3 ms·

This is something of a career retrospective review article on solitary written by a psychiatrist from Harvard Med in J. Law & Policy. http://law.wustl.edu/jour

This is something of a career retrospective review article on solitary written by a psychiatrist from Harvard Med in J. Law & Policy. http://law.wustl.edu/journal/22/p325grassian.pdf http://law.wustl.edu/journal/22/p325grassian.pdf I had a longer reply, but somehow I don't think you're listening if the New Yorker is hyperliberal. Obviously solitary is not unusual, the questions are whether it's cruel, and whether it prevents recidivism and enables employment upon release.

rayiner 13y ago
> somehow I don't think you're listening if the New Yorker is hyperliberal. I didn't say the New Yorker is hyperliberal. I said that the idea that solitary confinement is torture is hyperliberal (literally, "more liberal" than the liberal mainstream viewpoint). > and whether it prevents recidivism and enables employment upon release. That's absolutely irrelevant to Constitutionality. Something can be a stupid, ineffective, policy and yet be Constitutional.
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  > I didn't say the New Yorker is hyperliberal. I said that the idea that solitary confinement is torture is hyperliberal Your exact words were, "only a tiny minority of hyperliberals would consider to be true". Since I had linked to the New Yorker which explores the issue in depth and gives significant credence to the idea, your aspersion quite apparently included the New Yorker. To say that it didn't is either revisionist, or you weren't clear with what you originally wrote. The New Yorker is a mainstream liberal publication. > That's absolutely irrelevant to Constitutionality. Agreed, but you also ignored the question about cruelty. I brought up those other points to make it clear that I'm not hyperliberal, not even necessarily liberal. I think it's good for our economy if ex-cons are able to work. I believe the New Yorker and J. Law & Policy articles make a strong case for cruelty.

rayiner 13y ago

> somehow I don't think you're listening if the New Yorker is hyperliberal. I didn't say the New Yorker is hyperliberal. I said that the idea that solitary confinement is torture is hyperliberal (literally, "more liberal" than the liberal mainstream viewpoint). > and whether it prevents recidivism and enables employment upon release. That's absolutely irrelevant to Constitutionality. Something can be a stupid, ineffective, policy and yet be Constitutional.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
> I didn't say the New Yorker is hyperliberal. I said that the idea that solitary confinement is torture is hyperliberal Your exact words were, "only a tiny minority of hyperliberals would consider to be true". Since I had linked to the New Yorker which explores the issue in depth and gives significant credence to the idea, your aspersion quite apparently included the New Yorker. To say that it didn't is either revisionist, or you weren't clear with what you originally wrote. The New Yorker is a mainstream liberal publication. > That's absolutely irrelevant to Constitutionality. Agreed, but you also ignored the question about cruelty. I brought up those other points to make it clear that I'm not hyperliberal, not even necessarily liberal. I think it's good for our economy if ex-cons are able to work. I believe the New Yorker and J. Law & Policy articles make a strong case for cruelty.