6 ms·

> the federal government and about half of the states in the country began restricting their use of solitary. These efforts gained bipartisan support for econom

> the federal government and about half of the states in the country began restricting their use of solitary. These efforts gained bipartisan support for economical, not compassionate, reasons 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!

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Broken_Hippo 10y ago
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.
- richmarr 10y ago
  > 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.
  - Senderman 10y ago
    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.
    - samirillian 10y ago
      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.
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    That bit has always surprised me - not just in the prison systems, but things like a safety net and healthcare for the poor.
    - gdwatson 10y ago
      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.
  - maxxxxx 10y ago
- ekianjo 10y ago
  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?
  - jake314159 10y ago
    Shouldn't someone with serious mental problems be in a hospital not a prison?
    - praptak 10y ago
      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.
      - soundwave106 10y ago
        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-per-inmate-is-nearly-168000-study-says.html 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 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/deinstitutionalization-and-the-criminal-justice-system-an-unfortunate-correlation/ https://thesocietypages.org/sociologylens/2012/07/03/deinsti...).
        gozur88 10y ago
        >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 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.
IsaacL 10y ago
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?
- jamescostian 10y ago
  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
- mfringel 10y ago
  Will the perpetrator's suffering make the victim un-robbed?
  - p1esk 10y ago
    It might make some victims feel better, which can be considered a form of a moral compensation.
    - mfringel 10y ago
      It might.... under what circumstances? some victims.... which ones? can be considered.... by who?
      - p1esk 10y ago
        Well, I would've certainly felt better knowing that the guy who robbed me got punished.
peteretep 10y ago
I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but: > Do these people not think > about how cruel solitary > confinement is? If it was effective, and its use wasn't at a guard's whim, I wouldn't really care. But it's not effective, and there doesn't appear to be proper oversight, and that's what upsets me.
- cooper12 10y ago
  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.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    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.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    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.
SilasX 10y ago
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"?
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
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.
slavik81 10y ago
> 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.
- gozur88 10y ago
  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.
yeahsurebut888 10y ago
Personally, I see it as "the most telling line how the people let the Government behave." Speaking up peacefully does work; SOPA was halted by coordinated effort. But we spent our days coordinating around the economic activity dictated to us by the "wise old masters of commerce" instead. You don't want them behaving like that? Don't let them.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Broken_Hippo 10y ago

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.

richmarr 10y ago
> 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.
- Senderman 10y ago
  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.
  - samirillian 10y ago
    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.
- Broken_Hippo 10y ago
  That bit has always surprised me - not just in the prison systems, but things like a safety net and healthcare for the poor.
  - gdwatson 10y ago
    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.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
ekianjo 10y ago
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?
- jake314159 10y ago
  Shouldn't someone with serious mental problems be in a hospital not a prison?
  - praptak 10y ago
    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.
    - soundwave106 10y ago
      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-per-inmate-is-nearly-168000-study-says.html 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 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/deinstitutionalization-and-the-criminal-justice-system-an-unfortunate-correlation/ https://thesocietypages.org/sociologylens/2012/07/03/deinsti...).
      - gozur88 10y ago
        >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 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.

IsaacL 10y ago

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?

jamescostian 10y ago
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
mfringel 10y ago
Will the perpetrator's suffering make the victim un-robbed?
- p1esk 10y ago
  It might make some victims feel better, which can be considered a form of a moral compensation.
  - mfringel 10y ago
    It might.... under what circumstances? some victims.... which ones? can be considered.... by who?
    - p1esk 10y ago
      Well, I would've certainly felt better knowing that the guy who robbed me got punished.

peteretep 10y ago

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, but: > Do these people not think > about how cruel solitary > confinement is? If it was effective, and its use wasn't at a guard's whim, I wouldn't really care. But it's not effective, and there doesn't appear to be proper oversight, and that's what upsets me.

cooper12 10y ago
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.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  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.
- peteretep 10y ago
  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.

SilasX 10y ago

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"?

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

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.

slavik81 10y ago

> 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.

gozur88 10y ago
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.

yeahsurebut888 10y ago

Personally, I see it as "the most telling line how the people let the Government behave." Speaking up peacefully does work; SOPA was halted by coordinated effort. But we spent our days coordinating around the economic activity dictated to us by the "wise old masters of commerce" instead. You don't want them behaving like that? Don't let them.