Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by nikosison, Dec 15, 2010.
I believe the maximum penalty for what he has been charged with is 52 years.
CC 'Torture': Read and inwardly digest. Adverse psychological conditions come from a lack of human contact and what was written on the old R2I sheets as 'enforced idleness'. Having visitors and television is intended to mitigate and prevent these - the army's not a charity and they're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts!
When I was younger, one of our solitary confinement 'clients' was also given a TV. It was actually a TV that he could only watch when peeking through the small window of his door, and there was no sound. In between being told that he had a TV, and when we found out what that means, was about a week's time.
I'd be careful about poo-poohing solitary's effect on the psyche. It's ruined people, and is probably the opposite of 'good for you'.
Normal prison ruins people too, so until you guys decide to be logically consistent in calling both torture you are just spinning your wheels in this thread.
Now you're just trolling, aren't you?
Can I buy whoever came up with that one a drink? Class (witness the sympathy that I have for anyone managing to get himself put on solitary)!
I don't think anyone's poo-poohing it. As far as I see it the chief argument in this case is that what he's in isn't the sort of solitary confinement which produces such problems.
Now that was a stupid post, wasn't it? 'Well, both tiddly-winks and bungee-jumping have risks, so until you start calling them both extreme sports you're being logically inconsistent'.
I am sure being held in pre-trial confinement and having your liberties taken away is going to have an effect on just about anyone. I'm sure its not 'good for you', but prison or confinement wouldnt be a very effective deterrant if it were indeed 'good for you'.
Deterrence, like punishment, should be aimed at actual convicts, not mere suspects.
Government had the option of not putting him in pre-trial confinement. Perhaps they thought him a flight risk. /shrug.
I don't think he was saying that pre-trial confinement is supposed to be a deterrant. He was saying that confinement isn't good for you, then commenting that this is the reason why it's used as a punishment - pre-trial confinement is used simply because there isn't another economical way of making sure that the suspect is kept where you want him before his trial.
Thanks for agreeing.
Thanks for not trying to twist my comments further...
No, what is stupid is the litmus test you guys have latched onto to perpetuate this ridiculous claim of torture. You guys are the ones who decided it was torture because it can cause psychological harm, not me.
Solitary confinement is practices in the US routinely in prisons, and unless you have something that suggest most of them are somehow basket cases now because of it the idea that it generally harms people beyond the norm for other punishments as practiced in this case is unattested to.
Again, be logically consistent.
The other problem you guys have is that in other threads the usuals here also claim that torture is never useful and actual detrimental, and circumstances do not dictate using it ever. In this thread, however, the same people claiming solitary confinement is torture turn right around and claim its appropriate for violent offenders and disciplinary cases.
Again, be logically consistent.
I will happily follow whatever test you come up with to its logical conclusion, but as you stated yourself your current one is in fact quite stupid.
I said pre-conviction is not about deterrence and you moved your point to another reason. Observing the twist is not twisting.
Whoever said otherwise?
Certainly not me.
Sad about the fact that even when thieves know that stealing can lead to the risk of getting caught, they still steal anyway.
Kinda proves the point that there isn't really any effective discouragement for any criminal acts, especially for whistle-blowers. Since whistle-blowers usually do things for the reason of thinking that they are doing the right thing, and know that the risk is there, but do it anyway for higher principles.
It fall short of martyrdom, but by not much.
I linked two articles in my earlier post (post number 234 in this thread) about the effects of solitary confinement. I guess you didn't read them.
Stop making stuff up. The only illogicality is in your head.
Nobody denied this, but as we just established your test is too broad, regular imprisonment yields the same results. Possibly causing unwanted effects does not equal torture or yelling at your children or working night shifts or spending six months at sea away from your family would be torture too.
This should be very simple for you. The US has tens of thousands of people in solitary confinement right now, hundreds of thousands who have been in it. If it really is yielding the results you have claimed in anything resembling a statistically relevant fashion you should be able to support your claim easily.
How about it? Why are you not supporting your claim?
Nobody is making you participate in this thread. The proper response to a logical argument you can't BS your way out of is to leave the thread or admit you are wrong.
You have two ways to get out of the above logic. First, you can now establish that torture is useful and should be allowed depending on the situation, or secondly you can admit solitary confinement is not torture. If you can't do either you are not being logically consistent and are a hypocrite.
Also, I think its funny you are accusing someone else of making things up when you were just called out in detail about misrepresenting Supreme Court rulings.
So you admit solitary confinement is harmful? Good, we're making at least a little progress here. Also if you're going to claim regular imprisonment yields the same results, I'd like to see some proof.
I did not originally provide quotes from the article, as I think people should read the whole article. I recommend you read the whole article before attacking a part of it.
You are twisting people's words to make them seem illogical in your head. I have never said torture cannot ever be useful (feel free to provide a quote proving otherwise). I argue that torture is morally wrong, at least in this case. Now if you are going to blame someone of inconsistency, provide quotes instead of twisting their arguments in your head and calling them inconsistent.
E: Also, about the solitary confinement of violent inmates: it is acceptable if, and only if, it is the only way to stop violent inmates from assaulting other inmates. In such a case it would be the lesser evil. That is assuming it is proven that 1: the inmate being isolated is violent towards other inmates 2: solitary confinement is the only way to stop the inmate from harming other inmates (which is arguable). Solitary confinement is harmful, even for violent inmates.
The fact that tens of thousands of inmates are tortured on a regular basis by placing them in solitary confinement for extended periods of time hardly rationalizes doing so.
Hellhole: The United States holds tens of thousands of inmates in long-term solitary confinement. Is this torture?
There are ample studies which have been made by the military and others on the deleterious effects of extended periods of solitary confinement.
I think the solitary confinement as practiced in the US for the past 20 years is nothing but the deliberate torture of those whom society has decided to permanently shun. They want to make examples of them so few others are foolish enough to challenge the wishes of the "law and order" crowd.
In some extreme cases, it might be warranted for fairly short periods of time as a form of severe punishment for those who continually physically attack other inmates or guards. After all, even Colonel Klink didn't give anybody more than "30 days in the cooler".
Separate names with a comma.