Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

themarshallproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 139 posts

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#21

Post by sathackr »

whiddershins wrote: post #12
justicezyx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How we should treat the "animal" that kill people then?

All humans are capable of horrific acts. It is a part of our humanity, we are apex predators who organize socially. The evolved algorithm in our brain that manages that dissonance is extremely complex and will necessarily fail at times. We can't tolerate or condone antisocial behavior, but it is a mistake to feel safe in the thought "we" are better than "them." We are they, they are we.

I wish there was a multi-upvote button.

This, so much this.

It's so easy to turn it into 'us' and 'them'

So many stereotypes, so much historical(and, of course, current) violence and bloodshed because someone convinces a population how 'they' are different than 'us', 'we' are better, therefore 'they' must surrender(and become like 'us') or 'we' will force 'them' to.

My favorite example? Extrajudicial killings of non-us citizens unilaterally declared to be terrorists. And since it's 'them', somehow it's moral. Terrorism is bad, but doesn't give us the right not to afford another human the protections of things we have declared to be owed to all men.

If 'We hold these truths to be self evident..." then why do we only apply them to US Citizens? (And then, take them away from some US Citizens, the ones that have been declared to be 'them' no longer 'us')

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#22

Post by throweway »

justicezyx wrote: post #6
jonpaine wrote: post #3

It's disgusting that we treat humans like this. A reasonable person can understand perspectives on both sides of many contemporary hot topics, but I see no such leeway here. Isn't it time we stand up and simply fix something which is so clearly broken?

How we should treat the "animal" that kill people then?

Thats a can of worms.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#23

Post by throweway »

justicezyx wrote: post #6
jonpaine wrote: post #3

It's disgusting that we treat humans like this. A reasonable person can understand perspectives on both sides of many contemporary hot topics, but I see no such leeway here. Isn't it time we stand up and simply fix something which is so clearly broken?

How we should treat the "animal" that kill people then?

Thats a can of worms.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#24

Post by throweway »

justicezyx wrote: post #6
jonpaine wrote: post #3

It's disgusting that we treat humans like this. A reasonable person can understand perspectives on both sides of many contemporary hot topics, but I see no such leeway here. Isn't it time we stand up and simply fix something which is so clearly broken?

How we should treat the "animal" that kill people then?

Thats a can of worms.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#25

Post by superuser2 »

rdtsc wrote: post #5

People talk about institutional evil. This is an example of it. You can almost trace their thinking "Oh, so solitary is bad now. We'll fix it. Put two people in a 10x4 cell. See, not solitary anymore, and we doubled the capacity too. Bonuses for everyone". Ideally you'd think those who made those decision would be disciplined, pensions would be cut, etc. But nothing like that is gonna happen. Even if the family wins…

This is also what happens when well-intentioned people are vastly more successful at fighting prison construction than fighting mass incarceration.

Our prisons are routinely at 1.5x, 2x, 3x capacity. Being against the prison industrial complex feels good, but in doing so you become directly, personally responsible for the fact that there are now 3 people in a cell meant for one, people living on cots in a gymnasium with no privacy whatsoever, in such close quarters that even the most patient people would be at each other's throats.

Until the prison population actually declines, we ought to at least be building prisons fast enough to stay at design capacity.

Google your state - you'll be amazed. Prisons aren't designed to be comfortable, but they sure as hell get a lot less comfortable with too many people in them.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#26

Post by Nutmog »

rdtsc wrote: post #5

People talk about institutional evil. This is an example of it. You can almost trace their thinking "Oh, so solitary is bad now. We'll fix it. Put two people in a 10x4 cell. See, not solitary anymore, and we doubled the capacity too. Bonuses for everyone". Ideally you'd think those who made those decision would be disciplined, pensions would be cut, etc. But nothing like that is gonna happen. Even if the family wins…

It's fair for taxpayers to pay for it because they're also the voters who voted for the system. Most people actually want more horrible prisons, they want solitary confinement, they want prisoners to kill each other, they want long sentences. That's why it happens. So isn't it quite reasonable to push the cost back onto those people when they get sued?

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#27

Post by JabavuAdams »

justicezyx wrote: post #6
jonpaine wrote: post #3

It's disgusting that we treat humans like this. A reasonable person can understand perspectives on both sides of many contemporary hot topics, but I see no such leeway here. Isn't it time we stand up and simply fix something which is so clearly broken?

How we should treat the "animal" that kill people then?

Build a social system that results in fewer innocent people being killed and fewer unsullied children growing up into killers.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#28

Post by JabavuAdams »

imtringued wrote: post #11

The point of solitary confinement is to protect inmates from attacking each other. Putting two attackers into one cell makes the problem even worse. After the first inmate murder there is no consequence for further murder, you're there for the rest of your life anyway. It doesn't matter if you kill one or twenty cellmates. For the prison this is probably a boon because their overcrowding problem is "solving itself".

Yup, it's totally rational. When you create a system where murder is an entirely rational response, you've created an evil system.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#29

Post by ams6110 »

whiddershins wrote: post #12
justicezyx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How we should treat the "animal" that kill people then?

All humans are capable of horrific acts. It is a part of our humanity, we are apex predators who organize socially. The evolved algorithm in our brain that manages that dissonance is extremely complex and will necessarily fail at times. We can't tolerate or condone antisocial behavior, but it is a mistake to feel safe in the thought "we" are better than "them." We are they, they are we.

No, sorry. Some people kill or viciously assault other people, while most people don't. There's not a moral equivalence there.

That said, I do think that the conditions described in the article constitute cruel and unusual punishment, at least by today's standards. I'm not sure what the framers had in mind; I'm sure 18th century prisons were not rose gardens either.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#30

Post by justicezyx »

whiddershins wrote: post #12
justicezyx wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How we should treat the "animal" that kill people then?

All humans are capable of horrific acts. It is a part of our humanity, we are apex predators who organize socially. The evolved algorithm in our brain that manages that dissonance is extremely complex and will necessarily fail at times. We can't tolerate or condone antisocial behavior, but it is a mistake to feel safe in the thought "we" are better than "them." We are they, they are we.

Hmm, I guess I am too much a CS people.

When I say "animal", I mean human as a kind of "animal". In terms of people killing people, that is a reflection of the "animal" side of human. Thus I use "animal".

If you think I mean they are "animal", and I am not "animal"; and I am better then them. Sorry, I do not possess that prejudice.

My question simply is: How we treat the "animal", which are people showing high-degree of animal instinct of a human, who killed other human?

That's not an implication that they should be treated as "animal".

Post reply on HN