4 ms·
Actually, there are very few torture chambers in US prisons. So, I'm not sure "maximum pain" is an accurate assessment, or even a sane one. It's a tiresome st
by mynameishere 9y ago
Actually, there are very few torture chambers in US prisons. So, I'm not sure "maximum pain" is an accurate assessment, or even a sane one.
It's a tiresome strawman. Really.
You know what the real point of prison is--no matter the stated goal? It's not punishment or rehabilitation or karmic realignment or the state defusing vigilantism or profiteering or any of that. (Oh, they are elements to be sure...) But the real reason for prison is sequestration. That's it. Just taking the people most likely to be dangerous, based on their own actions, and minimizing future risk. It's not cruel or righteous, but strictly practical.
- delecti 9y ago> Actually, there are very few torture chambers in US prisons I suspect every prison in the US (or nearly so) imposes solitary confinement on inmates. In that regard, every prison has torture chambers, at least as considered by the Canadian judge whose ruling the article is about.
- ralmidani 9y agoPerhaps one reason there is no officially-sanctioned, physical torture chamber in the US (as far as we know, at least) is because even the most conservative interpretation of "cruel and unusual punishment" would prohibit such a chamber.
- AlexandrB 9y ago> But the real reason for prison is sequestration. That's it. Just taking the people most likely to be dangerous, based on their own actions, and minimizing future risk. This is completely at odds with the long sentences meted out for possession of small quantities of drugs in the United States. Whom, exactly, are pot users dangerous to? How is paying to keep them in prison for 10+ years in any way practical?