4 ms·

Jeez, how much longer until we can codify into law that solitary confinement is cruel and unusual?

alaskamiller 13y ago
Young and cynical me would say when and if justice is served to the children of the rich and famous. Old and wiser me would say when people stop asking such fake questions and take heart going into careers of law or public administration.
- adamwong246 13y ago
  What is the emoticon for "What you just said made me throw up in my soul?" American justice does serve the rich. American justice does discriminate against all manner of individuals. And I should not have to pursue a career in criminal law to point out that these conditions are useless, wasteful and absolutely barbaric.
  - vacri 13y ago
    You're misreading alaskamiller, who is saying that change will only happen when the children of the powerful suffer. 'Justice served to the rich' and 'justice serves the rich' have significantly different meanings.
    - adamwong246 13y ago
      Ok, I did misread. But having justice served to the rich is an excellent place to start fixing the problems of crime in this country. That's not a cyncial or naive opinion at all- it's downright righteous!
JonFish85 13y ago
Disclaimer: partially just playing devil's advocate here. There are circumstances where you need to keep someone in solitary, whether it's for their own safety or for the safety of others. You can't well put a hated prisoner in with the general population without expecting that they'll be murdered. On the other hand, you have prisoners who have made a living out of murdering prison guards. What do you do with Thomas Silverstein[1]? Terry Nichols? Members of the mafia? Caught spies? They'd likely either kill or be killed. I don't really see a better option than isolating them. These aren't people who are there to be rehabilitated. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Silverstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Silverstein
- DanBC 13y ago
  I suspect you have listed a teeny tiny subset of the general prison population. While it's true that those people need protection I'm not sure it's true for everyone else.
- adamwong246 13y ago
  Fair enough. But this article is about children being encaged en masse by a bloated bureaucracy, not a judicious selection of individuals that must be protected for their, or our own, safety.
  - vacri 13y ago
    No, it's not about 'children'. It's about 16-year-olds. Teenagers. The actions in the article are not applied to people below 16. Absolutely no-one calls 16-year-olds 'children' unless they're trying to load their language to make a political argument. The one exception is parents comparing offspring, where 'children' applies to your offspring regardless of age - ask an 80-year-old about his children, and he'll talk about 60-year-old people. This doesn't mean the actions aren't inhumane or don't need evaluation or correction, but please avoid the inflammatory language.
    - kefka 13y ago
      How about this: Teenagers are citizens who do not have the full rights and representations of a full citizen. Cant vote, cant smoke, cant drink, cant fight in the military. People keep trying to speak on your behalf, and waive your rights without asking them. I'm only for punishing 16 year olds as adults IF they are also given the rights and responsibilities of adults. At least start with representation (voting).
      - vacri 13y ago
        Sure. Call them minors, because legally they are - they don't have full rights. But when the term 'children' is used for mid- to late- teenagers, it's being used an an emotive term. Perhaps the solution is the creation of a legal area of 'semi-responsibility'? That between young childhood and adulthood there is a period where you're considered responsible, but at a reduced rate. This concept is clearly already in place - for example in my state, you simply cannot try someone under the age of 10 for murder, so you get 'minors under 10', 'minors over 10', and 'adults' - but it appears to be an administrative hodge-podge managed differently for different laws. Perhaps making an interstitial 'semi-responsible' range more codified might assist when making laws? I honestly don't know - IANAL, let alone one that deals with juvenile law.
vacri 13y ago
Solitary confinement is cruel, but it's not unusual. If you read the article in full, you'll see that it's also one of the only ways you can threaten someone already incarcerated, to try and keep them behaving well. If there was nothing to threaten them with, then there's nothing to keep violent inmates in line. Is it overused? That's the question. But really, if you follow your 'five whys', the solution to this problem is not treating the symptom that lies at the very end of the chain. Measures that stop people even being incarcerated in the first place are what should be supported. This article is describing one of many of the foul symptoms of the US having a ridiculously high incarceration rate. And I'm not using that adjective as a throwaway - the level of incarceration in the US truly deserves ridicule. It is a national disgrace.

Young and cynical me would say when and if justice is served to the children of the rich and famous. Old and wiser me would say when people stop asking such fake questions and take heart going into careers of law or public administration.

adamwong246 13y ago
What is the emoticon for "What you just said made me throw up in my soul?" American justice does serve the rich. American justice does discriminate against all manner of individuals. And I should not have to pursue a career in criminal law to point out that these conditions are useless, wasteful and absolutely barbaric.
- vacri 13y ago
  You're misreading alaskamiller, who is saying that change will only happen when the children of the powerful suffer. 'Justice served to the rich' and 'justice serves the rich' have significantly different meanings.
  - adamwong246 13y ago
    Ok, I did misread. But having justice served to the rich is an excellent place to start fixing the problems of crime in this country. That's not a cyncial or naive opinion at all- it's downright righteous!

JonFish85 13y ago

Disclaimer: partially just playing devil's advocate here. There are circumstances where you need to keep someone in solitary, whether it's for their own safety or for the safety of others. You can't well put a hated prisoner in with the general population without expecting that they'll be murdered. On the other hand, you have prisoners who have made a living out of murdering prison guards. What do you do with Thomas Silverstein[1]? Terry Nichols? Members of the mafia? Caught spies? They'd likely either kill or be killed. I don't really see a better option than isolating them. These aren't people who are there to be rehabilitated. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Silverstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Silverstein

DanBC 13y ago
I suspect you have listed a teeny tiny subset of the general prison population. While it's true that those people need protection I'm not sure it's true for everyone else.
adamwong246 13y ago
Fair enough. But this article is about children being encaged en masse by a bloated bureaucracy, not a judicious selection of individuals that must be protected for their, or our own, safety.
- vacri 13y ago
  No, it's not about 'children'. It's about 16-year-olds. Teenagers. The actions in the article are not applied to people below 16. Absolutely no-one calls 16-year-olds 'children' unless they're trying to load their language to make a political argument. The one exception is parents comparing offspring, where 'children' applies to your offspring regardless of age - ask an 80-year-old about his children, and he'll talk about 60-year-old people. This doesn't mean the actions aren't inhumane or don't need evaluation or correction, but please avoid the inflammatory language.
  - kefka 13y ago
    How about this: Teenagers are citizens who do not have the full rights and representations of a full citizen. Cant vote, cant smoke, cant drink, cant fight in the military. People keep trying to speak on your behalf, and waive your rights without asking them. I'm only for punishing 16 year olds as adults IF they are also given the rights and responsibilities of adults. At least start with representation (voting).
    - vacri 13y ago
      Sure. Call them minors, because legally they are - they don't have full rights. But when the term 'children' is used for mid- to late- teenagers, it's being used an an emotive term. Perhaps the solution is the creation of a legal area of 'semi-responsibility'? That between young childhood and adulthood there is a period where you're considered responsible, but at a reduced rate. This concept is clearly already in place - for example in my state, you simply cannot try someone under the age of 10 for murder, so you get 'minors under 10', 'minors over 10', and 'adults' - but it appears to be an administrative hodge-podge managed differently for different laws. Perhaps making an interstitial 'semi-responsible' range more codified might assist when making laws? I honestly don't know - IANAL, let alone one that deals with juvenile law.

vacri 13y ago

Solitary confinement is cruel, but it's not unusual. If you read the article in full, you'll see that it's also one of the only ways you can threaten someone already incarcerated, to try and keep them behaving well. If there was nothing to threaten them with, then there's nothing to keep violent inmates in line. Is it overused? That's the question. But really, if you follow your 'five whys', the solution to this problem is not treating the symptom that lies at the very end of the chain. Measures that stop people even being incarcerated in the first place are what should be supported. This article is describing one of many of the foul symptoms of the US having a ridiculously high incarceration rate. And I'm not using that adjective as a throwaway - the level of incarceration in the US truly deserves ridicule. It is a national disgrace.