without a good advocate on your side, in a much larger prison, and ongoing for years or decades instead of just half a day.
digi_owl 11y ago
The level of jingoism and lack of nuance and long term perspective in here is worrying.
S_A_P 11y ago
I see some good points and bad points in this article. I applaud the president for looking into an issue that is traditionally ignored by leaders in the US- the effects of our prison system on the population. I wish he hadnt stopped at solitary confinement. Our entire prison system and matrix of crime->sentencing needs to have a complete overhaul to remove the drug bias on sentences. Repeat violent offenders need to be kept off the streets. Drug users need help, not incarceration. I also wish he hadn't taken credit for reducing crime. I think that this has almost nothing to do with the president. Its very easy to cherry pick the statistics you like and claim responsibility. Would he also like to take responsibility for the continuing/increase in violence against citizens by the police? The violations of civil liberties? Anyway, I hope that this starts building momentum that we need to change our prison system. I think some of the policing issues will start to work themselves out as different socio economic groups see that cops aren't there to harass and arrest, and that drug users may be able to get help.
- coldpie 11y ago
  > I applaud the president for looking into an issue that is traditionally ignored by leaders in the US- the effects of our prison system on the population. I wish he hadnt stopped at solitary confinement. I agree. Criminal justice reform is a primary plank of Clinton's platform, and Sanders strongly supports the discussion as well. I don't think we've seen this kind of focus in recent memory. I think this is going to be a growing issue in coming years, as access to information about our justice system becomes more democratized due to things like cell phones and Internet literacy giving more avenues for spreading experiences and information to people who previously didn't have them.
- csallen 11y ago
  > Would he also like to take responsibility for the continuing/increase in violence against citizens by the police? Where can we find reliable stats that track police violence over time? Just curious.
mceoin 11y ago
Completely off topic, but I was surprised that this article has ads. Presumably WashPo cashed in nicely on this little spoke.
vox_mollis 11y ago
What we really need to rethink is imprisonment in general. The elimination of corporal punishment has led to this state of affairs. Nothing is more cruel and unusual than stealing a person's time. Whip wounds heal. And oftentimes, the violence experienced inside is worse than a whipping.
- xutopia 11y ago
  No... just no!!! Physical harm has lasting consequences on vulnerable people. Some people have anxiety lasting a lifetime because they were subjected to corporal punishment as a child!
  - saint_fiasco 11y ago
    To be fair, you should compare corporal punishment against imprisonment, not against nothing. Corporal punishments has long lasting consequences, but so does imprisonment.
mgleason_3 11y ago
Did anyone else notice the parts about 2 years for stealing a backpack or violence at the hands of the guards? Maybe solitary isn't the problem?
grandalf 11y ago
After nearly 8 years of drone strikes and escalation of many of Bush's worst human rights abuses, we get this kind of insulting and silly propaganda, intended to help create the impression that Obama was a humanitarian. We should all be insulted by this...

401 points by nols 11y ago

> As president, my most important job is to keep the American people safe The author, er, the President is incorrect. His most important job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. He says this constantly, and, politics aside, it is important for every American to remember what the actual duty of the President is, as affirmed when sworn into office. Side note: Why is this on HN?

akiselev 11y ago
Because according to the guidelines: 》 On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. (Emphasis mine) If it's on the front page, enough people have found it interesting and within the guidelines.
- ojbyrne 11y ago
  More concretely, The US Prison System is clearly broken and doing great harm. It's an obvious opportunity for making things better, which can lead to entrepreneurial opportunities.
  - lowmagnet 11y ago
    I don't know about that. Thus far, those "entrepreneurial opportunities" have lead toward more incarceration, not less. For-profit prisons have contracts that guarantee a certain level of incarceration, resulting in occupancy of the prisons they run. This is definitely one of those things that I'd much rather not be in the hands of entrepreneurial entities.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Here's a counterexample: https://pigeon.ly https://pigeon.ly They're focused on making it easier and cheaper to communicate with inmates, who often suffer from ridiculous price gouging for things like phone calls. It's pretty small potatoes compared to private prisons, but it's something.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - krapp 11y ago
    I suppose by definition, if someone finds a story interesting, that makes them a "good hacker."
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 11y ago
While I appreciate the point you're trying to make, I don't think it's accurate. You're quoting the Presidential Oath, which reads: > I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Note the order: first responsibility is to execute the office, the second is to protect the Constitution. The responsibilities of the Office of the President are laid out in Article II of the Constitution, starting with Section 2. The very first one is: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States[.]" It's not unreasonable for him to say his most important job is to keep America safe. Indeed, the historical evidence shows that one reason the Constitution created a strong executive (where the Articles of Confederation had no executive), is because the failure of the government under the Articles to quell certain internal rebellions.
- Steko 11y ago
  Just as relevant is the vesting clause that begins Article II: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America This executive power is the vehicle by which various acts of legislation which "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (I.8) take effect.
- laotzu 11y ago
  The founding fathers had a lot to say about a strong executive who is primarily interested in providing security as opposed to liberty and its inevitable corruption: >In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. -James Madison, Speech at Constitutional Convention, 1787 >A politic minister will study to lull us into security, by granting us the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt down the virtue, which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding. In a state of tranquillity, wealth and luxury, our descendants would forget the arts of war, and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of union which renders our assistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty which now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers will accelerate our ruin, and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among us!—remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead. Contemplate the mangled bodies of our countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices ? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood, and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude, than the animating contest of freedom—go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. -Samuel Adams, American Independence Speech, 1776
notdonspaulding 11y ago
I'd like to say I read that line in disbelief that the POTUS could so completely misunderstand his own role in our government, but at this point, I'm afraid I'm used to it. (For those not from the U.S.: The way it's supposed to work is that Congress makes the law, the President executes the law, the Court upholds the law)
- ggreer 11y ago
  From The American System and Misleading Labels[1]: > Brad Templeton, chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, was present; and he said: "The legal status of AIs is ultimately a legislative question, and in the American system of democracy, legislative questions are decided by the Supreme Court." > Much laughter followed. We all knew it was true. (And Brad has taken a case or two to the Supreme Court, so he was speaking from experience.) The whole post is worth reading. It's a little dated and a lot oversimplified, but it drives home a useful point: just because something is named X, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with X. 1. http://lesswrong.com/lw/mh/the_american_system_and_misleading_labels/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/mh/the_american_system_and_misleadin...
voynich61 11y ago
Your comment is pedantic. A school bus driver's job is to get kids from their homes to school and back. If she says her most important job is to keep the kids safe, it doesn't mean that she's not going to do her job! Instead, it means that she'll do her job in such a way that it keeps her safe, and in no way implies a conflict of interest between her job description and safety.
- jMyles 11y ago
  If that's so - and it may well be - then it is different in kind from this matter, where "safety" and liberty are, and have been, in conflict. The job of the POTUS has little do with safety, but much to do with liberty.
- notdonspaulding 11y ago
  The POTUS is using this "my job is to keep Americans safe" line to make a very tenuous tie to a position he wants to take on solitary confinement. Using your analogy, imagine the bus driver said "It's my job to keep the kids safe, therefore I'm going to start requiring all the kids to give me their cell phone numbers in case there's an emergency." Could that be construed as "keeping the kids safe"? Sure, but that wouldn't necessarily make you any more comfortable with the bus driver gaining more intimate access to your children. I know analogies are never perfect, but another nitpick with this one is that the POTUS holds a position of power and authority that you wouldn't typically have to worry about in your average bus driver, so additional scrutiny into "Just what did he mean by that?" is occasionally warranted.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - voynich61 11y ago
    Justifying the move as a step to keep America safe is the right move in this political context. America is generally fearful right now, so Obama's political adversaries will attack this move as eroding the safety the prison system attempts to maintain. "My job is to keep Americans safe" is an acceptable justification for limiting solitary confinement. It would not be an acceptable justification for extrajudicial killings.
r00fus 11y ago
I'd bet a good portion of the HN reader base has had an uncomfortable police encounter. Also the prospect of going to jail for hacking or whistleblowing crimes is pretty harrowing - look what happened to Aaron Swartz. Yeah, I'd say it's relevant to discuss here.
- username223 11y ago
  > I'd bet a good portion of the HN reader base has had an uncomfortable police encounter. Rich, white tech dudes? I doubt it. Even if they have, a bit of mouthing "sorry, Officer" probably solved the problem.
  - int_handler 11y ago
    Yeah, just saying, "sorry, Officer," obviously solved the problem for Aaron Swartz.
    - 1stop 11y ago
      Yeah, one privileged guy had problems and everyone remembers it forever... Isn't really comparable to the thousands of underpribileged who's lives are just as tragically ruined...
      - int_handler 11y ago
        Nobody is discounting the problem of police brutality for the thousands of underprivileged. Acknowledging that problem should not mean that we should simply ignore other forms judicial overreach, such as the abuse of the CFAA in Aaron Swartz's case. Both are major problems that need to be discussed. Keep in mind that another major reason people remember Aaron Swartz because of everything he has contributed to the world of technology [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Life_and_works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz#Life_and_works
        1stop 11y ago
galago 11y ago
Perhaps its a limitation of our form of democracy, but if voters think the presidents job 'is to keep the American people safe' and they vote in said direction--well, that's the de-facto job. If the president is comfortable outright saying that his effective job is not the one legally defined, that's kind-of a HN topic in itself.
jhancock 11y ago
The U.S. Constitution is structured in traditional contract form. It starts with stating its purpose (preamble) and continues with rules to support methods of execution of purpose. It is not unreasonable that a U.S. President may consider these recent statements as fitting to "...promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

ThomPete 11y ago

Coming from Denmark where life is max 16 years and where people rarely go to jail just because society does not know what else to do with you and then moving to the US, the justice system when it comes to petty crimes, always seemed very draconian and counter productive. For most people — just the mere notion of being in conflict with the law — is enough to send chills down their back. How sad that something that could have been used to actually function as a mild punishment ends up completely destroying a life and the potential of being part of society. In a hundred years from now people are going to look back at things like the war on drugs as one of the most barbaric, absurd and useless pieces of legislation ever to have been implemented. A war which ended up destroying more lifes than it saved. I for one applaud Obama for finally taking a stanse against this unnecessarily strict legislation and hoping that normal otherwise law abiding citizens wont get their lifes completely destroyed for things anyone could have done. I love the US but the legislation I could certainly do without.

CamperBob2 11y ago
In a hundred years from now people are going to look back at things like the war on drugs as one of the most barbaric, absurd and useless pieces of legislation ever to have been implemented. A war which ended up destroying more lifes than it saved. Here in the US, most of us think of Prohibition in exactly those terms.... but that didn't stop us from doing the exact same thing all over again and calling it good.
- Consultant32452 11y ago
  I hope history doesn't look at the war on drugs as having anything at all to do with drugs. It was all about having a way to lock up blacks and hippies for reasons that seemed legit on paper. Drugs were ancillary. Then of course it morphed into a for-profit industry and is the clusterfuck we have today.
  - shams93 11y ago
    Yup it started out as Richard Nixon's war on the counterculture, imagine if Steve Jobs had been taken out in the war on drugs we'd all be stuck using windows 10 at work instead of having nice macbook pros lol.

chishaku 11y ago

The story of Kalief Browder is heartbreaking. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-2015 http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/kalief-browder-1993-...

themartorana 11y ago
What a terrible story. And it's one of thousands of others that never get told. Just... You said it. Heartbreaking.

jMyles 11y ago

Far too little and probably too late. Come on Mr. President - you had the past 8 years to visit jails and prisons, to make sweeping changes to the Federal Prison System, and to push for legislation to seriously curtail solitary confinement, for children and adults alike, throughout the state systems. This may serve as a bit of notoriety on your legacy, for the position you take here will surely only gain traction and be looked upon as utterly obvious, but it does little to help those poor souls suffering needlessly and alone tonight.

pstuart 11y ago
True, but bear in mind that being "soft on crime" is something no politician wants to be accused of.
- wanderingstan 11y ago
  Bush Sr. used this to defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988, after an inmate committed a crime while on a furlough program Dukakis said could help rehabilitation. Republicans eagerly picked up the Horton issue after Dukakis clinched the nomination. In June 1988, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, said "By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton#Horton_in_the_1988_presidential_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton#Horton_in_the_19...
  - LordKano 11y ago
    Dukakis pretty much did everything wrong. He was opposed to the death penalty when the country was overwhelmingly for it. He talked about how civilians shouldn't be permitted to own guns. He was arguably soft on crime.
  - hellofunk 11y ago
    Dukakis also suffered a major character blow in the eyes of the public during one of the televised debates when he said he would not support death penality even if his wife had been murdered (or something along those lines). It was an awful question to ask, but his reply was seen as unemotional to the audience when he reiterated that he still would not support the death penalty. I often wonder what the U.S. would have been like had he been elected. In any case, the American public apparently had a similar notion, since they kicked out Bush Sr to elect a Democrat anyway, just 4 years later. But that moment in the debate is often held as the defining moment that crashed his chances to win. A little silly, I think, but that's politics.

IIAOPSW 11y ago

If I had to characterize Mr. Obama's administration, I'd say he all too often says exactly the right things (and maybe even believes them) but the implementations (if any) leave an endless amount to be desired. But this, like everything the last 8 years, will come out to little more than an eloquent WashPos article. Thanks Obama. Edit: TIL the president cannot pardon state level crimes. oops

chris11 11y ago
I'm not arguing that some of Obama's policy implementations are lacking. But it seems like people are expecting too much out of him. I think that solitary confinement is definitely unethical. But I also think the idea of mass pardons for prisoners if states don't reform solitary confinement would be political suicide. Republicans would be running ads saying that Obama wants violent criminals to be released because prison isn't comfortable enough. Democrats wouldn't support it. And I think it might sink the democratic party's chances in the presidential election. Sure there are more things that Obama could have done to solve specific problems. But I don't think some complaints would have been fixed under any president.
- LordKano 11y ago
  I also think the idea of mass pardons for prisoners if states don't reform solitary confinement would be political suicide. He's a lame duck with less than 1 year remaining in his term. His political career is over. He has already peaked.
  - chris11 11y ago
    I think it would also be political suicide for the democratic party, not just Obama.
x5n1 11y ago
Yes the drone strikes are often killing around 90% civilians, but please, lets not abuse the prisoners through solitary confinement, it's inhumane.
11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jqm 11y ago

Not only is the criminal justice system abusive (a problem itself) it plain isn't working. The thing is... there are some extremely bad people in the system who know the ins and outs and consider prison just another place to abuse others while being taken care of. We have too many laws. We spend to much time worrying about little stuff and not enough about big stuff. My personal opinion (I realize this is not likely to be a popular one) is that we need to stop locking people up for little things and return to public hanging for big things. Smoking crack might be stupid but is it really a crime? On the other hand someone brutally killing a child for fun doesn't deserve to even breathe our air. Something like this is beyond rehabilitation. It is broken. Put an end to it without delay and return the raw material to the earth. But don't monkey around with solitary confinement. It is inhumane and in my opinion probably more so than hanging.

tempestn 11y ago
I don't agree with capital punishment at all, for a number of reasons that I won't get into here, but I can at least see a reasonable case being made for it. But public hanging? In what way could that possibly be good for society? If regular capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent, I can't imagine that making it public would do much better. Although after seeing public hangings the will for capital punishment in general would probably drop sharply, so maybe that would be a benefit. Seriously though, the idea of public hangings is barbaric. I don't disagree with you as far as not locking people up for things like drug use though.
- jqm 11y ago
  And how is what we are doing now not barbaric? Which is actually more barbaric? It turns out people sometimes see the barbarism in others while missing their own. There is a reason public executions happened for so long (and still happen in vast swaths of the world). Partially to serve as warning and as a deterrent and maybe partially so society feels they are participating in punishment (or revenge if you prefer). Is it effective? I would assume to some extent. Maybe we need to revisit some of the concepts of public shame (ok..maybe old school hanging is a bit extreme.. but jut to throw ideas around) rather than hiding offenders behind bars at the hands of sadistic guards and fellow inmates in some grey bureaucracy. Which is my estimation not only doesn't really work but is even more barbaric.

busterarm 11y ago

Chelsea Manning very publicly spent 10 months in solitary confinement and the President didn't say anything then...

pluma 11y ago
But everybody knows it's okay to do bad things as long as you do them to evil people. And Manning is a traitor and thus obviously evil. /s

haberman 11y ago

It is so hard for me to imagine that socializing with hardened criminals (and being subject to violence at their hands) could be better for me psychologically than being alone. In some ways, that makes solitary even more scary to know that this is true.

o0o0_ooo 11y ago
It's not true. Most people in prison, even some murderers, are not as inhuman as you might believe.
- haberman 11y ago
  I'm confused. "It's not true" -- you seem to be saying that solitary confinement is better/safer than normal prison life. But then you say that people in prison are not so bad. I don't think that people in prison are "inhuman", but I do think that they are "hard" in a way that would be extremely difficult for me as a very sensitive person. I think they'd have to be to get by in an environment like that. For example I can't watch Orange is the New Black -- it stresses me out.
- tempestn 11y ago
  Both your statement and your parent's are probably true. Extended forced isolation is incredibly psychologically damaging. Likely more so than being forced to interact only with "hardened criminals".
- mason240 11y ago
  Would want to share a cell with someone who has history of hurting or killing others?
  - vkou 11y ago
    Solitary confinement is not 'not having a cellmate'. Solitary confinement is being locked in a tiny concrete cell, with no bars, no windows, and no chance to speak with another human being. Indefinitely.

blfr 11y ago

Jimmy Carter 2.0: after decades in power, now he wants to rethink policy. Maybe tomorrow he will condemn extrajudicial executions? Or Guantanamo? And sky's the limit once he's out of office. It's one thing that politicians try this but why do people, even smart people, buy it?

skj 11y ago
Decades in power?
- blfr 11y ago
  Obama has been holding various public offices since 1997, Carter between '63 and '80.

rogersmith 11y ago

"i order drone strikes on innocent civilians on a weekly basis but i think the way we treat criminals in the US is inhumane"

tempodox 11y ago

Will he be able to actually do something or will they all block each other so nothing changes? Won't the Tea Party find out that less solitary confinement will utterly destroy the U.S. and make it totally Un-American?

runarb 11y ago

The article has: 16-year-old named Kalief Browder from the Bronx was accused of stealing a backpack "stealing a backpack" doesn't sound so bad, but in the newyorker[0] ha is out on parole and "charged with robbery, grand larceny, and assault". Robbery and assault by someone out on parole are a fare way from stealing a backpack. I totally agree that the use of solitary confinement is probably to widely used and the story of Kalief Browder is sad, but after reading a bit more about it I feel a little bit tricked by this story. I wish the journalist cold better lay out the whole premises at the start, so I can easier make up my own opinion. 0: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law

DanielBMarkham 11y ago

I'm with the president on this. Sure wish he'd actually do something, though. As an example of what he could do, there are a few folks from both parties who share agreement that the prison system needs reform. It wouldn't have been too difficult to have co-wrote this piece with them. Heck, then at the end we could have read about the actual legislation sponsored, instead of him just hoping somebody, somewhere will send some to him. Perhaps this president has a different idea of his job than I do. He seems very interested in pretending to be outside the system, dispassionately analyzing it, announcing where we've all failed and where we might do better. This is a great skill for a candidate, and it'll probably serve him well after he leaves the job, but right now? Might be better to do less preaching and a little more compromising. Perhaps I'm being too tough on him. Don't know. Apologies if that's the case. I do note that observers from both parties have described him as being distant and disengaged. This reminds me of the question researchers asked many years ago. Doctor A comes in and takes his time with you, he's polite and interested. Doctor B is gruff and rushed, doing only as little as he thinks necessary to get the work done. Which is the better doctor? The answer is, of course, you don't know. Without seeing results, all you can really comment on is style. Ideally you'd want a doctor that had both technical and interpersonal competence. But without taking a hard look at what kinds of results occur, all a layman can do is comment on the stylistic nature of what they've observed. So it is here. This is a very-well written piece. My intent here is not to criticize the president or play politics, simply to point out that the tech community has a lot of issues we care about, no matter what our party is. And there are a ton of folks who can make a good case for one thing or another. It's important that we sort out folks who can make a great speech but get little done from those who might not be able to put seven words together -- and could actually implement the changes we have to have.

MrZongle2 11y ago
"Sure wish he'd actually do something, though." ...kind of sums up most of his presidency, doesn't it?

drinchev 11y ago

There is a guy that is in solitary confinement since 1983 [1]. I was shocked when I read about him. It's a fascinating story, nevertheless so shameful for the society. 23 hours a day in a room for more than 30 years. :( 1 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Silverstein https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Silverstein 2 : https://thomassilverstein.wordpress.com/ https://thomassilverstein.wordpress.com/

emptybits 11y ago
Thanks for the Thomas Silverstein fact. TIL. The "other side" does explain their rationale, valid or not: > "When an inmate kills a guard, he must be punished," a Bureau of Prisons official told author Pete Earley. "We can’t execute Silverstein, so we have no choice but to make his life a living hell. Otherwise other inmates will kill guards too. There has to be some supreme punishment. Every convict knows what Silverstein is going through. We want them to realize that if they cross the same line that he did, they will pay a heavy price." The solitary confinement practice needs a spotlight on it. A long-term "no human contact" order seems like torture. I'm glad Obama recognizes the risk of this in juveniles at least.
- tveita 11y ago
  That sounds like a straightforward admission of cruel and unusual punishment. Is there any criterion the quote doesn't nail?
- mason240 11y ago
  That seems like a very appropriate response to someone with a history of killing others.
  - pluma 11y ago
    They're not doing it to stop him from killing others. They're doing it to make him an example so others don't kill guards. The quote pretty much straight up says that it's an intentional cruel punishment to deter others from doing the same.
- 11y ago

Pietertje 11y ago

The example he gives is heartbreaking, however the solution he poses is only treating, in this particular case, symptons of two other issues: Why does it take 2 years to stand trial for a petty crime? Why is the accused sent to prison while awaiting trial for a petty crime? Edit: added 'in this particular case'

qrendel 11y ago
I'm not familiar with this particular case, but there are people who get completely lost in the Rikers island prison system. This actually almost happened to me, though not at Rikers island: I was arrested under a false accusation of a crime I didn't commit, and while I was supposed to have been released after an hour, there was some mess up where they thought I'd already been released and so kept me in there for around an extra 12 hours. It only even got fixed that fast because my lawyer made a huge deal out of it. Now imagine the same thing happening, but without a good advocate on your side, in a much larger prison, and ongoing for years or decades instead of just half a day.

digi_owl 11y ago

The level of jingoism and lack of nuance and long term perspective in here is worrying.

S_A_P 11y ago

I see some good points and bad points in this article. I applaud the president for looking into an issue that is traditionally ignored by leaders in the US- the effects of our prison system on the population. I wish he hadnt stopped at solitary confinement. Our entire prison system and matrix of crime->sentencing needs to have a complete overhaul to remove the drug bias on sentences. Repeat violent offenders need to be kept off the streets. Drug users need help, not incarceration. I also wish he hadn't taken credit for reducing crime. I think that this has almost nothing to do with the president. Its very easy to cherry pick the statistics you like and claim responsibility. Would he also like to take responsibility for the continuing/increase in violence against citizens by the police? The violations of civil liberties? Anyway, I hope that this starts building momentum that we need to change our prison system. I think some of the policing issues will start to work themselves out as different socio economic groups see that cops aren't there to harass and arrest, and that drug users may be able to get help.

coldpie 11y ago
> I applaud the president for looking into an issue that is traditionally ignored by leaders in the US- the effects of our prison system on the population. I wish he hadnt stopped at solitary confinement. I agree. Criminal justice reform is a primary plank of Clinton's platform, and Sanders strongly supports the discussion as well. I don't think we've seen this kind of focus in recent memory. I think this is going to be a growing issue in coming years, as access to information about our justice system becomes more democratized due to things like cell phones and Internet literacy giving more avenues for spreading experiences and information to people who previously didn't have them.
csallen 11y ago
> Would he also like to take responsibility for the continuing/increase in violence against citizens by the police? Where can we find reliable stats that track police violence over time? Just curious.

mceoin 11y ago

Completely off topic, but I was surprised that this article has ads. Presumably WashPo cashed in nicely on this little spoke.

vox_mollis 11y ago

What we really need to rethink is imprisonment in general. The elimination of corporal punishment has led to this state of affairs. Nothing is more cruel and unusual than stealing a person's time. Whip wounds heal. And oftentimes, the violence experienced inside is worse than a whipping.

xutopia 11y ago
No... just no!!! Physical harm has lasting consequences on vulnerable people. Some people have anxiety lasting a lifetime because they were subjected to corporal punishment as a child!
- saint_fiasco 11y ago
  To be fair, you should compare corporal punishment against imprisonment, not against nothing. Corporal punishments has long lasting consequences, but so does imprisonment.

mgleason_3 11y ago

Did anyone else notice the parts about 2 years for stealing a backpack or violence at the hands of the guards? Maybe solitary isn't the problem?

grandalf 11y ago

After nearly 8 years of drone strikes and escalation of many of Bush's worst human rights abuses, we get this kind of insulting and silly propaganda, intended to help create the impression that Obama was a humanitarian. We should all be insulted by this...