6 ms·

I think it's wrong to use solitary as an extra (and extra-judicial) punishment. Prisons should need a strong medical/safety justification for putting prisoners

• namuol 2y ago
  The story here is that a criminal that stole billions is staging a prison escape through an openly corrupt political administration and their subservient media apparatus.
• borski 2y ago
  You’re right. But in this case SBF engaged in an external interview, without permission, over a link normally reserved for access to attorneys. When the interview came out, it’s safe to assume the prison had no idea how it happened. He was in solitary for 24 hours, possibly so they could ensure there were no smartphones or anything else. It also may have been just to punish him. But there’s at least one reasonable reason, given that it was only 24 hours.
  • almostgotcaught 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • aaomidi 2y ago
      Also like, why should prisoners need to ask permission before they give interviews? That seems like a super easy way to create an abusive situation? Also, yeah, anyone thinking 24 hours in solitary is no big deal -- spend a weekend trying it for yourself. Look up the conditions, and mimic it to the best of your ability and see how it goes.
      • southernplaces7 2y ago
        While I think prolonged solitary confinement is genuinely harsh punishment, i'm ambivalent about banning it, because there really are prisoners who will take advantage of any weakness in communications control to wreak serious havoc in the outside world, and they can be incredibly ingenious about it unless totally locked down. Also, as someone who has spent more than 24 hours in solitary confinement, I can say that doing it for a full day is pretty mild. You contemplate, use the toilet as needed, eat what's given to you, sleep and the time passes pretty quickly unless you're also being abused in some other way such as temperature extremes or having your clothes removed (I've had to deal with both and they make even brief solitary much worse) Doing it for long stretches is a different story of course, but a day or two without "special" and basically abusive measures as mentioned above is very mild unless you have one very pathological aversion to any solitude. Claustrophobia could be a factor too but since prison is a confined place either way, it never fully stops applying (though Solitary cells are more claustrophobic than prison living outside of full lockdown.)
        • card_zero 2y ago
          Do you get a TV, or pencil and paper, or books?
          • Apocryphon 2y ago
            Maybe it could be a day to catch up on sleep.
          • aaomidi 2y ago
            In some you get absolutely nothing. Either in darkness or in full brightness. Padded room too, just in case.
          • southernplaces7 2y ago
            Mine was a really brief stay in there, but no, no TV pencil, books or anything except the austere space, a blanket and a couple very simple preheated meals a day.
    • tylersmith 2y ago
      For many people, Sam is a more relevant adversary than the Department of Corrections.
      • almostgotcaught 2y ago
        Let's weigh the threats here 1. A disgraced crypto bro trying to throw a hail mary to get out of prison 2. An authoritarian state growing by leaps and bounds daily Again as a rational person, which of these two is more serious and therefore warranting action (even at the level of constructing good faith interpretations)?
        • ehutch79 2y ago
          Is he in jail for being disgraced? I'm confused there, I thought it was for massive amounts of fraud and money laundering?
          • almostgotcaught 2y ago
            > I'm confused there I am not relitigating his conviction here. I am assessing the relative threat were he to succeed and be pardoned. Simple.
            • bad_haircut72 2y ago
              If one more billionaire escapes legal justice this decade, the relative threat might just be a prolitariat revolution.
            • Apocryphon 2y ago
              Adam Neumann has a new co-working play now, we are at the point where investors probably would throw money at SBF were he released.
        • anomaloustho 2y ago
          Yeah, I thought the reason he was in jail was because he aired ads and sponsored arenas trying to convince folks to put money into his seemingly legitimate platform that he was actually using as his personal bank account.
    • borski 2y ago
      I did not work hard to find that interpretation. It was literally the first one that came to mind, because I am not a cynic.
      • almostgotcaught 2y ago
        > I am not a cynic Cynicism is about people with agency. Saying you're not a cynic about the actions of an organization/institution with no agency/sentience is completely nonsensical. Edit: I've been rate limited; to the person below: > So, to be clear, I do not believe all prison guards and staff Do you believe his confinement was decided by one guard (selflessly)? Do I need to explain to you how organizations with rules/processes/guidelines function? Edit 2: > Absent that evidence, your assumption of malice is unfounded, even if in general the prison system is corrupt and/or awful Besides the clear contradiction here (at least from a Bayesian perspective), I think you are either unaware that (or do not understand why) "innocent until proven guilty" of individuals is explicitly codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not the "Universal Declaration of Corporate Rights"). Edit 3: > Prisoners convicted of a crime in a court of law no longer have the presumption of innocence for that crime, by definition. Moreover, they lose many other rights, due to the fact that they are prisoners, and not general civilians. You are accusing him of a new crime. Prisoners are still afforded their constitutional rights. > I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but I implore you to read what I’m saying and not what you think I’m saying. I have already made my point at the beginning of this thread: you are doing an inordinant amount of free intellectual labor justifying the actions of an authoritarian institution.
        • borski 2y ago
          Cynic, noun 1. a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. So, to be clear, I do not believe all prison guards and staff are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. Others do believe that.
          • throwawaymaths 2y ago
    • scoofy 2y ago
      The concept of rule of law, and it's benefits to society, are lost on many.
      • almostgotcaught 2y ago
        Deeply deeply deeply ironic comment given how many laws the same executive (the one responsible for the penitentiaries) has broken in the last month and a half.
        • borski 2y ago
          Actually, not as much as you think. That the rule of law isn’t being followed is a real problem and is why so many citizens of the US find what’s happening right now immensely concerning and troubling. It’s precisely the desire for the rule of law that make it so unsettling right now.
    • croes 2y ago
      Prisons core function is to be authoritarian.
      • xedrac 2y ago
        I was impressed with the El Salvador prisons. All of the prisoners are given incentive to shorten their sentences by working in various production operations, like sewing clothing, farming food, etc... they have classes to teach them various skills, but they also work a lot of hours to contribute back to society. For those who believe prison should be unattractive, it definitely still is. For those who believe inmates should be rehabilitated, they are learning to contribute to society while gaining valuable skills. Seems like a win win to me.
        • croes 2y ago
          US prisons have two tasks: Slave workers Punishment That’s implicitly authoritarian. Many other countries try reparation and resocialization
        • lo_zamoyski 2y ago
          Generally speaking, punishment has three purposes, namely, retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. Not all three must be realized in each case for a punishment to be valid, but all three are nonetheless in play. We do a poor job in this respect. We seem incapable of integrating all three. So you have people who get irrationally squeamish about retribution, demonstrating a total lack of understanding and appreciation of the severity of crimes and of the nature and demands of justice. False compassion abounds. Some people cannot distinguish between chattel slavery and debt slavery (where in the latter case, this would mean penal labor, something that can have the benefit of both providing value to the society wronged to whom the perp is indebted and in punishing the perp). You have people who express hatred for the guilty under the pretense of justice, caring nothing for their rehabilitation. You have those who claim that the prospect of punishment doesn't deter crime, which is patently absurd. The justice system should most definitely punish criminals prudently in proportion with the crime, but it should also provide means of correcting the person and leading them away from a criminal life. Learning skills could be a part, even if not exhaustive, of such a rehabilitation, whether they ever leave prison or not.
    • intermerda 2y ago
      > Ask any attorney: the relationship with the state is adversarial; the state is not your friend in matters of jurisprudence, it is your adversary. What kind of person gives the benefit of the doubt to their adversary? No rational person for sure. Conclusion: you either are the state (represent the state) or you're irrational. Huh? If a someone commits unspeakable crimes against a loved one of yours and the state is mounting a case against that person, you'd view it as an adversary?
      • mathisfun1234 2y ago
        [dead]
      • nickburns 2y ago
        Yes. And one that's also an adversary of another adversary and therefore, as some have observed, a friend in this limited context, too.
    • sieabahlpark 2y ago
      Being rate limited sucks huh. You spoke wrong think and the egotistical "empathizers" have deemed your comment insensitive. This site has had a void of actual discussion for a while. You can't disagree too hard.
      • DonHopkins 2y ago
        [flagged]
        • sieabahlpark 2y ago
          [dead]
  • fallingknife 2y ago
    This seems extremely authoritarian. Obviously prisoners lose many rights due to their conviction, but I see no reason that freedom of speech or of the press should be among them. Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor or otherwise in furtherance of some crime, I think a prisoner should be able to speak with whoever he wishes.
    • croes 2y ago
      > Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor or otherwise in furtherance of some crime Isn’t that the reason you need permission in the first place?
    • sumeno 2y ago
      > Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor or otherwise in furtherance of some crime He did this constantly leading up to the trial, at some point you lose the benefit of the doubt
      • fallingknife 2y ago
        I think think you are correct here to a point. If you want to say SBF has lost the benefit of the doubt and is never allowed to engage in business related to crypto or to communicate with the former management of FTX I think that's reasonable. I also think it's reasonable to say that as a convicted criminal in prison the level of suspicion is so high that all your communication with anyone (except lawyers) can be monitored without additional due process. But going from that to "you can't communicate with anyone at all unless we say so" is a step too far.
        • sumeno 2y ago
          How do you tell if he's talking to co-conspirators and doing more crimes or not unless you are monitoring who he is talking to?
    • SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
      This was absolutely in furtherance of his crimes. A Tucker Carlson interview was item 3 on the list he kept of ideas for how to get away with it.
  • jancsika 2y ago
    What does your response have to do with the medical needs/safety of SBF or the other inmates? I don't see the connection.
    • borski 2y ago
      The safety and needs of a prisoner are not the only concerns. The safety and needs of the victims and public are also a concern. Moreover, if there was a breach of security (which is at least close to the definition of what happened), temporarily securing the prisoner in a separate location to assess what happened and how it happened doesn’t immediately strike me as unreasonable. I would prefer, of course, that it wasn’t solitary.
      • jancsika 2y ago
        > The safety and needs of a prisoner are not the only concerns. The only ethical stance I've ever heard for torturing someone is the "ticking time bomb" scenario popularized during George W. Bush's administration. (I disagree with that ethical stance, but that's beside the point.) In your scenario the bomb isn't ticking. Nor is there even a bomb-- only a breach of security with an undefined relationship to safety and needs of people who aren't in any immediate danger. Read the Senate Report on Torture for an in-depth analysis of the problems with that ethical stance.
        • borski 2y ago
          If, for example, someone convicted of sexual assault decides to give an interview without permission, and proceeds to reiterate the details of the crime, that would undoubtedly harm the victim of their crimes. That is what I meant by the safety and needs of a prisoner not being the only concerns. SBF didn't sexually assault anybody, but the rules exist for such reasons, and SBF breaking those rules surreptitiously doesn't make it okay. The first concern, I imagine, was "how the fuck did that happen?" which meant assessing the damage. Should he have been thrown in solitary for 24 hours? Probably not, but should he have been isolated from his room and other prisoners for 24 hours? Probably, while they assessed what had happened and how. If he had snuck contraband in (a smartphone), then that would have been, for example, a real safety issue, since smuggling in contraband doesn't end at cell phones, and the pathway doesn't change. Initially, it was not clear how it occurred. That's all I'm saying. I know the slippery slope argument, and I agree with it, and I have previously read the Senate Report on Torture, and do not disagree.
  • kelnos 2y ago
    Nah, solitary is nearly always punitive. Other justifications don't really hold water. Solitary confinement is torture, plain and simple. I'm not a fan of SBF, but no one should have to endure it, even just for 24 hours.
    • borski 2y ago
      “Solitary confinement may only be imposed in exceptional circumstances, and "prolonged" solitary confinement of more than 15 consecutive days is regarded as a form of torture.” https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/02/united-states-prolonged-solitary-confinement-amounts-psychological-torture https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/02/united-state... I cannot find a single reputable source that states solitary confinement for a total of 24 hours is torture.
      • ty6853 2y ago
        I'd argue jail itself is a form of torture. It's quite barbaric and shocking we do it for anything beyond violent crime.
      • chneu 2y ago
        "5 seconds of water bordering isn't torture, but 30 seconds is." "5 seconds of 110v shocks isn't torture, but 30 seconds is." Solitary is absolutely torture no matter the duration. The duration threshold for "torture" is relative in this case so someone could consider it "torture" after just a few minutes.
• Teever 2y ago
  I broadly agree with this but it raises a bigger question -- how do you punish someone who is already in a process of punishment? That's an especially important question when someone is going through a very long punishment process, like what does another life sentence mean to someone who has a life sentence? You can't execute someone twice, right? If someone breaks a very important rule in prison there needs to be some way to put an immediate stop to that behaviour and to disincentivize them from doing it again and in a situation like this is seems like solitary confinement is the most effective way to do that.
  • pjot 2y ago
    Maybe leading with a stick instead of a carrot isn’t the right approach?
    • ethbr1 2y ago
      It's hard to carrot already-wealthy prisoners. For average folks, sure.
      • pjot 2y ago
        I don’t know, I feel like there is much more room for positive incentives than negative. Prisons put people on a pretty level playing field. Like, the well behaved could be served pork chops and peas instead of slop and mush.
        • fitblipper 2y ago
          Have you ever experienced prison yourself or through someone close? Prisons don't put people on a level playing field at all. It is significantly more comfortable to be rich in prison than poor in prison.
          • deleted 2y ago
            [deleted]
  • 2y ago
• viccis 2y ago
  If SBF was able to get a smuggled phone, as the article speculates, to do an unauthorized interview, then he is clearly using his connections to sidestep aspects of his incarceration. Putting him in solitary is an appropriate way to cut him off from engaging in further such corruption, and it should be repeated for any further violations. The only problem here is that it took this long for them to identify that he had the ability to do things like this. Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same manner as any other citizen.
  • missedthecue 2y ago
    If they accuse him of having a phone they should probably find it before punishing him
    • dullcrisp 2y ago
      You think Tucker fabricated the interview using AI?
      • CamperBob2 2y ago
        Tucker Carlson went to court to argue that no reasonable person would believe what he says on the air. [1] Yet American conservatives hang on his every word. So it doesn't much matter whether the interview was fabricated, edited, or otherwise fraudulent. It was aired to lay the groundwork for a pardon. Look for SBF to receive a pardon from Trump in the future (cf. Ross Ulbricht.) 1: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-carlson-successfully-argues-nobody-really-believes-tucker-carlson-is-reporting-facts/ https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-...
        • Maxatar 2y ago
          In reading the actual judgement that's not the case: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/McDougal-Opinion.pdf https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Mc... Tucker Carlson is specifically cited as maintaining that he spoke the truth on page 5. Rather it's Fox News that argues that Tucker Carlson was stating an opinion with hyperbole for effect: "Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect... This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.”" At any rate, the case is a lot more complex than just one guy claiming no one believes anything he says. Using it to justify the possibility that the interview by Tucker Carlson was not with the actual Sam Bankman-Fried by with a potential imposter or AI is absolute bonkers.
• kolbe 2y ago
  What would you suggest to solve the problem solitary is aiming to solve? Chesterton's Fence was built for a reason. Solitary isn't torturous in the traditional sense of the word. It is consistent with the idea of prison--it's just a worse version of prison. It acts to disincentivize rule breaking within the system. What other ways can we attack this problem with high enough confidence that removing the proverbial "fence" will not result in a total disaster.
  • brunoqc 2y ago
    > Solitary isn't torturous in the traditional sense of the word. I think it might actually be. It can break people.
    • Matthyze 2y ago
      It is. Psychological torture is torture.
    • kolbe 2y ago
      "It can break people" can be said about all sorts of common things in society.
  • kelnos 2y ago
    > Solitary isn't torturous in the traditional sense of the word. "Traditional" is irrelevant; psychological torture is just as much torture as physical torture is.
• cm2187 2y ago
  So what are you suggesting to handle misbehaving inmates? A strongly worded memo?
  • paganel 2y ago
    They’re already in prison, applying extra pain with no trial or anything like that is not very civilized, to the contrary.
  • bobbylarrybobby 2y ago
    A simple middle ground would be confinement to your cell with a book or two, but still in the presence of people. You'd take your meals there, not in the cafeteria. You wouldn't get to hang out with people or go outside. The jail equivalent of a time out. Not fun, probably boring, but not literal psychological torture.
    • nabeards 2y ago
      Prison already is psychological torture.
      • euroderf 2y ago
        Perhaps not in (for example) the Nordic model. But in some primitive countries, methods to mentally and emotionally torture prisoners seem to have become some sort of art form.
  • timbit42 2y ago
    Ban visitors?
• GaggiX 2y ago
  >which is torturous for many people. That's why it's used as a punishment.
• pedalpete 2y ago
  I'd agree if he were in solitary for an extended period of time, but is 24 hours really that torturous?
  • kelnos 2y ago
    Have you ever sat in a small room, by yourself, with nothing to do, for 24 hours? It's no picnic. But regardless, what length of time do you think is needed before it could be termed torture? And whatever your answer is, I hope you'd agree that opinions might differ on what that length of time is.
    • pedalpete 2y ago
      I absolutely agree the length of time and opinions might differ. He's in prison, it's not supposed to be a picnic. It's also not supposed to be torture. But 24 hours, strikes me as an adult "time-out". He'll be asleep for 8 or more hours of that - more because he's bored, what else is he going to do.