OK, let’s say for argument’s sake that we did away with the death penalty tomorrow, for all crimes. What’s the worst we can legally do to someone? For example, can you put someone in solitary confinement for life? Deprive him of all human companionship?
And I’m not talking about putting a guy in the same cell as Bubba, the 300 lb, 6’6" convicted bisexual rapist. Let’s keep it to things that can be done officially.
Please notice that I put this in GQ, not GD or IMHO. Let’s try to keep it here, OK?
Life without possibility of parole would obviously be the toughest sentence. The degree of isolation allowed in the prison would probably be subject to review by the courts under the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” provision.
California’s Pelican Bay Prison has cells where prisoners are kept by themselves for 23 hours a day. The “Super Max” Federal Facility isn’t a particularly inviting place (I forget it’s location, but I believe it’s in the Midwest.)
I would think that “worst” punishment would have to be an individually defined thing.
For instance, I would think that a fellow like Ted Kaczynski, who lived nearly as a hermit, would be punished greater by having to be part of a group of inmates sharing a cell rather than in solitary.
Whereas, a Charles Manson-type, who’s power is derived by control of others, would be more would suffer a greater punishment in solitary confinement.
Seconded. Same on intrusion (strip searches, etc.) as isolation. The Eighth is the ultimate backstop although I have read enough Eighth Amendment jurisprudence to tell you that most people would be surprised how bad it can get before the 8th is going to give you any protection.
There’s a guy living in the basement of Ft. Levanworth who is not allowed any human contact. I don’t remember his name but he was in a maximum security prison in 1982 or 1983 and he stabbed a prison guard 38 times killing him. He is not permitted a razor or a mirror and there are no photos of his prison conditions.
That seems to me like the worst punishment they can inflict on someone. Things like that are only used on the worst of inmates though.
I don’t deal with judicial sanctions, but I do handle (and impose) internal disciplinary sanctions. In New York, there are three levels of disciplinary actions that can be imposed (depending on the level of the violation). At the highest level, we can sentence a prisoner to cell confinement (for 23 hours a day), loss of personal property (except legal work and a religious book), loss of privileges (such as TV, radio, telephone, gym, or receiving packages), or, in very rare and extreme cases, being placed on a special diet. The usual disciplinary diet is the “loaf” - a baked meat loaf like concoction made out of soy beans and other ingredients. In rarer cases, we give them the “shake” - a liquid diet which essentially is the loaf run through a blender.
One important aspect is that all disciplinary sentences must be for a defined period. We can sentence a prisoner to fifteen years of cell confinement, but we can’t say put him in a cell “forever” or “until I say you can get out.”
I posed the question a few weeks ago: why not banishment, exile, or the stocks? Would these forms of punishment (either as I’ve defined them in this thread or in some other form) run counter to the Eighth Amendment?
Another question: will convicts be implanted with mandatory microchips in the near future? Has anyone yet discussed the constitutionality of such a procedure?
This is the sort of answer I was looking for. To me (if you’ll pardon the cliche), this is a fate worse than death - it sounds like you’d be sitting around a cell, completely bored out of your skull with absolutely nothing to do (I assume you could disallow any reading material, excepting a bible), with even no joy in eating. If I were in such a situation, with no hope of being released, I’d welcome death…
Glad my answer helped. To expand on it, there are two different types sanctions that a prisoner can receive; judicial and disciplinary. Judicial sentences are the ones a judge issued the prisoner in court as punishment for the crime he (or she) was convicted of. As far as I know, judges are restricted to issuing sentences of periods of imprisonment. A judge cannot sentence a prisoner to “hard labor” or “bread and water” or “no TV.”
Once the prisoner enters the prison system, he’s given a rulebook which explains all the rules within the prisons. Disciplinary sanctions, such as the ones I mentioned in my previous post, are only imposed for violations of prison rules not for any crimes the prisoner commited out on the street. I’ve often seen cases were a serial killer never received a single disciplinary action because they behaved themselves in the prison while a non-violent burglar got years of cell confinment and other punishments for continously breaking prison rules. Our main limit is that we can do nothing to increase the actual length of the prisoner’s sentence.
It is possible for a prisoner to end up facing judicial and disciplinary sanctions for the same incident. For example, a prisoner who possessed drugs could be convicted in court and sentenced to another five years and be found guilty in a prison disciplinary hearing and confined to his cell for five years.
Aha! So it basically comes back to what BobT said, that life in prison w/o parole is the worst sentence (which is probably how I should have worded the OP) that can be handed down.
In a semi-related question, who selects the prison that the convict is incarcerated in? Can a judge, feeling that a punishment of life in prison is not sufficient, recommend or request a prison known to be particular “hard”?
In New York, all incoming prisoners go through one of four reception centers. Their records are checked over and they are interviewed to determine likely security problems, psychological and medical needs, hisotry of drug and alcohol, educational level, job skills, etc. All these factors are taken into account and the prisoner is send to wherever there’s an available cell. Just kidding, although there’s an element of truth in that. The point is that judges do not place inamtes in specific facilities; the Department of Corrections does.
To answer this question in a general way, the worst penalty one can mete out must be physical and/or psychological torture. The word “torture” is etymologically derives from a word that means “to twist,” “to tie up into a knot,” or “to squeeze.” One can imagine all sorts of torture, all designed to cause physical and/or psychological pain.
Most of these potential punishments are considered inhumane and are illegal in most civilized countries nowadays.
We in the US are left with two sanctioned “extreme punishments:” life in prison or the death penalty. The latter consists of lethal injection, which, whatever else you may think of it is a relatively painless, albeit rmbarassing, way to die. Indeed, it is equivalent, more or less, to euthanasia, or perhaps going under general anesthesia for surgery and simply not waking up…
At least in the old days a man condemned to the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, Guillotining, stoning, drawing and quartering, etc., could face his more or less horrible execution with some degree of heroism and dignity (think of the movie, A Man For All Seasons.
As regards torture, if it were allowed we could create all sorts of interesting and horrible tortures designed to keep the prisoner alive but in such a state of suffering that he wished for death.
I think we should do what the French did but one step further. Dump all the lifers on “Garbage Island” and let them fend for themselves. Make sure it’s stocked with banana trees, whatever so they can eat, and make sure it’s a tough to get to island so weapons don’t get smuggled on.
Shit, you could even dump all those drugs we seize and airlift it on. I mean who cares? Let them shoot themselves up to death. We do it anyway with lethal injection!
Imagine the tax money we would save, and since it would be the inmates killing off each other, we could wash our hands of it!!!
In 2 years, when I’m old enough to run for president, I will be sure to propse this as part of my platform!!!
Here in Rhode Island, I recall reading in the Providence Journal recently about a man convicted in some bribery/corruption case, remarking dismissively to reporters (after the conviction but before sentencing), that he intended to “work on his golf swing in some country-club minimum-security prison.”
I thought to myself when I read that: “What an idiot!” :wally
As I recall, the judge took steps at sentencing to ensure that he was sent to a medium-security (non-country-club) facility to serve his time.
