Solitary confinement

[suncowiam]

Just heard a radio report of the practice.

Seems there are some.....who have spent has many as 25yrs.....in a room.

what comes to your mind first?

I don't condone this but curious to the offense that caused or required this?

 

[Thief]

I don't condone this but curious to the offense that caused or required this?

probably next to nothing.
The radio report had a focus on prisoners who came in for cause.....
but then ended up in solitary once inside the walls.
the abuse is found in the practice dealt by guards.
they use 'the hole' as a fix all....

 

[savagewind]

often the situation is simply a practice at the facility.
at the slightest gesture of resistance....down the hole you go.

That is where I would be.

 

[Thief]

That is where I would be.

and I do 'understand' the situation.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

it would perhaps suit a hermit or a monk.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's torture, and another area in which America needs to bring its prisons into the 21st century and stop using it so frequently. It's extremely destructive psychologically, it really messed people up, and the data suggests it is a very cruel form of punishment.

 

[Ultimatum]

Why not just execute them if they have committed a crime against society?
I just don't see why one would put another through such torture, at the cost of the taxpayer, instead of termination.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why not just execute them if they have committed a crime against society?
I just don't see why one would put another through such torture, at the cost of the taxpayer, instead of termination.

Because many of us realize that solves and fixes nothing.

 

[Ultimatum]

Because many of us realize that solves and fixes nothing.

Of course it does. It's going to act as a deterrent mostly (although there will be suicidal people who will commit an enjoyable crime to face death that way).

And at a great relief to my wallet--also! I don't want my money to be spent on feeding and rehabilitating a filthy criminal and law-breaker.

 

[dust1n]

Why not just execute them if they have committed a crime against society?
I just don't see why one would put another through such torture, at the cost of the taxpayer, instead of termination.

Because of certain legal guarantees afforded to individuals by the Constitution, and due process also being applied natinonally in the 14th amendment, a death sentence often turns out more expensive for taxpayers than your common torture.

 

[Ultimatum]

Because of certain legal guarantees afforded to individuals by the Constitution

1. I couldn't care less about your Constitution.
2. It was hypothetically related to general civilised Western countries.

a death sentence often turns out more expensive for taxpayers than your common torture.

I'm against torture anyway, so that's a stupid comparison.
You're way of executing is also quite expensive and can be inhumane--I can think of 1 way of doing it much faster, humanely and cheaper.

 

[dust1n]

1. I couldn't care less about your Constitution.
2. It was hypothetically related to general civilised Western countries.

Ah, well let the Court of King Arthur handle it's affairs accordingly.

I'm against torture anyway, so that's a stupid comparison.
You're way of executing is also quite expensive and can be inhumane--I can think of 1 way of doing it much faster, humanely and cheaper.

'Tis true. I'd prefer to pay the extra taxes to retain the right to not get shot in the head by Big Government when ever a trigger happy Social Darwinist ever gets elected.

 

[Ultimatum]

Ah, well let the Court of King Arthur handle it's affairs accordingly.

Hypothesizing is fun, come on.

I'd prefer to pay the extra taxes to retain the right to not get shot in the head by Big Government when ever a trigger happy Social Darwinist ever gets elected.

Funnily enough, I am actually all for heavy gun control. Good try though.

 

[dust1n]

Hypothesizing is fun, come on.

It is, it is.

Funnily enough, I am actually all for heavy gun control. Good try though.

Apparently not when a court convicts someone of a crime. The American government has already executed people for crimes of murder and rape that they were letter proven to be innocent of these charges, and that is despite the lengthy and costly conviction and appeals process as it was back then. Or we can have the state just shoot people in head all willy-nilly...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Of course it does. It's going to act as a deterrent mostly (although there will be suicidal people who will commit an enjoyable crime to face death that way).

It doesn't work as a deterrent. Even when he had harsh death-by-torture, it didn't deter crime.

 

[suncowiam]

Playing devil's advocate, so don't slap me around too much.

But what if this offender is seriously a menace to society. Maybe one that would kill you in an instant for no logical reason?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But what if this offender is seriously a menace to society. Maybe one that would kill you in an instant for no logical reason?

I favor the Norwegian model, which has a maximum initial sentencing of 20 years, and after that the person is evaluated as to whether or not they still pose a threat to society, and if they do then I think it's five or 10 more years are added, with another evaluation after that. Assuming the killer is as such in your example, it would be of much greater service to society to study such as individual to help learn ways of early detection in serial killers, hopefully even one day prevention rather than kill them, which costs more money, is not shown to be an effective deterrent, and only results in more death.

 

[suncowiam]

I favor the Norwegian model, which has a maximum initial sentencing of 20 years, and after that the person is evaluated as to whether or not they still pose a threat to society, and if they do then I think it's five or 10 more years are added, with another evaluation after that. Assuming the killer is as such in your example, it would be of much greater service to society to study such as individual to help learn ways of early detection in serial killers, hopefully even one day prevention rather than kill them, which costs more money, is not shown to be an effective deterrent, and only results in more death.

Let's assume all my replies are from a devil's advocate POV.

Let's say we had a limited amount of time and resources. And that time and resources had to be prioritized among the population in order to be effective. Couldn't it be justified that other folks like homeless, mentally ill (that are not violent), foster children, and so on... That these these folks deserve the help more than the criminals?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Let's assume all my replies are from a devil's advocate POV.

Let's say we had a limited amount of time and resources. And that time and resources had to be prioritized among the population in order to be effective. Couldn't it be justified that other folks like homeless, mentally ill (that are not violent), foster children, and so on... That these these folks deserve the help more than the criminals?

Why not eliminate them too, it will reduce your taxes further still

 

[suncowiam]

Why not eliminate them too, it will reduce your taxes further still

I'm just asking you some difficult hypothetical questions. Don't get offended. Ideally, everyone should be treated equally. Yeah, that's an easy thing to assert.

So I placed some more premises that could very well be.