PDA

View Full Version : Come to think of it, solitary confinement sounds like torture


Jason McCullough
03-29-2009, 07:45 PM
Hrm (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all).

One of the paradoxes of solitary confinement is that, as starved as people become for companionship, the experience typically leaves them unfit for social interaction. Once, Dellelo was allowed to have an in-person meeting with his lawyer, and he simply couldn’t handle it. After so many months in which his primary human contact had been an occasional phone call or brief conversations with an inmate down the tier, shouted through steel doors at the top of their lungs, he found himself unable to carry on a face-to-face conversation. He had trouble following both words and hand gestures and couldn’t generate them himself. When he realized this, he succumbed to a full-blown panic attack.

Craig Haney, a psychology professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz, received rare permission to study a hundred randomly selected inmates at California’s Pelican Bay supermax, and noted a number of phenomena. First, after months or years of complete isolation, many prisoners “begin to lose the ability to initiate behavior of any kind—to organize their own lives around activity and purpose,” he writes. “Chronic apathy, lethargy, depression, and despair often result. . . . In extreme cases, prisoners may literally stop behaving,” becoming essentially catatonic.


Second, almost ninety per cent of these prisoners had difficulties with “irrational anger,” compared with just three per cent of prisoners in the general population. Haney attributed this to the extreme restriction, the totality of control, and the extended absence of any opportunity for happiness or joy. Many prisoners in solitary become consumed with revenge fantasies.


Solitary doesn't actually work as punishment, either, so it's pointless. On the prospects for reform:


I spoke to a state-prison commissioner who wished to remain unidentified. He was a veteran of the system, having been either a prison warden or a commissioner in several states across the country for more than twenty years. He has publicly defended the use of long-term isolation everywhere that he has worked. Nonetheless, he said, he would remove most prisoners from long-term isolation units if he could and provide programming for the mental illnesses that many of them have.


“Prolonged isolation is not going to serve anyone’s best interest,” he told me. He still thought that prisons needed the option of isolation. “A bad violation should, I think, land you there for about ninety days, but it should not go beyond that.”


He is apparently not alone among prison officials. Over the years, he has come to know commissioners in nearly every state in the country. “I believe that today you’ll probably find that two-thirds or three-fourths of the heads of correctional agencies will largely share the position that I articulated with you,” he said.


Commissioners are not powerless. They could eliminate prolonged isolation with the stroke of a pen. So, I asked, why haven’t they? He told me what happened when he tried to move just one prisoner out of isolation. Legislators called for him to be fired and threatened to withhold basic funding. Corrections officers called members of the crime victim’s family and told them that he’d gone soft on crime. Hostile stories appeared in the tabloids. It is pointless for commissioners to act unilaterally, he said, without a change in public opinion.

arctangent
03-29-2009, 08:13 PM
Prison is not so much about punishment as it is about retribution. In the old days society dealt with misfits by stoning or crucifixion or the cutting off of body parts. Nowadays we use psychological torture to achieve the retributive effect, which I suppose is an 'improvement' in that it can continue many years rather than a day or two at most.

Sebmojo
03-29-2009, 11:00 PM
Prison is not so much about punishment as it is about retribution. In the old days society dealt with misfits by stoning or crucifixion or the cutting off of body parts. Nowadays we use psychological torture to achieve the retributive effect, which I suppose is an 'improvement' in that it can continue many years rather than a day or two at most.

Quite. (http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/kafka/inthepenalcolony.htm)

Sarkus
03-30-2009, 12:40 AM
We seriously need to go back to some form of prison colony system where the inmates do hard labor and work that is beneficial to society while being restricted (to a reasonable degree) as a punishment for what they did. Locking someone up and throwing away the key doesn't accomplish anything.

Mordrak
03-30-2009, 12:46 AM
No we don't. There's no reason to create a monetary incentive (low cost labor) to imprison people. It should cost society something to imprison people, because at least then you have to (or should to some extent) justify the danger of the prisoners of being at large to that cost.

Anaxagoras
03-30-2009, 01:42 AM
No we don't. There's no reason to create a monetary incentive (low cost labor) to imprison people. It should cost society something to imprison people, because at least then you have to (or should to some extent) justify the danger of the prisoners of being at large to that cost.

I think your point against creating a monetary incentive to imprison people is well taken, but your opposite claim doesn't hold; the cost of jails isn't tied to the sentencing right now. (i.e. judges don't consider the cost of jailing someone during sentencing) I don't think you could create a system where tying the cost to the sentencing would be healthy; even if you tie the costs at the legislative level, you'd get legislatures dictating to judges what sentences need to be, which seems unhealthy.

Our current system of costs divorced from sentencing (and no incentive to imprison people) is probably the best one. Now if only we could get rid of the insane laws on the books, we'd be in good shape.

Robert Sharp
03-30-2009, 03:24 AM
Jason, did you see any data in that about whether the people were subject to irrational anger BEFORE they entered solitary? Couldn't an alternate explanation for at least that part be the fact that such people are more likely to be put in solitary in the first place?

That wouldn't diminish the other problems, of course.

Lizard_King
03-30-2009, 03:34 AM
I think your point against creating a monetary incentive to imprison people is well taken, but your opposite claim doesn't hold; the cost of jails isn't tied to the sentencing right now. (i.e. judges don't consider the cost of jailing someone during sentencing) I don't think you could create a system where tying the cost to the sentencing would be healthy; even if you tie the costs at the legislative level, you'd get legislatures dictating to judges what sentences need to be, which seems unhealthy.

Our current system of costs divorced from sentencing (and no incentive to imprison people) is probably the best one. Now if only we could get rid of the insane laws on the books, we'd be in good shape.
He's talking about the costs to society, not as a direct limit or guide to judges. Since if prison reform does come it will likely be fueled by disgust at the prison industrial complex and the burden it represents financially, I think it's a valid way to see the potential of the current system, not some hypothetical suggestion. I say potential, because of course there is no upper limit to the number of things that are absurdly broken that most people will not give a shit about.

Hawkeye Fierce
03-30-2009, 05:17 AM
There's no reason to create a monetary incentiveUnfortunately, given our privatized prison system, there already is one.

bago
03-30-2009, 07:21 AM
Quite. (http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/kafka/inthepenalcolony.htm)

Well kidnapping the undesirable and making them work for slave wages IS the american way.

Kael
03-30-2009, 07:36 AM
No we don't. There's no reason to create a monetary incentive (low cost labor) to imprison people. It should cost society something to imprison people, because at least then you have to (or should to some extent) justify the danger of the prisoners of being at large to that cost.

I think you are vastly underestimating the cost of the facilities, guards, food and accomendations provided to guests of the state. Low cost labor works when you have very thin, cheap supervision and only provide basic substance requirements (tents, food, no entertainment budget). From a pricing perspective the inmates are living in a luxary hotel (because of the oversight/security requirements).

No one is going to be making a profit from a prison outside of black market organ sales.

Jason McCullough
03-30-2009, 09:03 AM
Jason, did you see any data in that about whether the people were subject to irrational anger BEFORE they entered solitary? Couldn't an alternate explanation for at least that part be the fact that such people are more likely to be put in solitary in the first place?

That wouldn't diminish the other problems, of course.

The article doesn't think so.

RSofaer
03-30-2009, 09:06 AM
I think you are vastly underestimating the cost of the facilities, guards, food and accomendations provided to guests of the state. Low cost labor works when you have very thin, cheap supervision and only provide basic substance requirements (tents, food, no entertainment budget). From a pricing perspective the inmates are living in a luxary hotel (because of the oversight/security requirements).

No one is going to be making a profit from a prison outside of black market organ sales.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html?_r=2&hp

How about we chalk that post up to ignorance?

Kael
03-30-2009, 09:11 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html?_r=2&hp

How about we chalk that post up to ignorance?

The teenagers in your article werent being used as a source of cheap labor, the profit was that the facilities were being paid by the state to hold them. My point was that no one will be incented to jail people as a source of cheap labor because the cost to hold them will far exceed any profit from the work they do. Work or not its small potadoes. Now government prison contracts is another deal entirely, but those problems exist rather or not you put prison labor programs in place.

I was talking about prison labor. My organ sales line was a joke. I forgot I was posting in the P&R forum where people like to jump on statements like that.

Mordrak
03-30-2009, 10:56 AM
He's talking about the costs to society, not as a direct limit or guide to judges. Since if prison reform does come it will likely be fueled by disgust at the prison industrial complex and the burden it represents financially, I think it's a valid way to see the potential of the current system, not some hypothetical suggestion. I say potential, because of course there is no upper limit to the number of things that are absurdly broken that most people will not give a shit about.

Exactly, either disgust or bankruptcy. California is facing letting thousands of prisoners go (or tens of thousands) because it's broke.


I think you are vastly underestimating the cost of the facilities, guards, food and accomendations provided to guests of the state. Low cost labor works when you have very thin, cheap supervision and only provide basic substance requirements (tents, food, no entertainment budget). From a pricing perspective the inmates are living in a luxary hotel (because of the oversight/security requirements).

No one is going to be making a profit from a prison outside of black market organ sales.


Well, there's different levels of prisons and their cost. Many prisoners are staying in gymnasiums with double and triple bunk beds or at privatized loose security prisons in California that double as rehabs. Our prison system is more diverse than just the federal or high security ones you imagine. The other issue is you don't want to create the opportunity for a conflict of interest that could lead to "reforms" that turn into labor camps. Trying to recover your cost so it so it either provides profit to a private agency or misrepresents the true cost to society is just as dangerous. You are right, that correctional officer unions keep their wages high (which is a very significant part of the cost).

Anaxagoras
03-30-2009, 11:11 AM
He's talking about the costs to society, not as a direct limit or guide to judges. Since if prison reform does come it will likely be fueled by disgust at the prison industrial complex and the burden it represents financially, I think it's a valid way to see the potential of the current system, not some hypothetical suggestion.

I think I understood what he meant, but what I was (poorly) trying to express is that the cost is completely divorced from the action.

It's possible that eventually, at a high enough level, society *must* respond to the cost of incarceration. But I think it's likely that the system will just become more & more dysfunctional until we change our underlying values. Of course, that dysfunctionality may be what Mordrak had in mind when he was talking about the "cost to society".