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

41–50 of 139 posts

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#41

Post by trhway »

superuser2 wrote: post #25
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 w…

>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

if you trace whom prison guard unions support you'd notice that it is the prison-industrial complex who is a major player responsible for incarcerating more people. Having crowded prisons helps a lot to overcome any opposition to new prisons exactly because of the logic like yours.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#42

Post by XorNot »

gnaritas wrote: post #37
superuser2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

There's a simple solution to that, set people free. We don't need to build more prisons, we already imprison more of our population than any other country in the world, we have too many prisons and too many people in them. We need to imprison less people. Release all inmates who committed victim-less crimes, if more room is needed, release all inmates who committed non violent crimes-there are better ways to deal wit…

You miss the point. It's easier to stop prisons being built then to set people free. But it would probably be easier to deal with the whole problem if in fact we were a lot stricter about ensuring proper prison capacity, construction and staffing were followed.

But then again, doing any of that is a lot harder then egging on the narrative that prison is actually meant to be a mad max wasteland, and pretending we're totally not responsible for turning a blind eye to the rape, murder and gangs we let happen there.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#43

Post by zanny »

gnaritas wrote: post #37
superuser2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

There's a simple solution to that, set people free. We don't need to build more prisons, we already imprison more of our population than any other country in the world, we have too many prisons and too many people in them. We need to imprison less people. Release all inmates who committed victim-less crimes, if more room is needed, release all inmates who committed non violent crimes-there are better ways to deal wit…

> victim-less crimes

I think I found the double-think.

But absolutely, incarceration is used as a tool of suppressing "undesirables" according to the writers of law. The co-conspirator of Watergate is making waves online again this past week for having talked about how the Nixon administration planned the war on drugs as a means to destroy hippie and black communities through mass incarceration and prosecution.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#44

Post by Natsu »

llamataboot wrote: post #15

Mass Incarceration is truly one of those things I can't think too much about or I just feel an unrelenting hopelessness and rage. It seems absolutely diabolical to me that in the United States we have simply taken away the humanity of so many people (with absolutely egregious racial and class disparities) in the name of keeping "us" "safer". Not only is it an absolute failure from a moral perspective, it doesn't work…

These are two murderers who decided to kill each other. There are good reasons to leave people like that in actual solitary, so that they're unable to hurt others, but killing each other was never a human response. Nor, given their history, can I glibly conclude that prison made them that way, when all evidence is that the causal arrow points in the opposite direction.

I may be somewhat biased. My mother was murdered--brutally and deliberately. The man responsible also threatened grandma. He's serving life in prison now. I have good reason to fear for myself and grandma if well-intentioned people let him free.

If intentional, cold-blooded murder isn't a good reason to keep someone away from others, then I wonder just how society is supposed to integrate that behavior.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#45

Post by zanny »

stopinsanity16 wrote: post #7
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?

(US point-of-view): in case one ignores the blaring media headlines and the incessant political noise on TV and via unsolicited phone calls, I must inform that this is an election year in this country. There is still plenty of time to mobilize disenfranchised voters to perform a "regime change" to ensure that the people who gave us private jails, funding cuts for schools , increased corporate welfare, "war on drugs",…

The problem we are seeing this election cycle is the undemocratic consequence of first past the post. The American republic has degenerated so direly that, as is par for the course, the American people will once again be given only two choices for president (and likewise, at most two choices in every other ballot position they are eligible in this November, besides the most local of elections) of which very few non-hardline party members will be in favor of.

It should also be very alarming how many primaries in the Democrat primary this year have demonstrated extensive systemic corruption of the party. Be it 7 "random" wins in Iowa, to past presidents using their authority and influence to shut down polling locations in Massachusetts for hours, to just this past week Arizona having its polling locations cut by 70% that produced waiting lines over five hours long, on top of mass relocation of voter registrations and many voters losing their party membership recognition in a closed primary.

While of course I will still vote for every position I can for the person I want to win (and never for the lesser of two evils as I am provided by the establishment) the system is not orchestrated to enable the people to actually do anything any more. It would require a tremendous amount of public action, and for almost all issues - including the ones this article brings to light - Martin Niemöller's quote "First they came ..." rings true moreso today than I could imagine possible. There is tremendous apathy in America, as people only become aware or active when it is too late and their liberties and freedom have already been taken, and for the rest as long as it is not impacting their lives they will ignore it because it is "too much work" to do anything about.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#46

Post by gcb0 »

Karunamon wrote: post #38
superuser2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Thought experiment: What would happen if the laws were amended so that, should someone be sentenced to prison time, and all prisons within a reasonable radius are at capacity, that either the person with the lowest amount of time to serve in that prison (barring violent offenses) is automatically set free, or the sentence is commuted to probation or such? There's an argument to be made here that cramming two people i…

then you get a interesting, new, prisoner dilemma puzzle.

if you are the leader of a big gang, and still have power on the people outside, you can make enough gang-newcomers go to jail until you are free.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#47

Post by zanny »

justicezyx wrote: post #30
whiddershins wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The original intent of incarceration was to remove those from society who we could not trust to peacefully participate in it.

That intent is naturally lost today - the mass incarceration of drug users being only a portion of a larger pie of injustice and horror committed on a daily basis in the US that includes other atrocities such as police brutality and civil asset forfeiture.

Obviously in cases where prisoners kill one another, in a sane world, the constable and other administration of the prison would be held accountable, as would any officers who betrayed their duty to let it happen. It is always someones fault you put individuals who we deemed untrustable in the presence of others to be placed in circumstances to harm others again.

Unsurprisingly, the reality is that locking people up is incredibly expensive. We spend more per prisoner than we do per dozen students in public schools each year. The practical costs of incarceration are huge, let alone the social and economic ones. It should be unsurprising the people are less receptive to tremendous taxes to pay for, by far, the highest incarceration rates in the world.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#48

Post by chishaku »

superuser2 wrote: post #25
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 w…

> 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...

Is there any evidence that people "against the prison industrial complex" are directly responsible for the rate at which new prisons are being constructed? I'm not sure but I'm inclined to think that this would have more to do with strained budgets than any successful activism.

Edit: I looked into this a bit with California as an example.

In 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling that required California to dramatically reduce its prison population.

"Justice Kennedy, citing the lower court decision, said there was 'no realistic possibility that California would be able to build itself out of this crisis,' in light of the state’s financial problems."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24scotus.html

The opinion of the lower court:

"Relying on expert testimony, the court ruled that the California prison system, the nation’s largest with more than 150,000 inmates, could reduce its population by shortening sentences, diverting nonviolent felons to county programs, giving inmates good behavior credits toward early release, and reforming parole, which they said would have no adverse impact on public safety."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10prison.html

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#49

Post by Dylan16807 »

gcb0 wrote: post #46
Karunamon wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thought experiment: What would happen if the laws were amended so that, should someone be sentenced to prison time, and all prisons within a reasonable radius are at capacity, that either the person with the lowest amount of time to serve in that prison (barring violent offenses) is automatically set free, or the sentence is commuted to probation or such? There's an argument to be made here that cramming two people i…

then you get a interesting, new, prisoner dilemma puzzle. if you are the leader of a big gang, and still have power on the people outside, you can make enough gang-newcomers go to jail until you are free.

Thousands of them? And they'd all have to get longer sentences than you? Not going to work.

Re: The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate

#50

Post by mirimir »

brownbat wrote: post #39
mirimir wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This! It's plainly the Drug War that's filled prisons. Sorry about your friend :(

Well, prison populations are actually really complicated. There's a good piece at The Marshall Project discussing this, with an interesting interactive that illustrates how difficult it would be to dramatically reduce the prison population by only focusing on nonviolent drug offenders: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/03/04/how-to-cut-the... The drug war was a massive overreach. It's not 100% of the overcrowde…

Thanks.

I suspect that much violent crime is also Drug War related. Robberies to buy drugs. Bad influences while imprisoned for drug-related offenses.

Few countries imprison such high percentages of their populations. What else could be accounting for that? Lead poisoning? Dysfunctional culture?

Post reply on HN