7 ms·

How is 4 CONSECUTIVE years of solitary isolation not "cruel and unusual"? I'm not asking rhetorically, or to start some kind of debate or discussion about the s

How is 4 CONSECUTIVE years of solitary isolation not "cruel and unusual"? I'm not asking rhetorically, or to start some kind of debate or discussion about the state of incarceration in the US. I am literally asking on what legal basis those who have fought such things (I assume that they have) have lost those cases.

kelnos 6y ago
A quick DDG search turned up a long list of SCOTUS decisions related to this, which might be interesting: https://solitarywatch.org/resources/u-s-supreme-court-cases/ https://solitarywatch.org/resources/u-s-supreme-court-cases/
momento 6y ago
It's honestly unconscionable.
- kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 6y ago
  Nah there are definitely people who deserve it. If everyone really wants to get rid of the death penalty at least keep this. People like child rapists, mass shooters, etc all deserve lifetime solitary confinement.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    No. Nobody deserves this.
    - postalrat 6y ago
      Should they be given the option of death? Or be provided a confined but comfortable place to live?
  - the_snooze 6y ago
    There are indeed people who should be kept safely away from the public. But what you're supporting is just pointless cruelty.
    - kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 6y ago
      Mass shootings and child rape are pointless cruelty.
      - airstrike 6y ago
        And those actions are certainly below the standard we'd like to hold ourselves to.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - simonh 6y ago
    I understand the impulse, some crimes are so horrific it gets your blood up, but for me it's not about them, it's about us. I don't want to live in a vengeful, vindictive or cruel society and I don't want anyone doing those things on my behalf. I'm a pragmatist, some killings are essentially unavoidable, as in war. Violence needs to be an option, but I don't think it should be used unnecessarily or to satisfy base urges. Not in my name anyway. These people should serve the sentence they were given according to due process, and this does not seem to be consistent with the intended penalty. On a personal note an acquaintance of mine served several years for a sentence for which he was later fully exonerated. It was a thoroughly awful travesty of justice. He also underwent appalling abuses as the alleged crime for which he was convicted was sexual in nature. No system is perfect and there will probably always be mistakes made, so lets at least make sure the consequences of such mistakes don't burden our consciences any more than they need to.
    - jariel 6y ago
      "I don't want to live in a vengeful, vindictive or cruel society and I don't want anyone doing those things on my behalf. " It's not Vengeance if it's Justice. What we could try to do is focus much harder on making sure that actual justice is carried out, not arbitrary things or mistakes.
      - simonh 6y ago
        I think enhanced and cruel punishments imposed as a result of institutional failures, that have nothing to do with the crime or proscribed punishment, isn't justice either. Enormous resources are expended attempting to ensure fair trials and the system still fails regularly and often. Fixing one part of the system shouldn't dependent on fixing an unrelated part, we should I think try to do both.
      - skinnymuch 6y ago
        I asked the other person. If it’s cheaper or same price to keep someone mostly isolated with decent accommodations including proper bed, clothing, fresh air, computer/tablet, radio, computer, [limited] tv and internet usage. Would you be fine with that? They still have to be alone. Justice is still being served. No sane person would want that life.
  - skinnymuch 6y ago
    What if it’s cheaper to keep these people safely isolated most of the time, but they have a cozy small place with some [limited] tv, radio, computer/tablet + internet access. You still achieve what you want. Unless you want to be cruel for the sake of it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tyingq 6y ago
I agree, though it's not even near the upper end. Federal SuperMAX includes the possibility of lifetime solitary. Or individually shitty state prisons. 43 years of consecutive solitary in Louisiana: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/albert-woodfox-free-louisiana-usa-after-43-years-solitary-confinement-us https://www.amnesty.org.uk/albert-woodfox-free-louisiana-usa...
pje 6y ago
Solitary confinement for longer than fifteen days is literally torture as defined by the U.N.
- mod 6y ago
  I got a lot of torture during quarantine. And... by choice, pretty frequently. Using that definition muddies the definition a lot. 4 years is definitely cruel and unusual imo. 15 days is whatever. I just think they should have soft things and light etc in their cell if we're going to continue using that. A comfortable place.
  - clcaev 6y ago
    You were not confined. At any time you were free to leave what ever constraints you placed on yourself. Moreover, your place of self-isolation was not deliberately stripped of sensory opportunities.
  - andrepd 6y ago
    Did you stay in a dark, cramped, windowless room for months? It's pretty insulting to think that lockdown is anywhere near being stuck in a 2m x 2m space for months...
  - skinnymuch 6y ago
    Holy moly. I hope this is some dry jesting. Comparing living freely in a home of some kind. Even a car. Comparing it to solitary confinement is so wrong. I thought at first you were mocking everyone acting like stay in orders were any thing like solitary confinement. But your last paragraph throws that notion off.
klyrs 6y ago
It's not "unusual" if they're doing it to huge numbers of inmates? Sorry, that's a bit cynical. But if somebody can take a serious look at pretty much any aspect of the american criminal justice system and not come away cynical and jaded, I want whatever drugs they're taking.
sandworm101 6y ago
There is worse. Take a solitary cell meant for one. Then put two people in it. This is normal in many US facilities. Same 24/7 lockdown but at least it isn't "solitary". In truth, it is worse.

kelnos 6y ago

A quick DDG search turned up a long list of SCOTUS decisions related to this, which might be interesting: https://solitarywatch.org/resources/u-s-supreme-court-cases/ https://solitarywatch.org/resources/u-s-supreme-court-cases/

momento 6y ago

It's honestly unconscionable.

kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 6y ago
Nah there are definitely people who deserve it. If everyone really wants to get rid of the death penalty at least keep this. People like child rapists, mass shooters, etc all deserve lifetime solitary confinement.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  No. Nobody deserves this.
  - postalrat 6y ago
    Should they be given the option of death? Or be provided a confined but comfortable place to live?
- the_snooze 6y ago
  There are indeed people who should be kept safely away from the public. But what you're supporting is just pointless cruelty.
  - kjjjjjjjjjjjjjj 6y ago
    Mass shootings and child rape are pointless cruelty.
    - airstrike 6y ago
      And those actions are certainly below the standard we'd like to hold ourselves to.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- simonh 6y ago
  I understand the impulse, some crimes are so horrific it gets your blood up, but for me it's not about them, it's about us. I don't want to live in a vengeful, vindictive or cruel society and I don't want anyone doing those things on my behalf. I'm a pragmatist, some killings are essentially unavoidable, as in war. Violence needs to be an option, but I don't think it should be used unnecessarily or to satisfy base urges. Not in my name anyway. These people should serve the sentence they were given according to due process, and this does not seem to be consistent with the intended penalty. On a personal note an acquaintance of mine served several years for a sentence for which he was later fully exonerated. It was a thoroughly awful travesty of justice. He also underwent appalling abuses as the alleged crime for which he was convicted was sexual in nature. No system is perfect and there will probably always be mistakes made, so lets at least make sure the consequences of such mistakes don't burden our consciences any more than they need to.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "I don't want to live in a vengeful, vindictive or cruel society and I don't want anyone doing those things on my behalf. " It's not Vengeance if it's Justice. What we could try to do is focus much harder on making sure that actual justice is carried out, not arbitrary things or mistakes.
    - simonh 6y ago
      I think enhanced and cruel punishments imposed as a result of institutional failures, that have nothing to do with the crime or proscribed punishment, isn't justice either. Enormous resources are expended attempting to ensure fair trials and the system still fails regularly and often. Fixing one part of the system shouldn't dependent on fixing an unrelated part, we should I think try to do both.
    - skinnymuch 6y ago
      I asked the other person. If it’s cheaper or same price to keep someone mostly isolated with decent accommodations including proper bed, clothing, fresh air, computer/tablet, radio, computer, [limited] tv and internet usage. Would you be fine with that? They still have to be alone. Justice is still being served. No sane person would want that life.
- skinnymuch 6y ago
  What if it’s cheaper to keep these people safely isolated most of the time, but they have a cozy small place with some [limited] tv, radio, computer/tablet + internet access. You still achieve what you want. Unless you want to be cruel for the sake of it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tyingq 6y ago

I agree, though it's not even near the upper end. Federal SuperMAX includes the possibility of lifetime solitary. Or individually shitty state prisons. 43 years of consecutive solitary in Louisiana: https://www.amnesty.org.uk/albert-woodfox-free-louisiana-usa-after-43-years-solitary-confinement-us https://www.amnesty.org.uk/albert-woodfox-free-louisiana-usa...

pje 6y ago

Solitary confinement for longer than fifteen days is literally torture as defined by the U.N.

mod 6y ago
I got a lot of torture during quarantine. And... by choice, pretty frequently. Using that definition muddies the definition a lot. 4 years is definitely cruel and unusual imo. 15 days is whatever. I just think they should have soft things and light etc in their cell if we're going to continue using that. A comfortable place.
- clcaev 6y ago
  You were not confined. At any time you were free to leave what ever constraints you placed on yourself. Moreover, your place of self-isolation was not deliberately stripped of sensory opportunities.
- andrepd 6y ago
  Did you stay in a dark, cramped, windowless room for months? It's pretty insulting to think that lockdown is anywhere near being stuck in a 2m x 2m space for months...
- skinnymuch 6y ago
  Holy moly. I hope this is some dry jesting. Comparing living freely in a home of some kind. Even a car. Comparing it to solitary confinement is so wrong. I thought at first you were mocking everyone acting like stay in orders were any thing like solitary confinement. But your last paragraph throws that notion off.

klyrs 6y ago

It's not "unusual" if they're doing it to huge numbers of inmates? Sorry, that's a bit cynical. But if somebody can take a serious look at pretty much any aspect of the american criminal justice system and not come away cynical and jaded, I want whatever drugs they're taking.

sandworm101 6y ago

There is worse. Take a solitary cell meant for one. Then put two people in it. This is normal in many US facilities. Same 24/7 lockdown but at least it isn't "solitary". In truth, it is worse.