It’s impossible to look at the US justice system and not think “something is seriously wrong, here.”
As usual, the government makes a set of noble-sounding mouth noises, while it’s actually doing something fairly nasty.
The whole system is set up as an elaborate game of “heads I win, tails you lose” with plenty of loopholes for the wealthy and powerful to generally work the system – if you’ve got the money to lawyer up and start demanding better treatment, you can. But if you’re poor, you’re basically stuck, because you’re on the inside and you can’t lawyer up effectively while you’re in confinement awaiting your trial. It’s a catch-22 situation and the government’s prosecutors know it: they can torture you into a plea-bargain, whether you’re guilty or not. Another of the system’s tricks is that they imprison you for failure to pay fines and fees incurred during the course of your encounter with the justice system – in other words, it’s a self-licking ice cream cone.
According to its stated ideals, the US justice system wants to presume innocence until guilt is determined at a jury trial. But that’s not how things are generally done: you’re locked up awaiting trial and it becomes easy for the government to extort a confession (plea bargain) in order to just get it over with. [wik] reports:
Six out of 10 people in U.S. jails – nearly a half million individuals on any given day – are awaiting trial. People who have not been found guilty of the charges against them account for 95% of all jail population growth between 2000–2014.
I find that a staggering level of … injustice. Basically, the government is able to treat you as though you were a convicted prisoner for years, whether they actually take the case to a jury, or not. Somehow, the American people find this situation acceptable – and, I think I know why: it doesn’t affect white people as much, and it affects poor people more. (being poor and black is, of course, the intersection of nastiness in this scenario) Also, around 48% of the prison population is incarcerated for drug charges. Add in the fact that, in many states, convicts lose their right to vote (and people in custody don’t exactly have an easy time voting, whether they have been convicted, or not) it’s pretty clearly part of a great, big, vote suppression operation. Richard Nixon’s bag-man, John Erlichman, admitted this eventually: [cnn]
You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
People who have not been found guilty of a crime, but are awaiting trial on drug charges, have been taken out of the voter pool fairly effectively. Again, this is not justice – it’s obvious what is going on, and it’s obviously wrong. Nowadays they’re trying to charge anyone who’s even been near a protest, of crimes that are serious enough that the protester gets disenfranchised. When the Trump administration started making additionally severe federal crimes for rioting (not expecting that they’d have their own riot to contend with) it was a convenient way of disenfranchising those who seem inclined to disagree with the government. If you step back and look at the situation with that perspective, you can understand why the proud boys were getting very different treatment at the hands of the department of justice than ANTIFA. The proud boys are the guys who vote the right way, and ANTIFA are probably leftists, let’s charge them with stuff and grind them down emotionally and financially. And, of course, if the cops accidentally sweep up some journalists, they’ll be able to clear themselves eventually though the wheels of justice do turn slowly, nyuk, nyuk.
What amazes me about the whole situation is that the “right wing” has been bamboozled into thinking that the situation is acceptable because – so far – the “right people” are getting cracked down on. You can observe their horrified reaction to the charges and arrests regarding the January 6 electoral insurrection – they didn’t expect their people to wind up detained; that’s for the other guys. But, in spite of the fact that they’re reprehensible idiots, I’m still really uncomfortable with the fact that a lot of them are cooling their heels in jail, waiting for the wheels of justice to turn. For all intents and purposes, they may as well have been declared “guilty” and sentenced to serve time, because they’re already serving time.
That brings me to what I’m uncomfortable about: Ghislaine Maxwell. [vice] Granted that she sounds like a really shitty person, right now, she hasn’t been found guilty of anything. She made some (I think pretty sensible, given her situation) attempts to not be grabbed the law enforcement, which was then used as a pretext for locking her up and treating her as if she were a convicted criminal, already. It’s a real problem – rich people have the resources to run and live comfortably in France, like Roman Polanski, and they have the resources to erect a smoke-screen of legal motions and whatnot, so they can run the clock down like Donald Trump has always done. The justice system has to expect that a wealthy douchebag is going to use their wealth to try to protect themselves (that’s what it’s for, after all!) but, doesn’t that amount to treating them as guilty before they’ve had a trial?
It’s particularly problematic when you’ve got a justice system with prisons that are straight out of a bad movie about “3rd world” dictatorships:
Maxwell’s lawyer, Bobbi Sternheim, has particularly objected to the jail guards’ nightly practice of shining a light into Maxwell’s cell every 15 minutes.
What, wait, huh? Did some judge decide that was appropriate? No, it appears that it is just something that the jail operators have decided is something they’re going to do to her, because they’re sadists. In the US, prison guards can get away with a whole lot of things, by claiming it’s to keep the prisoner from harming themself – Chelsea Manning was forced to sleep on a stainless steel platform with no blanket or covers, because – supposedly – she had said she wanted to die. In other words, the prison system’s way of dealing with a potentially suicidal prisoner is to try to drive them to suicide.
Maxwell is accused of some pretty janky stuff, but she is still “innocent until proven guilty” and is being abused by the prison system in lieu of her boyfriend, Jeffrey Epstein, who escaped his comeuppance by killing himself.
Federal prosecutors have argued that checks are a regular part of guards’ routine, and done to ensure that people are still breathing. Prosecutors have also repeatedly maintained that, despite claims of Maxwell’s physical deterioration, the onetime socialite is still healthy and is treated the same as other people held at the Metropolitan Detention Center.
What the fuck is wrong with these people? They need to ensure that people are still breathing? That’s complete bullshit. People don’t generally just stop breathing in prison, do they? Is that an epidemic? Of course what they are really saying is that they don’t want her to commit suicide like Jeffrey. And, boy, it’s fun for sadists to have a ci-devant prisoner that they can torment for a change. Why are these people allowed to treat a suspect so badly? Her trial is tentatively scheduled for this summer, and she has been consistently denied bail. That gives them a few more months to drive her over the edge.
I don’t think I’d give Ghislaine Maxwell the time of day, but basically the same shit was pulled on Chelsea Manning. In Manning’s case, liberals were suitably aghast, while nationalists/right-wingers were smug about her treatment. Now, with Maxwell we have the same thing playing itself along class lines. That’s really what’s going on, isn’t it? I’m a huge non-fan of how Americans deal with class (too much millionaire-worship) – man, when they turn on one of their own it’s like a pack of crazy wolves. Actually, wolves aren’t that mean.
During the brief time I was rehabilitation technician at a psychiatric facility we were told to count breaths. This is deliberate torture.
The weird part of this is that the reason people are kept in prison for too long while waiting for trial is usually not the prosecution holding things up. The constitutional right to a speedy trial keeps the prosecution from keeping people in prison indefinitely while waiting and that part has reasonably short periods. The problem is that the courts have largely said that time wasted by the court doesn’t count. So if either side enters a motion and the court takes a month to rule on the matter it adds a month to how long you can be stuck in prison. It creates another way that the accused don’t want to try and defend themselves.
That they are in prison at all largely on the prosecution. Putting people in prison over relatively trivial matters to put pressure on them to bargain out is standard. If your family depends on the money you bring in being stuck in prison for even a month could be a disaster.
After what happened to Epstein, I can’t blame them for checking on her every 15 minutes. I’m sorry she’s so pampered and coddled that a tiny bit of light is enough to keep her from sleeping, but that’s a her problem, not a system problem. The state has a duty of care, and part of that is ensuring that she is alive to stand trial.
OP:
You saw the comments at Mano’s blog — the attitude of multiple commenters who on other occasions are all about fairness was, basically, “Good. She deserves that”.
WMDKitty — Survivor@#3:
After what happened to Epstein, I can’t blame them for checking on her every 15 minutes.
She is a completely different person, a completely different case. What’s a good argument for being particularly concerned that she might suicide like Epstein, “they were friends and he killed himself therefore she’s more likely to…”? That doesn’t make sense to me, it’s basically the justice system projecting someone else’s behavior onto a friend’s. Granted, if she had been saying, “I want to take the same way out as Jeffrey” then that might be reasonable – but, instead, she is repeatedly asking to be released on bail – not what someone who is contemplating suicide might do.
The bigger point is that so far she’s innocent but accused. That should not magically turn off all of her rights as a human being.
I’m sorry she’s so pampered and coddled that a tiny bit of light is enough to keep her from sleeping, but that’s a her problem, not a system problem
Would you find it appropriate if the prisoner were a journalist? Or a BLM protester? Because – until they go to trial and are exonerated or found guilty, they have (in principle) the same rights.
Would you find it appropriate if the prisoner were yourself? Are you too tough and detached (the opposite of pampered and coddled, whatever) to not mind an attempt to manipulate you through sleep deprivation? If you were innocent?
Perhaps she feels that they’re being extra hard on her because she’s rich and pampered, and are simply being sadistic and attempting to make her miserable. That seems to me to be the most likely case. In which case, since she is still innocent, they ought to be treating her well. It was the government judge’s choice not to grant her bail.
The state has a duty of care, and part of that is ensuring that she is alive to stand trial.
Then why didn’t they allow her to stay in a nice hotel (at her expense) with a guard? Or stay at home with monitoring? And, if the state has a duty of care, why are they allowing the prison guards to apparently decide on their own that they need to wake her every 15 minutes? Did the judge order that, or did some thug with a badge decide it’s a good idea? How did this happen?
Remember: we’re all pretty sure she’s a dirtbag and she’s going to be found guilty of something but, what? She’s not a violent murderer or a serial killer or a gun-toting drug lord with gangs of enforcers. She’s possibly dangerous to herself but she’s hardly a danger to anyone else, and she’s barely a flight risk (if they seize her passport, lock her bank accounts, and ask her to remain at home wearing a tracking anklet) Why didn’t she get that option? This is, so far, an innocent person. And, if she’s convicted of a crime it’s not going to be one of severity warranting this sort of treatment. If she was a republican congressperson she wouldn’t even be in prison, right now, she’d still be out and about doing her thing, with all of her money and her passport, just like Matt Gaetz.
John Morales@#4:
You saw the comments at Mano’s blog — the attitude of multiple commenters who on other occasions are all about fairness was, basically, “Good. She deserves that”
Yes.
Once again, humanism/humanists disappoint me.
JM@#2:
The problem is that the courts have largely said that time wasted by the court doesn’t count.
Yeah, I don’t understand how that’s “justice” and it appears to go directly against the 6th Amendment.
Courts: “We’ve reviewed our behavior and find it exemplary, naturally.”
Surely the US prison system has enough resources for a small, wireless pulse/breathing monitor?
Seems to me that wanting to kill yourself is a reasonable reaction to being stuck in the US prison system (and that of a lot of other countries too). If they are worried about people killing themselves maybe they should fix that? (I know, that’s not the point)
@Marcus — It’s complicated.
The state has a legal duty of care, here. They can’t not check on her. Checking on residents every 15 minutes is standard. The guards are not deliberately trying to keep her awake or disturb her sleep (which would be unethical), they are doing their job as unobtrusively as they can. While I am hardly happy with our prison (and some hospital) systems, and think there’s light-years of room for improvement, I’m even unhappier with systems that neglect those in their care.
I do agree that a noninvasive remote monitoring system would be preferable, even ideal, and should be looked into. The only question is… how? Assuming we’re going by monitoring vitals (BP, O2) several issues arise. Immediately, there’s the issue of wiring. I’ve yet to see any kind of wireless system for monitoring vitals, they’re always wired to machines and displays. But moving on, even with sensors that can send the data over wifi, you still have to attach the sensors to the residents, either by sticky or by a wearable device — how do you ensure that they don’t remove or tamper with them? Surgically implanting them would mostly solve that, but that’s unethical and carries several risks that just aren’t acceptable (risk of infection, our bodies don’t like foreign objects, potential for sensors to wander internally, attempts at removal, tampering, or picking at incisions causing infection/complications, and then the costs associated with treating these complications.)
Short of something like Star Trek-level medical scanning technology, we’re stuck with this system of visual check-ins. I’m sorry some find that excessive, upsetting, or disruptive, but it’s the best available option right now, and I can’t condone just leaving residents un-monitored and hoping for the best.
PS: Ms. Maxwell is a high risk for flight. When they caught her, she was trying to leave the country.
What does checking every 15 minutes actually do? I think you from suffocation in far less than 15 minutes. I gail to see any medical reason to do this.
Further, use a small light, on all the time, maybe with a low light camera. Problem solved without torture.
WMDKitty, your behavior, excusing torture, here is discussing.
Well, first of all it would be ludicrous to suggest the US justice system is anything other than barbaric and fucked. That said, this isn’t the example to use for it.
First:
And yet your entire point here is that one of the wealthiest, most connected prisoners in the system has done just that and it isn’t working.
… like someone who was innocent of any crime would, of course.
She’s the very definition of a high flight risk. What do you expect law enforcement to do? Make her pinky swear not to use her millions, her connections and her three passports to push off in a private jet to somewhere that doesn’t trust US “justice” (e.g. France). I mean, you even cite Roman Polanski, who has chuckled at the US justice system openly for DECADES.
No… it amounts to sensible precautions to ensure a trial takes place. And if Maxwell was certain of her innocence, she could have chosen to simply present herself at a police station, lawyered up, with a bond posted to ensure she’d actually remain at the comfortable place she’d tell the cops she was about to push off to. If she’d done that, she’d likely still be having nightly jacuzzis or whatever it is the rich do. As it is, she went on the run successfully for months. She literally asked for this treatment.
Or possibly they’re not sadists, they just read the news and know what happened to her boyfriend and have, for perfectly reasonable reasons, figured “not on MY watch”.
Also: if you can’t sleep through having a light in your eyes every 15 minutes, you’re either not very tired, or you’ve got something ELSE keeping you awake. That is NOT sleep deprivation torture. A stainless steel plank with no covers – that’s closer. But a light every 15 minutes? I’ve got small children – my wife will tell you that after a long day you could shine a searchlight in my eyes and another straight where the sun don’t shine and I’d sleep like a baby. But then I don’t have a sex trafficking charge hanging over me.
And: @mjr, 5:
Er, no. My speeding fine last year is a completely different person and a completely different case. This is Epstein’s girlfriend and procurer, accused of procuring for him. It’s hard to picture a closer connection to Epstein that doesn’t involve blood relations.
Of course she’s asking to be released on bail – she wants to flee, and could. That’s why she’s locked up.
Also: on March 10th my best friend and I and two other mates made plans, set dates and discussed venues for having a celebratory post-lockdown get together. He even specified that we’d need a place big enough to set up £500-worth of Scalextric. On March 11th we spoke on the phone about a 3d print he was going to make. On March 12th he had a long talk with his boss, telling her how much he appreciated her appointment (she was a former colleague he admired) and how with her leadership he could see his department being much better organised than under the previous, useless boss. On March 14th he arranged a post-lockdown get together with the members of his board-gaming group. On March 16th, he pinged me on Playstation network to have a game of Call of Duty.
I read the eulogy at his funeral last week. If I didn’t have any idea my successful, widely liked best friend was contemplating suicide, you sure as shit know fuck all about Ghislaine Maxwell’s mental state as she contemplates facing sex trafficking charges.
If they did you’d be bemoaning how the rich are treated differently. And you’d be right.
That’s true. The only victims here were exploited underage girls who got to hang out with (and be fucked by) rich, famous guys. It’s not like anything BAD happened, right?
The fact you’ve put “passport” in the singular shows how much you’re basing this on your imagination rather than knowledge of the facts. Her bank accounts are already empty – as if that makes any difference. She still has access to massive amounts of money – that’s how being as rich as she is WORKS. Your money is never where the plebs can get at it, but it’s always where you can.
If that congressperson had UK citizenship AND French citizenship as well as US? If they had access to private jets? To millions of dollars? If they’d spent MONTHS already evading law enforcement? I think you’re wrong.
And here’s something I don’t say often: I absolutely 100% agree with WMDKitty, and they’re absolutely right. A brief visual check every 15 minutes is a MINIMALLY invasive way of checking she’s OK, given current tech, and the very least I’d expect given the history of this case. Anything else is fantasy. And as flight risks go, she is undoubtedly the absolute worst.
Another example of American injustice that blipped up on my radar screen this morning is Abu Zubaydah. He has been in Gitmo for 20 years, now, and was waterboarded and had his eye knocked out and a testicle removed. He has been kept “waiting to be charged” and never had a trial. Not only is he technically innocent (no trial) he’s actually innocent, too. Yet the government leans on its ability to game its own system by never having to have a trial. They now say they can’t release him because he’ll be radicalized … who wouldn’t? I suppose he is a “flight risk” too.
sonofrojblake@#11:
If I didn’t have any idea my successful, widely liked best friend was contemplating suicide, you sure as shit know fuck all about Ghislaine Maxwell’s mental state as she contemplates facing sex trafficking charges.
You just refuted yourself. Agreed nobody knows shit about her mental state – then why is it appropriate to act as though they are sure she’s going to try to kill herself? Her mental state is unknown, the system has no basis to assume she’s suicidal other than that her friend did. It’s a bizarre and immoral argument.
sonofrojblake@#11:
And yet your entire point here is that one of the wealthiest, most connected prisoners in the system has done just that and it isn’t working.
No, my point is that the system is fucked regardless of the prisoner – in that it assumes that it can ignore its own principles (speedy trial by a jury) and game them in order to gain leverage against a citizen.
I grant you that Maxwell is hardly an ideal case, because she’s a repugnant individual. But does that not make her a bigger/better target for the sadistic system?
I remember when Martha Stewart was caught out, doing something that (again) most congresspeople do. To refresh your memory: a bunch of republican congresspeople were briefed about COVID-19 and immediately sold a large number of stocks ahead of the market dip that occurred when the news broke publicly. Martha Stewart did the same thing, for a smaller amount ($45,000) and was sentenced to 5 months in minimum security prison. The congresspeople simply brushed the matter aside, because apparently that’s the “new acceptable.” Stewart was in the same kind of prison Michael Cohen wound up in – both alternated between low security prison and house arrest. I remember the Madame Defarge-like glee with which Martha Stewart’s sentence was greeted – that was one salient point: it was not simply that justice was being served; a wealthy, powerful, independent woman was being humiliated.
It’s complicated. Maxwell sounds like a renfield of the first order, but I see no way the state can claim she’s more likely to kill herself than Martha Stewart was. And Stewart was not subject to suicide-watch, or forced to sleep without covers, etc. Neither is Michael Cohen and he’s admitted he’s guilty.
And if Maxwell was certain of her innocence, she could have chosen to simply present herself at a police station, lawyered up, with a bond posted to ensure she’d actually remain at the comfortable place she’d tell the cops she was about to push off to. If she’d done that, she’d likely still be having nightly jacuzzis or whatever it is the rich do. As it is, she went on the run successfully for months. She literally asked for this treatment.
That’s true, and I think that’s a key point: she tried to resist capture. So, is the system being fair and treating her as a flight risk, or is petty revenge going on? Michael Cohen (to use my example) didn’t resist, and cooperated (except where he lied more) and mostly got to walk around without waist-chains and come-alongs. It seems to me that what’s going on is hardly a concern for justice so much as an enforcement of compliance even in the non-guilty: the system is saying “we can and will fuck you up, if you resist. we knocked out Abu Zubaydah’s fucking eye and got away with it, do not test us.” That threatening situation is exactly the kind of thing that would make a prisoner think about killing themself, and it sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts: “we can make you wish you were dead, by tormenting you to the breaking point.” That’s basically the usual cop-routine: they will demand compliance or they will punish you directly to intimidate you and others into immediately kissing the system’s ass the second someone says to. You must comply or they will break you, because non-compliance reveals the system is not all-powerful.
I feel as though we should all feel solidarity for all of the prisoners of the unjust American justice system; we shouldn’t pick and choose and decide who (prior to trial) should be singled out for humiliation. Instead, Americans are acting like tricoteuses (very few of whom ever actually existed, that was a bit of anti-French propaganda by English writer Stephenson)
For the kind of money the government spends on prisons, they could open a goddamn 3-star hotel that had egress security and subtly embedded security cameras. They could serve decent meals and for fuck’s goddamn sake they could give the prisoners COVID-19 vaccines if they asked for them. They could treat suspects like the innocent people that they are presumed to be.
I’m reminded of the fucking monstrous discussion a few years ago, where some congressional asswipe was complaining that prisoners had color TVs! What the fuckitty fuck? Is the state’s job to begrudge its prisoners colored pixels? Basically, it’s another not-so-subtle way of making sure that prison is retributive and punitive. That’s not what prison is, theoretically, for except in the minds of sadists.
No, not “agreed”. I didn’t say “nobody knows”, I said “you don’t know”. Do you concede it’s possible other people – you know, maybe some people who have met her, say – might have deeper insights?
And again – she literally asked for this. She went to the United States. It continually amazes me that anyone with the means to leave spends any time there.
I misread part of the story and thought they were deliberately waking them up in addition to checking breathing. That was why I made the reference to torture. My med-bridge is late and the sertraline withdrawal has required me to slow down.
If they are just checking for breathing it’s unfortunate if it wakes them up, but not torture. The facility I worked at required breathing checks of all patients every 15 minutes.
“Further, use a small light, on all the time, maybe with a low light camera. Problem solved without torture.”
Yeah, I assume they use a small flashlight, rather than turning on the overhead lights.
“WMDKitty, your behavior, excusing torture, here is discussing.”
It’s “torture” to ensure the safety of prisoners? WTF?
WMDKitty
Wow. Doublespeak professional here. Exactly what are you accomplishing with checks only 15 minutes? How long does it take for someone to hang, choke, or otherwise asphyxiate themselves? How long does it take? Much less than 15 minutes. How does a periodic check every 15 minutes prevent self-harm? What is the point of this 15 minute interval “suicide watch” check? Because the only purpose that I see is to torture.
Why do they have to change the light levels every 15 minutes? Why not keep a constant low-level light on which would allow them to do their check and not interfere with a light sleeper?
…
Brony
Same questions to you.
A brief flash of dim light is not torture. Period.
Why do YOU advocate neglect?
If you are woken up by dim flashlights of all things, you must not be very tired.
It is not torture to periodically check on a prisoner who may commit suicide before their trial.
WMDKitty — Survivor@#20:
A brief flash of dim light is not torture. Period.
Sorry, but any intrusion into my privacy is going to irritate me, and sufficient irritation is the definition of torture, we’re just arguing about the degree.
The question is not whether it’s tolerable, but rather why it is that the state decides it has the power to do anything annoying or inconvenient or uncomfortable – let alone torture – to someone who has not yet had a trial and is presumed innocent of any crime.
Yes, it’s a slippery slope argument. I suppose that the state can also perform involuntary medical interventions on a prisoner that has not been found guilty of a crime without the prisoner’s consent. Why do we require a warrant for a blood-draw, but not placing someone on suicide watch? What if the state decides that the prisoner is a suicide risk and shackles them on their back to a table, “for their own protection” even though the prisoner has not had a trial?
Also, is it standard practice to treat all prisoners as suicide risks? If not, how do we avoid the possibility that one prisoner is being singled out?
The obvious solution to this issue would be to require, per 6th Amendment, a speedy trial by jury. A second solution would be to require that a jury be impaneled and have the jury decide what is appropriate treatment for a prisoner. I.e.: the state would propose to perform cavity searches (for example) on an innocent citizen, let a jury decide if that is appropriate or not – not a judge or some prison warden.
Why do YOU advocate neglect?
I don’t. And you know it. Don’t try to “spin” my words; you can deal with what I say, not mis-represent my position.
ORigel@#21:
If you are woken up by dim flashlights of all things, you must not be very tired.
Why did you add the qualifier “dim”? Are these flashlights, in fact, dim or are you just trying to minimize the intrusion into a suspect’s space?
It is not torture to periodically check on a prisoner who may commit suicide before their trial.
If it is being done to annoy or harass a prisoner, it is.
Why is the state allowed to make these decisions, and why would anyone in their right mind be willing to grant that power to the US Justice System? (Who have a history of, you know, torturing suspects that have not been convicted of a crime)
One option that the state should explore is to ask the prisoner if they are contemplating suicide. And, if they lie and commit suicide, then who the fuck cares? I don’t get why anyone is pissing and moaning about Epstein killing himself. Good riddance, and it was his choice, have a nice day. It saved everyone a bunch of money and effort. More to the point, if the system had the fucking trial quickly then the question of guilt would have been resolved before Epstein had a chance to kill himself (as if that matters)
Remember the scene in Alice’s Restaurant where they take Arlo’s shoelaces away while he’s in the cell, and Arlo asks Officer Obie, “do you think I’m going to hang myself for littering?” That’s the kind of thing that I’m talking about, here. I do not believe the state is competent to make such decisions, and I do not believe that a jail warden is, either.
@GerrardOfTitanServer 19
I worked with children in the 6-17 year old range who were there for programs involving long term behavioral rehabilitation. When I was hired an example they used involved a child who hung themselves despite the 15 minute check. They didn’t yet have a reason for a “one on one” (a dedicated technician always present due to suicide or other risk). This part of medicine isn’t spared the damage of the profit motive.
The brain dies in less than 15 minutes without oxygen and this part of medicine. They spent more than one session showing every little thing they could imagine and had seen patients try to use to kill themselves. Tiny slivers of glass. A pencil. A fucking broken lego.
I feel like you could have looked for some of this on your own first.
The reason I raised this topic is because it touches on an important aspect of the relationship between the authority of the state, and the rights of the citizen. I don’t give a shit for Maxwell, what concerns me is that this topic opens the question of whether the justice system is retributive, or a deterrent, or a rehabilitation effort, or … well, what the hell is it?
It seems to me that some people think the justice system exists to exact retribution. If that’s the case, then it’s sadism, in the case of Maxwell, because the system is exacting retribution against her for something Epstein did (“escaping justice”) Which is bizarre to me, since hanging yourself in a fucking cell is hardly “escaping” anything.
I’m trying to tease out whether anyone is willing to say “justice is retribution” because that would be quite a position to take.
Brony
If you’re going to be an ass to me, I at least ask that you get your facts straight. You say that I didn’t look it up? I did say this “How long does it take? Much less than 15 minutes.”. Now, would you answer the fucking questions please instead of dodging like a cowardly defender of torture that you are being right now.
Sleep deprivation is torture, no matter the means to accomplish it.
I asked you some fucking questions. You could at least have the decency to answer them instead of defending torture. Here are some of the questions again:
How is a periodic 15 minute check going to stop someone determined to commit suicide? I don’t see how. It seems pretty obvious to me that it’s medically dubious at best, and medically pointless at worst. If someone is going to kill themself via asphyxiation, you need to check on them way more frequently than every 15 minutes.
Why can’t they just use a dim light on all the time, like a night light, which won’t interfere with someone’s sleep, and which can be used to see if they’re still breathing? The idea of flashing a light, even a dim one, every 15 minutes throughout the whole night sounds exactly like some sadist’s idea of how to torture someone while skirting the line of torture because it doesn’t seem to have any strong medical value in the context of suicide risk, and there are less intrusive methods that can offer the same or better benefits.
Marcus
Thanks for saying the things that I wanted to say.
Also:
Forget which blogger it is here, but someone talking about morality or free will or something on one of blogs here straight-up defended the retributive theory of justice in comments in a back and forth with me. It was at that point which I said “I’m out”. Anyone who defends the retributive theory of justice is abominable. If you care enough, I can find the comments and post a link here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/flashlight/comments/5i1cut/light_for_correctional_officer/
here’s a discussion from a US prison guard about the sort of torch they want to carry. They are not going for small and not disruptive.
@WMDKitty
you are giving people willing to work in the US police/prison system a lot of credit for not being unethical, authoritarian sadists. do you pay any attention to the news?
@Brony
having read some reports of attempted suicides in institutions i’m not sure i recommend people read up on them. it’s a really confronting subject that will stay with you. there are a lot of ways a person can die, and if you make someone desperate enough they will try them
Marcus,
Sorry, one other thing.
The obvious solution to me for most cases is to keep people out of jail pending trial in most cases. Most offenses shouldn’t even allow arrest. Most offenses should be solved by a citation aka a summons order to appear for trial.
For the small remainder who should remain in confinement pending trial, I agree with you that a speedy trial would be another great way to solve that problem.
I have another one for you which you already know: Ban plea bargaining (except in cases of informants for criminal conspiracies). Less need to keep accused in jail if you can’t use pre-trial detention to extort a plea bargain from them.
@25 Marcus Ranum:
It isn’t a single thing, it’s a balance of elements. The primary ones that people talk about are punishment (penalties paid by those that commit crimes), deterrent* (putting fear in those that commit crimes and those that might) and separation (keeping those that commit crimes away from law abiding citizens). There is a largely unspoken element of retribution in the unnecessary pain inflicted by the system**. Rehabilitation is talked about but doesn’t get nearly the time or money it needs to be effective and prison practice often makes the situation worse.
* In theory deterrence covers any strategy to reduce crime. In practice too many people think the idea of putting fear in other potential criminals by making prisons as unpleasant as possible is a good deterrence.
** It is important to note that isn’t the only reason for unnecessary pain. Racism and sadism are also common.
@25 Marcus Ranum:
I doubt Maxwell is being punished as part of a displaced sense of retribution. It’s more likely a fear of screwing up again causing them to over react and the guards taking it out on her because they are being forced into this unpleasant duty.
There is also likely an element of the guards personally inflicting some punishment against those guilty of particularly heinous crimes.
@GerrardOfTitanServer 26
No. I won’t answer the questions of someone who just “same questions to you” at me, when those questions are sprinkled with lots of superficial characterizations without quotes that look pretty ass like.
That was the toned down version. If you don’t have the fucks to properly separate the individuals you are responding to at least have the tolerance for some of the tone being reflected back at you.
Gerrard, I won’t answer until you engage honestly and stop flinging accusations of “torture” at people.
BTW, if a brief flash of dim light is “torture”, then so is any noise made outside my bedroom window while I try to sleep…
Sigh. Tone trolling at it’s finest, and in defense of torture.
PS: WMDKitty
You don’t get to assume the conclusion, to assume that you’re right and I’m wrong, and demand that I agree you’re right before we have a conversation.
I think it is torture. You don’t. Asking me to not use words like “torture” and to not discuss it as torture – if I did that, then I would actually be dishonest because that’s not what I believe.
JM@#31:
I think you’ve got that right. It’s a mix of things – some almost contradictory (e.g: does deterrence work?) – and the result is often incoherent.
@Marcus Ranum 25
I wanted to mention that I don’t have any problems with the general subject, and I’m sorry if my impulsivity with respect to misreading the article caused any confusion. It’s fine to look for gratuitous cruelty and call it out. I’ve met lots of people who resist replacing punishment with something better. I’ll need to re-read the article to form a better opinion.
@mjr, 14: “I grant you that Maxwell is hardly an ideal case”
On that we can agree. And not just because she’s a repugnant individual.
“I think that’s a key point: she tried to resist capture. So, is the system being fair and treating her as a flight risk, or is petty revenge going on?”
I think more so than almost any individual I can think of, it’s perfectly reasonable to suppose the first one, unless you are predisposed to assume something else. Which you are, obviously. But own that bias.
“For the kind of money the government spends on prisons, they could open a goddamn 3-star hotel that had egress security and subtly embedded security cameras”
Or build some shitty prisons and a functioning healthcare system for the people who didn’t commit crimes. Just a thought.
@WMDKitty, 18: “I assume they use a small flashlight”. Touchingly naive, but your (and others’) unwarranted assumption doesn’t change the fact that you’re still right.
Serious point: if having a torch shone in your eyes wakes you up, YOU ARE NOT TIRED. If you think having a torch (even the kind of handheld tactical searchlight prison guards are likely to use) shone in your eyes every 15 minutes constitutes sleep deprivation, then it’s a fair assumption you’ve never had children. As a father of two kids under three, let me tell you that with enough ACTUAL sleep deprivation you can sleep through almost anything.
Let’s first all agree that sleep deprivation IS torture.
Consider: the US armed forces do sleep deprivation torture (yay American war criminals!). We know this. We also know HOW they do it. We know, for instance, that they don’t fuck about shining a light on a prisoner every 15 minutes. They have the lights on full brightness, all the time, 24/7. Then on top of that they play loud, grating sound and go into the room at unpredictable intervals and shout and threaten and get dogs to bark and other stuff. Why? Because just having the lights on 24/7, while it’s way cheaper and easier than all the other fucking about, WOULDN’T WORK. Just leaving the lights on all the time isn’t sleep deprivation torture, so shining a light in every 15 minutes sure as shit isn’t.
Consider also: truck drivers have bright lights flashed into their eyes ALL THE TIME. Truck drivers are highly motivated to stay the fuck AWAKE. And yet I think it’s safe to say that at least one truck driver falls asleep at the wheel every single day – sitting up, mind you, not in a bed, and subject to road noise as well as flashing lights or even broad daylight. Hands up if you drive and you’ve never, ever fallen asleep at the wheel or felt like you might? It is really REALLY hard to keep a tired person awake, even if they WANT to stay awake.
So please – enough with the bullshit that she’s being deliberately sleep deprived. And since she’s self-evidently not being sleep deprived, she’s not being tortured.
@GerrardOfTitanServer, 19:
Acceptable use of limited guard resources.
@mjr, 22: “any intrusion into my privacy is going to irritate me”
If the police were to pull you over, would you stop?
“The question is […] why it is that the state decides it has the power to do anything annoying or inconvenient or uncomfortable ”
That’s an easy one: because a significant minority of society is composed of people who do much worse, and it’s not acceptable to simply look at murderers, rapists and sex traffickers and shrug and say “well, whatchagonnado?” because the rest of society mustn’t be inconvenienced by the possibility of temporary detention while it’s established whether they’re one of the bad guys.
It’s like I have to endure the inconvenience and pain of going to a vaccination centre even though I’d probably be fine if I got Covid, because, y’know, OTHER PEOPLE EXIST.
Here’s the meat: it’s all of those and more.
1. retributive. Yes, I’ll bite, it is, and should be. It’s not “sadistic” if someone punches you first to want to punch them back – or at least not like any definition of sadism I recognise. Society – all of us – have a right to have our desire for retribution catered for, up to a point. Oh, you killed someone? Fuck you, you’re living in a cell for 20 years, how do you like them apples? Up to a point because mistakes happen and it’s vitally important you can also say “Oh, turns out you didn’t? Sorry sorry sorry here’s a million dollars for every year you were locked up”. So no death penalty, obvs, and keep sentences reasonable… up to a point, see (4).
2. Deterrent. Yes, obviously. Conservatives bitch and moan about how soft prisons are but bafflingly still don’t want to go there. It is definitely a deterrent for most people.
3. Rehabilitation – nice idea. It SHOULD mainly be about that, but in a fucked system like the US’s, isn’t. It should also be about
4. Security. If you’re convicted of burglary, then while you’re inside you’re not out burgling. If you’re convicted again, personally I think your sentence should be tripled, and tripled again on all subsequent convictions, just to keep you the fuck out of my house if nothing else.
@GerrardOfTitanServer, 30:
Well… that’s what happens, isn’t it? Most people, including and especially the rich, accused of a crime don’t get held pending trial. This is a TERRIBLE example case to use because this woman was a fugitive for MONTHS and a recognised flight risk.
Yay, we agree on something! Plea bargaining is a peculiarly American disease looked upon with bafflement by the civilised world.
@JM, 32 – is there an echo in here or what? (cf me @ 11)
Uh, roj, I’m in agreement — a brief flash of light is 100% not torture.
so you’ll support my desire for retribution for society abusing me and continuing to abuse other queer people i know, and won’t label me a terrorist?
or is the desire for retribution only allowed if you’re rich, white, and straight?
@WMDKitty, 41: the only thing I took issue with in what you said was “dim”. Other than that, agreement.
@dangerousbeans,42: I will support your desire for retribution. I will support the arrest and charge of those accused of homophobic crimes, will support their vigorous prosecution and stiff sentencing. I can’t see how anyone could label such behaviour “terrorist”.
Oh, you meant personal retribution? Nail-bombs-in-pubs-where-straight-people-gather retribution? Or vigilante hunting and hurting/killing people you’ve unilaterally decided deserve it retribution? Collective punishment of straight people for the crimes of a vanishing few? Fuck no, that would be the actions of a terrorist.
See, you’ll need to be more specific. I’m in favour of you being treated equally, not given a pass to become Batman. (Battyman?)*
*I can’t take credit for this joke. My cousin came up with it in about 2003, and I thought it was genius. She’s gay, and many of her friends are British-Jamaican, so “batty” was something she used to describe herself without apparent irony. In a conversation about getting back at people who had bullied her, I said “you wanna be Batman!”, to which she immediately replied “Battyman”. File it under “jokes I wish I’d thought of” as well as “jokes I’m not really allowed to tell without some serious qualification”.
There’s something vile about people imagining themselves virtuous while spouting spite. Trite, but vile.
(At least I don’t pretend to be a nice person)
Translation: “It’s not torture because I’m strong enough to take it voluntarily.”
What a completely disgusting attitude. This form of argument about what does and does not constitute torture is also patently absurd. I shouldn’t have to explain why.
PS: Probably a lot of toxic masculinity hidden on there too, e.g. “man enough”.
Missed this on the first read through.
Absolutely disgusting. You are a vile human being. Not for having those impulses, but for embracing them and demanding that we cater to them.
What is sadism except hurting others for no reason except to satisfy someone’s desire to see someone else in pain? What else could retributive theories of justice possibly be?! Questions of sadism do not hinge on whether the punishment is (otherwise) justifiable or not. You are a sadist, and proudly so. You are vile.
@GoTS:
1. I didn’t say sleep deprivation isn’t torture. In fact, I stated the opposite. Did you miss that bit too? I didn’t say I could take being tortured. In fact, I’ll admit the opposite. What I said – and what you haven’t attempted to dispute – is that Maxwell is not subject to sleep deprivation.
Also, if you think facts about being a parent are “toxic masculinity”, my wife wants a word.
“What is sadism except hurting others for no reason”
Your contention is that Maxwell has been locked up for no reason? That she’s on suicide watch for no reason? That convicted crims are locked up g for no reason? Tough sell.
sonofrojblake@#40:
“I think that’s a key point: she tried to resist capture. So, is the system being fair and treating her as a flight risk, or is petty revenge going on?”
I think more so than almost any individual I can think of, it’s perfectly reasonable to suppose the first one, unless you are predisposed to assume something else. Which you are, obviously. But own that bias.
This is going to sound weird, but I’m predisposed to think that she’d run if she were given a chance. But the justice system cannot be “just” unless it allows her that opportunity.
The next move I wanted to play, that this is largely a set-up for, is “why not assassinate criminals abroad?” The US demonstrated its willingness to drone strike and kill Anwar Al Awlaki’s children because “your dad is guilty!” why not hit Roman Polanski’s French summer-house and bring him to “justice”? That’s why I asked if the justice system is retributive or rehabilitation, or what – if the whole idea is to make someone pay for their crimes, then it makes most sense to say, “we’re going to let you run around loose until your trial but if you take it on the lam, we treat that as an admission of guilt and you are subject to summary death sentence at any time.” One key point: a person who ran from ‘justice’ under those terms would be guaranteeing themselves a pretty miserable (or at least low-key) existence – thereby defeating their strategy. An innocent person would not run, a guilty person would run but would ruin the rest of their life by doing so.
WMDKitty — Survivor@#35:
Uh, roj, I’m in agreement — a brief flash of light is 100% not torture.
I don’t feel that it’s up to you to decide that. “Torture” is what an individual experiences, not some uninvolved outsider.
For example, I know someone for whom dragging my fingernails down a chalkboard would constitute torture. Neither you nor I are in a position to claim it is or isn’t. That’s why I argue that the state should not be permitted to make decisions like this regarding how to treat not-yet-found-guilty suspects. The rogue psychologists who devised the US government’s torture program would claim that playing loud music at someone is not torture because it fell on the “acceptable” side of a certain line – but if it wasn’t intended to harass the subject, why did they do it? (24 hours daily of Toby Keith’s “courtesy of the red, white, and blue” would radicalize me into a violent jihadist if someone played it at me so I couldn’t turn it off)
The best way to piss me off is to tell me, “I am really trying to piss you off” – that, totally pisses me off. Ditto torture. Someone could shine a dim flashlight at me every 15 minutes and it’d make me so mad I couldn’t sleep, because I’d know they were doing that to annoy me.
The legendary “chinese water torture”, IMO, is not a real thing. I’m not aware of any documented incidents of such a thing successfully driving someone mad. But, that’s the same operating principle. I don’t buy the argument that the state must do this thing in order to protect its victims against itself.
Marcus Ranum
Interesting discussion – here are some (probably not well thought out) thoughts for your consideration:
1) Just to offer my own position as a matter of clarity. For me, prison is partly about putting someone in a position where they have had their ability to act curtailed (e.g. the serial killer hindered from killing), with rehabilitation being carried out wherever possible. I don’t believe that retribution should be part of a justice system – and I am sceptical about how much of a deterrent it may be.
2) This point is a little tricky for me to express clearly, and I offer my apologies in advance for not finding a way to put this better.
In short, I support the idea that everyone should have the right to choose to die (I don’t believe that someone for whom existence has become unbearable should be forced to suffer merely out of some notion that choosing oblivion is somehow wrong). That said, I think it reasonable to have some safeguards in place regarding such a decision. I know someone who becomes suicidal only when not taking their medication – and I think that they would prefer not to have their existence terminated because they forgot to take their medicine and made a decision they would regret (well, had they not become incapable of doing so – but hopefully you see my point). In short, I have no problem with suicide per se, but do think there should be appropriate support available to ensure that such a decision is taken in a way which permits (as much as possible) reasonable assessment of the circumstances (as a sort of general societal principle – not just specific to prisons!).
3) From this, I can’t help but notice something which appears (to me, at least) to be absent from this discussion – assessment and treatment. From “Preventing Suicide in Detention and Correctional Facilities”, Robert D. Canning and Joel A. Dvoskin, DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199948154.013.25:
“QMHPs [qualified mental health professionals] are needed to oversee the screening process, perform comprehensive suicide risk assessments, and provide the treatment that is needed for a serious mental illness or to alleviate the despair that led to the prisoner’s suicidality.”
and
“Housing prisoners under these conditions, although believed necessary for safety reasons, can discourage prisoners from being forthcoming about their suicidal intentions. These units can thus be the antithesis of therapeutic conditions, and, despite a prisoner’s dire circumstances and extreme distress, they will often deny suicidal ideation to avoid being moved to one of these settings.
Wherever a prisoner is housed on suicide observation status, the conditions must never be unnecessarily harsh or unpleasant. Treatment conditions should include adequate and supervised out-of-cell activities, whether for routine exercise or mental health treatment, and a continuation of the usual privileges afforded in regular housing units: telephone calls, mail, some personal belongings, reading materials, and visitation. Any exceptions must be based on individualized assessment and documented.”
If someone is believed to be suicidal, I think it not unreasonable to ask how that has been assessed, and what treatment has been made available (regardless of whether or not they are in prison).
4) I would tentatively suggest that “keeping someone under observation because they are suffering from temporary clinical depression brought about by awaiting trial, and this is the method we have available to ensure they don’t kill themselves before we’ve offered them therapy and treatment” is a slightly different proposition to (and, to an extent, a bit more defensible than) “we think someone is suicidal in prison, and we want to keep them alive against their will to ensure they see trial/serve their sentence”, and that both are a little different from “we are going to find an excuse to keep someone awake at night because we know it upsets them and we want to make their life unpleasant”. This is a personal opinion, of course, and I am certainly open to changing my mind, but I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this and to what extent you believe it does or does not matter.
5) I was a bit taken aback to see you say “we’re going to let you run around loose until your trial but if you take it on the lam, we treat that as an admission of guilt and you are subject to summary death sentence at any time.”
I am personally opposed to the death penalty (for reasons which are irrelevant for now, but can be elaborated on if desired), but even if I weren’t this would still seem a bit disproportionate. I mean “you failed to appear in court over your parking ticket, so now prepare for death” seems a bit…er…extreme – it puts me in mind of the world-building in Niven’s ARM books…
6) I find this an interesting comment: “Torture” is what an individual experiences, not some uninvolved outsider.” I certainly agree there is a certain qualia to all this.
But (to get to the point) given this, do you think that it is unacceptable to ever put someone in a position where their experience is subjectively torture? If, to make the extreme case, Bob says “being deprived of the ability to harm others is subjectively torture to me”, what then?
[I realise this is perhaps veering dangerously close to the ridiculous “ticking bomb” scenarios so popularly used to justify war crimes, but my intention is to get a better understanding of how you view and use these concepts and not to try and play a game of rhetorical silly buggers – so if you do respond (and of course I understand there is no obligation to do so!) please feel free to talk around this a bit rather than answer the question, as I realise it may be a bit unfairly constructed or poorly considered]
Marcus
That is pretty weird. I can support you on a lot of the things you say, but this is too far for me. I do think that pre-trial detention should be allowed in a minority of cases based on estimation of flight risk.
…
Cutty Snark
Well said. I think the answer is not exactly trivial, but I still think it’s straightforward. I’d probably start with UN conventions on torture for a starting point for a good definition of torture.
Offhand, I would say that a key element here is purposefully or recklessly causing physical or emotional pain above and beyond what is needed for rehabilitation, deterrence, and confinement for safety of others. If you cross that line, then I think it’s torture. Of course, even if you don’t cross that line, it can still be torture, and I think we’d need to list out acceptable vs not-acceptable forms of punishment. Inflicted physical injury – torture. Sleep deprivation – torture. (Extended) solitary confinement – torture.
My position is based on the principle that everyone deserves a good life, even mass murderers and rapists. When the good life of two people come into conflict, then we do have to make a sacrifice, and that sacrifice is based on who is at moral (and legal) fault, based on something like appeal to John Stuart Mills’ Harm Principle, and broader utilitarian analysis under Jown Rawls’ Veil Of Ignorance standard. That gets a justification for confinement for the prevention of crime by the confined person for the safety of others, and confinement (and other typical punishments, e.g. picking up trash at the side of the road) for the prevention of similar crimes by others via deterrence effect. Actually, I’m not sure offhand how I’d defend rehabilitation under these principles.
But, the point of this aside is that people who want vengeance are an enemy to my belief that we should make the best world that we can for everyone, and everyone includes murderers, rapists, etc. I had hoped that most of the atheists here would have learned that Hell is the most abominable concept in Christianity. Instead, I see some people trying to create Hell on Earth. Infinite punishment for finite crimes is abominable in much the same way that needless punishment and vengeance is abominable – it reduces the (net) happiness and well-being of people.
sonofrojblake
Gods you’re bad at reading.
Re locked up. I said no such thing. She should be locked up. She should be in pre-trial detention. Assuming she’s guilty, she should be in prison for a long time for deterrence effect.
Re suicide watch. I think Cutty Snark’s position on suicide watch is similar to my own, and I refer you to that. I am not saying you’re a vile human being for wanting a suicide watch. I’m saying that you’re a vile human being because your definition of torture is “whether I personally would be man-enough to take it”.
You’re being a weasel with words. You’re using the words “sleep deprivation” in a manner that is contrary to normal usage.
You agreed that “sleep deprivation” is bad, but then said, paraphrase, “waking someone up every 15 minutes for the entire sleep schedule, day after day, using that particular method – that’s not sleep deprivation because I’d be man-enough to take it and still sleep”. What you said right there – that is vile and disgusting.
For those claiming a flash of light is not torture…I sleep with my eyes partway open. Virtually any sudden change in the light level will wake me up, lightning, spouse going to the bathroom, even the broken cell tower flasher 1/2 a mile away. I do not know what percentage of the population I fit in but I would bet that a significant amount are affected by sudden changes in light levels whether their eyes are open or not.
@sonofrojblake, 43
in case you missed it, the racists and homophobes have got control and made their actions legal. nothing anyone did that gave me cptsd is illegal. calling for me and people like me to be driven out of society is legal (i’m a queer trans woman btw). so if you’re going to support my desire for retribution you have to support some ‘extralegal’ methods (or i suppose argue that the desire is misplaced and those actions were right).
the legal system just protects the group in charge, and any support for peoples ‘right to have our desire for retribution catered for’ is just letting their supporters indulge in legally protected sadism (see this entire comments section).
Some comments here from someone who has voluntarily checked himself into a mental institution, sorry behavioral health clinic or whatever, because I judged the risk of my suicide was genuine.
The check ins every 15 minute are very uncomfortable, part of what makes being in such a place very unpleasant. They do interrupt with sleep. Such compassion, if I can’t sleep I must not be that tired. Go fuck yourself. It sucks and is unpleasant to have patch-work sleep.
In my case, the measure was completely unnecessary nonsense. Just being in the building was a sufficient deterrent. There does seem to be a massive lack of respect within our medical establishments of, you know, patients actual desires and values.
Anyway, if at that point I was still sufficiently motivated to do so, its far easier to just fool the psychiatrists (its not like they are able to magically detect lying, and I know exactly the sort of things they are looking for, to allow a release), and then go about doing so in a painless way. It would take some police-level brutality for me to desire to go to an extreme like hanging myself.
Which is kind of Marcus’ fucking point, that some people can’t get through their thick-assed heads.
Yes, prisoners awaiting trial for flight risk SHOULD be in nice, comfortable hotel-like rooms. Not the spartan offerings of our lower-security prisons. And for fucks sake. Supermax prisons should not even be allowed.
“I think the answer is not exactly trivial, but I still think it’s straightforward. I’d probably start with UN conventions on torture for a starting point for a good definition of torture.”[…]”needless punishment and vengeance is abominable – it reduces the (net) happiness and well-being of people.”
100% agreement. I don’t think anyone would say that ethical decisions are always trivial – certainly I think our understanding is still improving – but starting from the principle of minimising harm and maximising wellbeing means starting from a good ethical foundation. GOTS’s position here is very similar to mine, I think, and is well laid out.
Even if someone is not convinced by the ethical argument against mistreatment (though I think they should be), I would encourage them to consider just how corrosive and toxic this behaviour can be to a society (or at the very least, consider what Martin Niemöller had to say about how the goalposts may shift!).
Furthermore, while it is true that people in prison are still people, and should be treated humanely regardless of personality, offenses, etc., I think there are many additional objections too (just off the top of my head): people in prison are not always guilty of their alleged crime, so deliberate mistreatment compounds the injustice; some things which are ethically or morally neutral are criminalised, again making deliberate mistreatment more horrifying; our understanding of “right and wrong” is still evolving, making “justice” already uncertain – why should this be exacerbated further?; if someone can be rehabilitated, why would you mistreat them instead of treat them?; etc. (I am sure there are many other obvious points I have missed).
I think that as we continue to try to improve our understanding of how to best treat each other there are certainly things which can be reasonably debated – but I don’t think “do not needlessly harm people” is one of them.
@mjr, 48: “she’d run if she were given a chance. But the justice system cannot be “just” unless it allows her that opportunity”
Nope, you’ve lost me. That’s not just, that’s just stupid. If I catch someone robbing my car or raping my daughter, it is not “just” to give them a fair go at getting away with it. In fact, the very idea is bizarre.
“why not hit Roman Polanski’s French summer-house and bring him to “justice”?”
I think I covered this: the death penalty, by common agreement in civilised countries, is not justice.
” “Torture” is what an individual experiences”
That’s just silly. It’s really important we agree what constitutes torture so we can punish those who do it and sanction it, and allowing anyone, at any time, to define ANY treatment they personally don’t find conducive to a good day as “torture” is madness.
@GoTS, 52: “You’re being a weasel with words. You’re using the words “sleep deprivation” in a manner that is contrary to normal usage”
No I’m not. Sleep deprivation – deliberate, systematic action to prevent an individual from getting any sleep – is a recognised torture tactic employed by the US among others. As I’ve said – and as you’ve notably failed to address – sleep deprivation is a suite of techniques that must be applied together to work. Because if you don’t… it’s NOT sleep deprivation. These aren’t weasel words, they’re an observation of what happens in the real world, the world in which people fall asleep EVERY DAY despite *wanting* to stay awake and being very motivated to do so.
“You agreed that “sleep deprivation” is bad, but then said, paraphrase,”
Top tip – “paraphrase” does NOT mean “say something entirely different”.
For starters, I didn’t refer to “waking someone up every 15 minutes”, partly because the ENTIRE FUCKING POINT of what I’m saying is that that is not what they are doing.
Also, and this I find odd: ” that’s not sleep deprivation because I’d be man-enough to take it” – where do you get this weird obsession with gendering this? I certainly didn’t give you the idea. That’s from YOUR head, and I do wonder why it’s in there.
And, once again – I’m not saying I’d be capable of dealing with sleep deprivation. What I’m saying – again, for the hard of thinking – is that I’d be capable of dealing with what Maxwell is being subjected to, because sooner or later I’d get tired enough that you could shine a fucking searchlight in my eyes and I’d sleep. I know this from experience, as does my wife, so fuck your gender assumptions, because any parent is likely to tell you the same. Moving on…
@dangerousbeans, 54: “calling for me and people like me to be driven out of society is legal”.
I’d argue that incitement to violence is not legal, but you’re right – too much rhetoric that in any sane world would trip that alarm slides by because it’s “only” aimed at people like you. “extralegal methods”… you place me in an invidious position. How far do you want to go? I gave you examples, you didn’t bite. I’m basically on your side up to a point. I suspect not up to the point you’d want to get to… but I do understand your point.
@SamN, 55: “prisoners awaiting trial for flight risk SHOULD be in nice, comfortable hotel-like rooms. Not the spartan offerings of our lower-security prisons. And for fucks sake. Supermax prisons should not even be allowed”
100% agreement with that. You can judge how civilised a country is by taking a look in its prisons.
But I have to wonder how sympathetic any of you people would be to the authorities if they stopped the quarter-hourly checks on Maxwell and came in one morning to find her body hanging from a bedsheet or similar. I entirely understand the “not on my watch” mentality I assume is a large part of the motivation here.
sonofrojblake
So, exactly what I said. A little bit of sleep deprivation is not really sleep deprivation, according to you. That’s disgusting. A little bit of torture is still torture. A little bit of needless inflicted physical pain is still torture. A little bit of torture is still torture.
Sleep deprivation is only this one thing according to this esoteric and obscure technical definition. The words mean exactly what I want then to mean; no more, no less. You’re Humpty Dumpty right now.
I, like many others here, still believe that a period 15 minute check is ineffective at stopping a determined person from hanging themself and we still believe that there are less intrusive methods to accomplish the same or better result, such as using a low level constant night, eg a night light, as opposed to brief flashes of light. Why are you willing to go to the mat over this? If there’s even a small chance that it’s needless inflicted misery, why not go with the better option? Unless the uncomfortableness is the point? But purposeful inflicted physical discomfort is torture for no reason other than the enjoyment of inflicting that discomfort – that is practically by definition. Yet you continue to strawman us by arguing, dishonestly, by presenting a false dilemma, either we torture the person, or they might kill themself.
PS: And you’re still beyond-the-pale vile for defending retributive theory of justice. I cannot emphasize enough how much you make me sick, and how I really do view you as scum, worst of the worst.
> But purposeful inflicted physical discomfort for no reason other than the enjoyment of inflicting that discomfort – that is torture, and it’s sadism, practically by definition.
Fixed.
you’ve placed yourself in that position. it you legitimate people’s desire for retribution that will always play out based on who has power within the society: the slave will be punished for hurting their master, and the slave’s desire will be dismissed as illegitimate.
to provide an example: i wouldn’t be justified in smashing the local catholic church’s windows just out of spite, but politically motivated graffiti may be ok provided it gets the point across.
we can’t indulge in retribution as a society, and using it as an excuse to mistreat people in prison is wrong. we can deny someone freedom to avoid them doing harm, but not just because we don’t like them (and this includes the freedom to die, although in this case maybe convince them to stay alive until after investigations are concluded, but the situation being discussed here does not respect their agency)
sonofrojblake@#57:
Nope, you’ve lost me. That’s not just, that’s just stupid.
It’s a consequence of having the half-assed judicial philosophy we have here in the US. If we want to pretend people are innocent until proven guilty, and we want to be able to keep them around for retribution, that weird arrangement must be justified somehow. I’m proposing stupid things because the situation is stupid and stupid “solutions” seem to me to be the only answer.
Did you notice that Josh Duggar was busted for kid porn last week? He’s innocent until proven guilty, in spite of the fact that law enforcement has evidence or they wouldn’t have busted him. That said – he’s been released on bail because his family say they will watch over him and he won’t run. Obviously what he is accused of is different from what Ghislaine Maxwell is accused of, but fair and impartial is not what is going on, more or less anywhere in the US justice system. And I’ll argue that you can’t have “justice” if it’s not fair and impartial.
This is why I consider myself to be a nihilist about a lot of this stuff: the system seems to be contradictory bullshit that is just a thin veneer over power’s saying “I do it my way” – there’s no underlying reason that can defend it to my satisfaction, so I maintain a strong skepticism about it, which means I do not believe in it or extend it the benefit of the doubt. That means I’m a “nihilist” when it comes to whether or not the US has a system of justice. I think it doesn’t, but I’d rather not assert that opinion so I’ll withhold judgement.
Marcus
I won’t argue that the US right now has a justice system. However, your philosophy on how pre-trial detention should be handled is in error. The determination of whether someone ought to be held pending trial should not depend on there mere severity of the claimed offense. Rather, that determination should be made according to flight risk and risk of further offenses before trial aka danger to the public.
In this case, perhaps it is true that Josh Duggar is not a particularly large flight risk and perhaps Josh Duggar is not a particularly large risk to the public. I don’t know. By contrast, the evidence that Ghislaine Maxwell was trying to flee arrest and flee the jurisdiction is overwhelming. If there was ever an open-and-shut case of pre-trial detention, Ghislaine Maxwell would be it.