5 ms·

It's not a widely held belief, but I found this article convincing. Yes, a leftist rag. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande ht

It's not a widely held belief, but I found this article convincing. Yes, a leftist rag. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_... I think most people don't think it's torture simply because they don't really know what it's like, haven't experienced it, can't readily imagine why it would be painful, etc.

pekk 13y ago
Is anything that someone really hates and doesn't want torture just because it's incredibly awful?
- rayiner 13y ago
  Yes. Because we're not supposed to be mean to criminals.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - clicks 13y ago
    But at least you agree that it falls under even the most loose interpretation of a "cruel and unusual" punishment and is thus unconstitutional? Or no?
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Considering that the First Congress authorized the death penalty for crimes like counterfeiting, and punishments like the pillory were still in use in the U.S. until well into the 1800's, no, I don't think the founders would have understood solitary confinement to be "cruel and unusual." The rack, drawing and quartering, flaying, etc, that's what the 8th amendment refers to.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
      - gruseom 13y ago
        I seem to recall you making a surprisingly originalist comment about the US Constitution before, as well. Do you really think the meaning of "cruel and unusual" doesn't evolve as we learn more over centuries? All kinds of things now regarded as indisputably abusive were taken for granted in the past (child abuse, to name one—or flogging for that matter). Solitary confinement seems like just this sort of thing, although one that is still somewhat early on the curve.
        rayiner 13y ago
        Even if you're one of those "living Constitution" people, at the very least terms like "cruel and unusual" must be defined relative to the broadly accepted social mores of the time. And treating solitary confinement as torture isn't just early on the curve, its something only a tiny minority of hyperliberals would consider to be true. I don't think the Constitution should be at the leading edge of social thought. It should lag behind until ideas are so clearly accepted as to be "obvious." Otherwise, it becomes a tool for peddling minority social viewpoints, which undermines its legitimacy in other regards. We're already feeling the effects of that today.
        gruseom 13y ago
        That all seems reasonable, though "living Constitution" sounds a bit silly to my ear—if that's used by advocates they should find a better name. On the other hand, the originalist thing seems flat-out dumb if it tries to deny that interpretations of past texts are always filtered through the present. One might as well exhume the authors and look for clues in their remains. But never mind that—I'm more curious about this: Otherwise, it becomes a tool for peddling minority social viewpoints, which undermines its legitimacy in other regards. We're already feeling the effects of that today. What minority social viewpoints and what effects?
        13y ago
- mpyne 13y ago
  Hell, even I would agree that prolonged solitary confinement probably counts as torture. That is the kind of thing that really should be reserved for those who simply cannot safely be around anyone. However, if it were possible to do this without the subsequent mental trauma that would follow then that might be a different story. E.g. virtual social interaction (with other prisoners/guards) might be feasible, we certainly seem to get a lot of people who wall themselves away from others IRL so that they can play their online video games. But even with that I don't see how that would be a more resource-efficient way to handle the task of rehabilitation where possible and humane segregation from society for the rest. I think we have to figure that at some point almost any 'stick' in a carrot/stick system can, with overuse, become more dangerous to mental health than useful as a behavior modifier.

pekk 13y ago

Is anything that someone really hates and doesn't want torture just because it's incredibly awful?

rayiner 13y ago
Yes. Because we're not supposed to be mean to criminals.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- clicks 13y ago
  But at least you agree that it falls under even the most loose interpretation of a "cruel and unusual" punishment and is thus unconstitutional? Or no?
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Considering that the First Congress authorized the death penalty for crimes like counterfeiting, and punishments like the pillory were still in use in the U.S. until well into the 1800's, no, I don't think the founders would have understood solitary confinement to be "cruel and unusual." The rack, drawing and quartering, flaying, etc, that's what the 8th amendment refers to.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - gruseom 13y ago
      I seem to recall you making a surprisingly originalist comment about the US Constitution before, as well. Do you really think the meaning of "cruel and unusual" doesn't evolve as we learn more over centuries? All kinds of things now regarded as indisputably abusive were taken for granted in the past (child abuse, to name one—or flogging for that matter). Solitary confinement seems like just this sort of thing, although one that is still somewhat early on the curve.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        Even if you're one of those "living Constitution" people, at the very least terms like "cruel and unusual" must be defined relative to the broadly accepted social mores of the time. And treating solitary confinement as torture isn't just early on the curve, its something only a tiny minority of hyperliberals would consider to be true. I don't think the Constitution should be at the leading edge of social thought. It should lag behind until ideas are so clearly accepted as to be "obvious." Otherwise, it becomes a tool for peddling minority social viewpoints, which undermines its legitimacy in other regards. We're already feeling the effects of that today.
        gruseom 13y ago
        That all seems reasonable, though "living Constitution" sounds a bit silly to my ear—if that's used by advocates they should find a better name. On the other hand, the originalist thing seems flat-out dumb if it tries to deny that interpretations of past texts are always filtered through the present. One might as well exhume the authors and look for clues in their remains. But never mind that—I'm more curious about this: Otherwise, it becomes a tool for peddling minority social viewpoints, which undermines its legitimacy in other regards. We're already feeling the effects of that today. What minority social viewpoints and what effects?
        13y ago
mpyne 13y ago
Hell, even I would agree that prolonged solitary confinement probably counts as torture. That is the kind of thing that really should be reserved for those who simply cannot safely be around anyone. However, if it were possible to do this without the subsequent mental trauma that would follow then that might be a different story. E.g. virtual social interaction (with other prisoners/guards) might be feasible, we certainly seem to get a lot of people who wall themselves away from others IRL so that they can play their online video games. But even with that I don't see how that would be a more resource-efficient way to handle the task of rehabilitation where possible and humane segregation from society for the rest. I think we have to figure that at some point almost any 'stick' in a carrot/stick system can, with overuse, become more dangerous to mental health than useful as a behavior modifier.