Alex, have you been reading the posts? Prisoners don’t get placed in lock-down based on their crimes. They get placed in a lock-down because there is clear evidence that they are a danger to others or because they are a target. There’s nothing haphazard about it - it’s a clearly defined procedure with due process protections and reviews.
You’d like that, wouldn’t you?
Ok, so I read I just read the case of one guy… Robert Maudsley. He kills one person, gets sent to an asylum where he can walk around and socialize. Kills someone there, gets moved to a prison where he can walk around and socialize. Kills a couple more people. Five years later, put into solitary for the next 25 years.
Clearly, this isn’t being treated as a punishment. It’s being treated as “we’ve come to realize we don’t want him in our face, so just go ahead and torture him slowly in the basement.”
Whatever the pragmatics, this is punishment. This is torture. And that’s alright, as long as it’s treated as such. In the case of Maudsley, it wasn’t. Seems haphazard, cruel, and unusual to me.
Personally, I don’t like the walk-around-and-socialize system. Prisoners should do less time, but the time there should mean something.
But this whole situation… where some people just have one happy social gathering (and really, a fairly fullfilling life) while others really do get the screws put to them… and none of this goes before a judge or jury or even a man who thinks like one… is a problem.
Alex, the prison you’re talking about doesn’t exist in reality. There’s all kinds of rules and regulations we have to follow before putting anyone in solitary confinement. And when they get there they can file appeals and requests to be released, all of which will be reviewed.
The unit is visited every day by numerous people, including the warden, his assistants, medical staff, mental health staff, chaplins, and legal workers. Prisoners are allowed to have books and magazines. They can have radios and tape players. They can sign up for cell study programs.
The purpose of solitary confinement is not to torture people or drive them crazy. It’s to separate some prisoners from general population. Either because they’re going to hurt other people or other people are going to hurt them.
SuperMax-style near-total isolation is, for all its shortcomings, the least bad option for seriously badass prisoners who would otherwise kill or badly injure guards or other prisoners, or more easily run criminal enterprises outside. But no system is perfect.
Ooh, and why not daily floggings too? :rolleyes:
I understand the feeling of outrage at hearing about a heinous crime, but torturing people (and total sensory deprivation sounds like torture to me) doesn’t undo their crimes, doesn’t help their victims, and really I doubt it’s even effective as prevention. The criminal justice system ought not to be a tool for us to extract revenge against criminals and work off our anger towards them. If that’s what you want, we might as well go back to stoning them to death in the town square.
Exactly.
Inmates are sent to prison as punishment, not to be punished.
And imagine how dehumanizing it would be if your job was to inflict punishment! That type of work destroys a lot of people who do it.
Hey, that’s Quaker talk!
Seriously, what you’ve described is essentially the Pennsylvania System, which was in fact developed by Quakers. They figured that prisoners could be rehabilitated by placing them in complete isolation with no distractions and giving them a Bible. The idea was that the prisoner would be removed from any bad influences and would only have a good influence. So he would have no option except to reform himself and become a good person at which time he could be released.
As you can probably imagine, things didn’t go as planned. The Quakers failed to appreciate the bad effects that complete isolation can have on a person, especially one who is already unstable. Prisoners were much more likely to sink into insanity rather than reform.
Frankly, if someone has committed a really heinous crime, I want him punished. I want him to suffer daily. If he goes insane, well, fine. I don’t care. There are people for whom death is too light a punishment. Daily floggings would be fine, too. Maybe, if he’s physically healthy enough, remove and donate any useful organs. He can get by on one kidney until he dies. Then donate the other one if it’s still any good. Bone marrow would be good donation as well. Let the child torturer donate bone marrow at regular intervals – at least then he’d be of some use.
No doubt you realize you’re in the minoirty on this issue. If nothing else, punishments such as you describe would be a violation of the Eighth Amendment as it has generally been understood. Although admittedly our current court system seems to be exploring new ideas on the subject.
I absolutely agree that I have a distinctly minority opinion, especially here. And I know it would be unlikely in the extreme to ever happen. But I can fantasize, right?
Only in MPSIMS.
That’s quite the fantasy.
Would you be willing to be the torturer?
In certain cases, yes. For example, I would gladly torment Osama bin Laden with a hot poker. Or a nasty pit bull. Or anything else that would give him a world of hurt. This would only make him some sort of holy martyr, though. I’d prefer that he be disappeared quietly, to be kept in a gray solitary cell as previously described. Tell his followers he’s alive, unhurt, just “away.”
I try to avoid such stories, but every once in a while I can’t help hearing about some waste of skin who tortures a little child in some grotesque way. That person, too, I would gladly subject to a torment equivalent to what the child endured, except the torment would go on forever.
Believe it or not I am generally speaking a fairly gentle person, non-violent, likely to put others’ well-being above my own. There are exceptions, though.
That’s perfectly understandable to have such feelings and thoughts.
However in my experience, inflicting pain on others, whether it is deserved or not, tends to damage the person inflicting the pain.
I don’t want to torture anyone, not really, but I really don’t understand the obsession we have with the “value” of human life. Repeat violent offenders should be quickly and humanely executed. They are defective. Yes, human life has value. All human life. But it’s not immutable, and if you rape and kill a two year old, fight with other inmates and then shank a guard, you’ve pretty much spent that currency. A quick trip to the gallows solves the problem quickly and cleanly.
I agree with you. If we have decided that someone needs to be separated from society for life and especially if it has been decided they need to be separated from even other criminals, then I really have no issue with execution.
You’re probably right; it’s just as well I would not be allowed to do so.