5 ms·

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 interv

by 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.

by borski 2y ago

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.