I was reading the Wikipedia article about Robert Hanssen, the former FBI agent turned Russian spy who is serving a life sentence at ADX Florence in Florence, Colorado where he is kept in solitary confinement 23 hours a day.
I’m wondering what the criteria are in general for sending a felon like Hansson to a high security prison: Hansson is 70 years old and, I would assume, very unlikely to pose a physical threat to correctional officers. He doesn’t appear to be prone to violence. Given his background, one would put him in a category with your run-of-the-mill white-collar criminal who could serve his time at low-security facility.
What are the reasons for keeping Hansson under these harsh conditions? Does the government want to punish him really hard for what he did? Are there concerns the Russians might try to contact him again, maybe harm him or even hatch a plot to free him?
Oh, I remember this guy. Even pictured him exactly as on his Wikipedia page. I really don’t think that type of risk-assessment really enters into it. When you get into treason/spying, I assume you know that death is a reasonable outcome. And he didn’t even get that. I’m just shocked that he did it for a mere $1.4 million.
Which, I guess, is the justification for sending most of the notorious terrorists, spys, traitors, and political prisoners there.
Some prisoners there really seem to like it in there, like Woody Harrleson’s dad. Reading books and thinking all day. Others, like Terrible Tom, think it is horrid. Probably because they can’t read.
I kind of think all prisons should be like Supermax. Cheaper to run. And avoids the middle school type of culture most prison populations seem to develop. Which just reinforces the shitty behavior they were sent there for. I would think sitting alone in a cell for some years would be more like to change a person.
This is what I’ve always understood to be the case (that it was to monitor any communication with outside world). He still knows stuff that is a danger to National Security - at least according to the FBI - and doesn’t want someone - say like a Russian agent coming in to get more intelligence - or like the Chinese to come in and get something they never had.
Even in recent times - there will be attempts by spies to continue running an espionage operation. See for example:
This. And if he’s reluctant to co-operate with investigators, considering his current situation, it’s not difficult for them to come up with a carrot to encourage him. And there are probably a few sticks up their sleeves too.
If you haven’t seen it already, Breach is a pretty good film about the Hanssen case.
I question whether SuperMax prisons are any cheaper than ordinary facilities, if anything I think they’d be more expensive. Sitting alone in a cell 23 hours a day certainly does change people though, at Port Arthurthey had to build a sizeable asylum to house those driven mad by the Silent System.
I thought it was to piss off Putin, a reason I can endorse. Pretty much the best reason for pretty much anything short of nuclear warfare. Which he’d probably like, so we can continue to piss off that out of shape in shape guy from the 50s by not having one.
You can probably get away with fewer guards, but the up-front costs are going to be higher if you can’t stick 10 people in one cell. You’d have to build a massive structure to house everyone.
Most prisons also rely on a fair amount of inmate labor to do the routine cooking, cleaning, maintenance, lawn-mowing, trash pick-up, and so on. Supermax prisons have to hire outside workers and pay prevailing wages, which are slightly higher than the 60 cents a day or so an inmate can expect.
[QUOTE I would think sitting alone in a cell for some years would be more like to change a person.[/QUOTE]
Any psychologist will tell you that solitary confinement is a form of torture and that any decent court would rule it unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment.
Torture? A warm private cell with books and TV? Getting stuck in a cell with 20 or so psychopathic idiots seems far worse to me. I would go crazy. Perhaps it is an introvert vs extrovert thing.
And any decent human being would say it’s exactly what the :mad::mad:er deserves.
But to get back to the OP, keep in mind that you are dealing with a person who is an expert at espionage and electronics. Dead drops, brush passes, signals, all things he is trained to do. If you allow him to mingle with the general population or have access to prison jobs (library, kitchen, workshops, etc) God only knows who he would/could communicate with. There’s already enough contraband in prisons without dropping an ex-CI agent in the mix, and God help us if he started teaching the other cons how the system works.
According to Rory Miller, yes it’s an introvert vs extrovert thing. There are people who prefer solitary. And there are plenty of people who are driven mad by it. Cite: I saw a lecture of his.
Came across this thread after reading about El Chapo. Now there’s a person with $14bn to throw at an escape plan, and multiple previous escapes from maximum security and special force raids. I get that nobody cares about old men like Hanssen because they are traitors, but it does look like they are there for punishment not security. The argument that ‘he might say something’ must fade after decades - the CIA bloke in the next
cell is actually going to be released in a few years, and can say what he wants then. I doubt the Russians are looking for 25 year old news. Maybe a normal maximum
security prison would be worse, not sure if an old guy like this couldn’t see his days out with the likes of Paul Manafort in a ‘normal’ prison.
At Pentridge (melb.aus) jika-jika section prisoners couldn’t be released into the general prison population, which meant you couldn’t put new prisoners in, which partly defeated the purpose of having a supermax section.
At the old Long Bay jail (syd.aus), the old supermax-like section turned out psychotic killers. Which was a definite negative.