
I spent 29 years in solitary confinement (2010) - Tomte
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2010/aug/28/29-years-solitary-confinement-robert-king/print
======
arcticbull
Honestly, I find the US prison system absolutely horrifying in all respects.
As satisfying as it may be for victims to feel the person that did something
to them is 'gone' they will eventually be let out, and when they do I want
them to be ready to integrate with society.

Recidivism rates in the US show it is objectively not working, with state
prisons leaving inmates to re-offend 76% of the time. [1] In Norway, much
derided for their lavish prisons, it's 20%. [2]

Throwing people away and treating them like animals is an abject failure,
compounded by the mandatory fill rates in private prison contracts. [3] It's
time to revisit the whole system, top down, and make it less about punishment
and more about making sure it doesn't happen again. And it should be done with
data.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-zoukis/report-
docu...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-zoukis/report-documents-us-
recid_b_9542312.html)

[2] [http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-
is-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-
successful-2014-12)

[3] [https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/report-
find...](https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2015/jul/31/report-finds-two-
thirds-private-prison-contracts-include-lockup-quotas/)

~~~
hellcow
You're absolutely right. Looking for a solution here, the central problem with
the US prison system seems to be the incentive structure.

Private prisons are paid based on how many inmates they have. Prisons are
therefore incentivized to keep people as long as possible, and ensure that if
a convict is ever released, that person commits another crime quickly and
winds up back in prison.

Instead, what if the state paid prisons a one-time fee for accepting convicts
(the amount would vary depending on the type of crime committed), and then
penalized the prisons heavily for any recidivism after release?

Prisons would be incentivized to rehabilitate and free the prisoner as quickly
as possible (since every additional day in prison costs them money) while
minimizing the chance of that prisoner committing another crime when released.
You'd see prisons offer education opportunities, vocational training, valuable
job programs, relocation to other areas, ongoing therapy, and living
conditions befitting a human being to reduce recidivism.

~~~
cuckcuckspruce
I think you're being a little naive here. If you could wave a magic wand and
make it so private prisons got a one-time fee for accepting convicts then I
don't think they would invest more in preventing recidivism.

What would likely happen is that private prisons would spend even less on each
inmate, doing the accounting to determine how much they have to cut from what
they already spend to account for the amount of their fees if a prisoner
reoffends. The already ridiculous cost of the prison phone system would
skyrocket. Fees assessed to visitors would be increased or added. The cost of
items in the commissary would go up. The private prisons would bump fees
associated with being released from prison. Private prisons would also take on
more forced labor contracts to cover the difference and pay the inmates even
less for their time.

Further, you'll see a spike in prosecutions for in-prison crimes, causing a
convict to be convicted on a new charge and more money being sent to the
private prison to cover the sentencing on the new charge. So you're going to
make the indefinite detention problem even worse - before, inmates got to
leave. Now they may never get to leave.

In short, this is likely only a viable solution if you can force private
prison owners to act morally.

~~~
loa_in_
You seem to have missed the part when he writes about high penalization of
recidivism.

~~~
cuckcuckspruce
Penalties would only be levied after an inmate actually got out of prison, and
there is ample time for the prison to use the inmate for slave labor to more
than offset whatever penalties you set.

Also expect for the corrections officers unions and police and sheriffs groups
to start lobbying for mandatory life sentences because if there's one way to
prevent recidivism it's to never actually release the prisoner.

~~~
Ntrails
Offending in prison to cause an additional sentence is arguably re-offending
and can be treated as such.

I suspect you want to reward prisons for success rather than penalise for
failure to re-habilitate. However frankly I also suspect there are actual
experts in the field who should design the structure. The issue is that there
is no political incentive in the States to do so.

------
thrownawaybylaw
I did 45 days in solitary within the context of a longer bid. It was hell.
Given the effects it has had on my mind and life, I cannot imagine what 29
years will do. It changes the way you behave so subtly, it's even interesting
to me now. My friends think it's hilarious how casually I talk to myself. I
live a pretty isolated life; I feel more comfortable that way.

Where I was, there was no outside fenced area for the hour mandated rec time.
It was a 6'Lx3'Wx6'H fenced dog cage. At least there was a large open window
to the outside to look at from the other side of the room.

You're also mandated an occasional hour at the "Law Library", which was really
just a single computer with LexisNexis and Microsoft Office in an otherwise
empty 4'x6' room. That VB class I had taken really came in handy.

I learned to make some reasonable dice out of toilet paper. Too. Much.
Yahtzee.

In the case of the man in the article, his case was overturned. Hopefully, he
won't have a criminal record. Getting a job today with a criminal record is
incredibly difficult. That's the biggest reason why recidivism is high [x].
It's great that there's a push to "ban the box" (that is, to not ask about
criminal history in job applications), but it hasn't made it to all the
states. Furthermore, many companies blanketly don't hire felons[x] regardless
of the context of the crimes and/or rehabilitation of the individual.
Background checks aren't a fair process in their review. Good-bye any real
life.

[x] I'm sure somebody is going to argue that the bigger deal is a lack of
quality mental health or addiction services provided to inmates and the dearth
of such programs prior to conviction, and they'd be right too.

------
meesles
The prison system is a crazy, privatized torture system designed to keep the
poor incarcerated to increase profits for all the contract work related to
running the prison system.

Rikers is a great example of a clearly flawed jail system, with inmates
getting stuck for years without trial and sometimes killing themselves after
losing hope.

Having recently gone through the judicial system as a white male, I can't
image being a black man going through the same thing. I was able to buy my
freedom, buy excuses, buy a lawyer to get me out of everything. When an
oppressed people who already starts out behind falls into the same trap,
there's little left for them to do.

Interesting read: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/nyregion/rikers-island-
pr...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/nyregion/rikers-island-prison-new-
york.html)

~~~
mod
You said you can't imagine being a black man going through the judicial
system, and then pointed at your wealth as the source of your "win," rather
than your race.

~~~
heyoni
Race and wealth are typically intertwined in the form of varying levels of
opportunity.

------
mallaidh
A note: Herman Wallace was released on October 1, 2013 because of advanced
liver cancer. The state reindicted him on October 3, but he died the next day
a free man. Albert Woodfox was released in February 2016. The Angola 3 were
held in solitary confinement for more than 100 years combined, with Woodfox's
43 years of solitary being the longest of any American prisoner.

~~~
coldtea
Anything beyond a few weeks or a month in solitary confinement should be
illegal and punishable by law the same as torture.

And with no loopholes for joining many smaller stays to a long big stay.

~~~
mallaidh
Even a week is too long, the effects on the brain can be measured by EEG
within a few days, specifically a state of stupor and delirium. The
psychological effects are dangerous and permanent.

~~~
nieksand
How would you deal with an inmate that murders or rapes another inmate?

~~~
CobrastanJorji
Protecting inmates from a troublesome inmate can be accomplished without
putting that inmate in a small, windowless room with no distractions by
themselves for 24 hours a day.

~~~
Noumenon72
But after you've tried environmental design, incentives, threats, guards, and
surveillance, _then_ can it be accomplished without the small, windowless
room? I'd guess not at a reasonable cost.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Why would a small windowless room ever be necessary? How would an unarmed
person harm someone from inside a normal prison cell?

~~~
ars
You should look at photos. Most prisons don't have single cells, they have
large rooms with bunks, or they have shared cells with 2 or more people in
each one.

They should make cells that are tiny and fit one person - _but_ have lots of
opening and permission to talk to anyone around them.

That way there is physical isolation, but not mental isolation.

~~~
coldtea
> _They should make cells that are tiny and fit one person - but have lots of
> opening and permission to talk to anyone around them._

Actually there's no need for the cells to be tiny -- even if they are meant
for just one person.

~~~
ars
That's not entirely true. If the cell was large people would attempt to get
into them on purpose to get a private room.

The cell has to be small enough that no one would prefer it over general.

Additionally if the cell was larger then the number of neighbors each prisoner
could interact with is reduced. But the goal is to give them the opportunity
to interact with as many people as possible.

~~~
dvtv75
> If the cell was large people would attempt to get into them on purpose to
> get a private room.

I think that's a societal problem, not a prison design problem.

> The cell has to be small enough that no one would prefer it over general.

Why? Wouldn't it be sufficient discouragement just with the removal of your
basic rights to go where you like and do what you want?

------
goodcanadian
_Maybe I looked crazy walking back and forth like some trapped animal . . ._

If you see an animal pacing back and forth in a cage, it is generally
considered neurotic behaviour and a sign that the cage/enclosure is too small.
My point being that it probably did make him slightly crazy and that solitary
confinement is psychological torture.

~~~
vorotato
It doesn't make you slightly crazy, people hallucinate in there and they don't
come back out the same.

------
jernfrost
I really shouldn't be reading stuff like this. It makes me so angry. It is odd
that so many conservative Americans think racism isn't a thing. Blacks are
dismissed as violent thugs, who are the fault of their own problems. But who
had acted peaceful and well adjusted if they were subject to as much
oppression, prejudice and brutality as the blacks of the US?

People are products of their environments just like animals. A mistreated
animal is also bad behaved and violent.

~~~
adekok
> Blacks are dismissed as violent thugs, who are the fault of their own
> problems.

Black _men_ are dismissed... as are most men, TBH.

The incidence of incarceration goes: black men, white men, black women, white
women.

Also, rich tends to beat poor, even considering race. e.g. O.J. Simpson.

[https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_g...](https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx)

Men tend to get 63% larger sentences than women. And that difference is
_larger_ than the difference between races.

~~~
kerbalspacepro
Do men commit more crimes than women?

~~~
adekok
If only there was a study which explained this... or maybe an "internet search
engine" where you could find references.

I'll summarize for the lazy: taking everything _else_ into account, men get
63% longer sentences for the same crime than women do.

If you look at crimes: [http://law.jrank.org/pages/1250/Gender-Crime-
Differences-bet...](http://law.jrank.org/pages/1250/Gender-Crime-Differences-
between-male-female-offending-patterns.html)

About 80% are committed by men.

But 93% of inmates are men:
[https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gende...](https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp)

There are any number of explanations for this. The most honest and rational
explanations don't involve making men "bad" and women "good".

------
opo
For some more background, Frontline did an episode on solitary confinement:

[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/solitary-
nation/](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/solitary-nation/)

And if you think solitary confinement is a nightmare, how about putting 2
people in a solitary confinement cell?

"Imagine living in a cell that's smaller than a parking space — with a
homicidal roommate."

[https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/03/24/the-deadly-
con...](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/03/24/the-deadly-consequences-
of-solitary-with-a-cellmate#.kdsY7GPUa)

------
robschia
I don't even know how to start. The US present themselves as paragons of
freedom, and then they blatantly violate every kind of basic human right.

~~~
coldtea
They also point fingers and lip service democracy globally, while having their
bases all around the globe, meddling with sovereign countries abroad, helping
topple legitimate governments, and funding / being cozy with all kinds of
scum, from Suharto and the Shah, to Pinochet and the saudis (not to mention
arming and befriending half of today's militant islamists, including the
celebrated in the 80s Taliban).

But that was always their deal: the power plus the hypocrisy and the holier
than thou attitude that one affords from being top dog with no one to answer
to.

(Of course talking about those in power - the normal people are great, just
uninformed about most of those things. Then again, if you live in a huge
country with no borders with anybody apart from Canada and Mexico, and with no
domestic impact in your life of anything that happens outside (except oil
prices), why would anybody care about geography and world affairs?).

~~~
aaron-lebo
But that wasn't always the deal. The US up until 1900 was not the top dog.

Yeah, the US has a lot of flaws that need to be reformed, but that doesn't
make it any different than any more country in history, it makes it exactly
like them.

It's not an American problem, it's a human problem. When we understand that
and stop pointing we'll all be better off.

~~~
jernfrost
I strongly disagree. The US is the most powerful country EVER in human
history. It has the ability to invade and influence any country on the planet.
No country in the past really had that ability. When Great Britain rules much
of the world, they were no superpower like the US today. There were countless
countries in Europe which could all challenge Britain militarily. Back then
there was many great powers. Today there is only ONE superpower and that is
the US.

What is unique about the US historically is that they have always claimed to
be spreading freedom while frequently doing the exact opposite. Of course it
is really just a new twist to the old western excuse for invading: we are
civilizing your, or: we are bringing christianity to the poor masses.

Since the US is the main power today and it is a democracy, it is VERY
important to protest the US and make Americans aware of the role the US plays
world politics. Today very few Americans know about the countless abuses,
power grabs, and human rights abuses the US has engaged in the last 100 years.
Instead all around US schools American school children are served up
propaganda about the US being the best, freest and most human country ever in
existence.

How can America ever change if it keeps brainwashing its population like this?

At least the Germans owned up to their atrocities.

~~~
orf
Your point about great Britian isn't completely correct, no power could have
stood against the empire at its peak. France could have given it a go perhaps,
and did around 1800 and where beaten (Waterloo! Waterloo! Waterloo!).

The differences you talk about now are, in my opinion, down to advanced
weaponry. Where before it was about manpower (and England's vast empire made
procurement of such very easy) and sailing (another thing England was pretty
damn good at), today it's more about who has the biggest and most advanced
guns, bombs and delivery technology. America outspends, America wins.

That being said, I'm reminded of a rather apt poem I read somewhere about the
British invasion of Afghanistan in the 1800's, basically saying how despite
many pounds of expensive training given to English soldiers, they where shot
and killed by a Afghanistan pistol in the mountains that only cost a shilling
(If anyone has a reference for that I would be very grateful, I cannot find it
anywhere)

~~~
irrational
Wait, didn't the US (not that the US existed yet) with the help of the French
stand up to Great Britain at its peak?

~~~
Maultasche
It seems that way, but Britain was not all in on that war. The 1770s and 1780s
was definitely not a peak time for Britain. The government was having
financial problems and military spending was very low. The peak for Britain
was later on in the 19th century.

I think Britain could have won that war if they had really wanted to, given
enough time and resources, but there was a great reluctance to spend the
resources to win it, money in particular.

There was lack of will on the part of the British government combined with a
low point in British military funding. The British government (Parliament, the
King was a figurehead by this time) was simply unwilling to convert the
country to a war footing.

The political leaders kept hoping they could win the war with a low level of
military funding and save money, which was in short supply. So the war effort
was underfunded and undermanned. In the end, the Whig party (who had been
against the war) came to power and negotiated an end to it. Wars are
expensive, and the Whigs didn't think this one was worth the expenditure.

Compare that sad performance to the Napoleonic Wars 20 years later. Britain
was on full war footing and spending huge quantities of money (going deep into
debt in the process) on their military. They were cranking out large numbers
of ships and training large armies.

When the War of 1812 broke out, the British were uninterested in fighting it.
They were busy with Napoleon at the time, and the American war was a sideshow
with few resources devoted to it compared to what was being devoted to Europe.
Even then, their vastly improved military and lavish spending resulted in a
much better performance than the Revolutionary War.

In the end, once the Americans were tired of fighting, a peace was negotiated.
The British were uninterested in keeping that war going any longer than
necessary. It was costing them money and they had better fish to fry.

~~~
linkregister
I love reading about the War of 1812. I think it is easily the most avoidable
of all U.S. wars.

The U.S. declared war on Great Britain as negotiations to roll back
impressment and trade restrictions were finally progressing. Then, after some
impressive U.S. victories repelling British invasions (following some
impressive British victories), none of the original grievances were addressed
in the treaty.

------
mnm1
If being imprisoned and enslaved isn't cruel and unusual punishment, I don't
know what is. The constitution doesn't prohibit shit with its useless words in
this case.

~~~
coldtea
I always found the faith in the revered interpretations of some constitutional
document written centuries ago, and the respect for the "Founding Fathers" not
as historical figures, but as some kind of guiding lights for today, totally
bizarro.

Even the name "Founding Fathers" and the way it's thrown around seems quite
bizarre for a democracy. It's the people, and the will of the people, that
should be respected, not what some long gone luminaries said.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
The will of the people on 2001-09-12 would be to get rid of jury trials and
allow arbitrary searches and seizures. People are emotional and dumb, and
sometimes it is helpful to build an intentional slowness into the process. If
it's truly the will of the people, you should have no problem getting 2/3 of
Congress to agree on it, followed by 3/4 of state legislatures.

~~~
drewmol
I agree, pasted from a comment I made in a thread on a Western Union wire
fraud case earlier this year:

"those who may be unfamiliar: look into the passing of the USA P.A.T.R.I.O.T
Act passed shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a bill of over 2000 pages
which was rushed through congress in span of a few days from finalization to
ratification under the prosumtion of necessity to provide the tools to combat
terrorism. It stripped away many powers of the judicial branch to provide
oversight, and provisions intended to be 'temporary' have been continually
extended by presidents (executive branch) on both sides of the aisle since."

~~~
mnm1
When that bill was signed into law, it was a clear indication that the 9/11
terrorists had indeed won (achieved their goals) and our own representatives
and President had just handed them that victory willingly, albeit rushed and
unscrutinized. Requiring a 2/3 majority before passing legislation that brings
down the whole country is a great idea indeed.

------
gallerdude
Maybe I shouldn't post this online, but this is one of my biggest fears. Just,
being trapped somewhere, alone with your thoughts, with nothing to do.

After reading The Jaunt by Stephen King, I was on edge for a day or two
afterwards.

~~~
WWKong
I fear my mind the most in a situation where it has got nothing to do.

~~~
adrice727
I think a lot of people feel this way, but under the right circumstances (i.e.
a meditation retreat) and with enough practice, you'll have access to states
of deeply profound peace beyond anything you imagined possible.

~~~
gallerdude
Can you elaborate on this - would _love_ to resolve my fear.

~~~
linuxhansl
Look into vipassana or insight meditation.

It's something _everybody_ can learn and do, there is nothing mystical or
religious or secret about it.

You usually start with samadhi (or concentration), where you simply observe
your breath - either as air movement through your nostrils or as movements of
the abdomen. In the beginning you can count your breaths 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 10, and 1 again. Most people lose track at 4 or 5 and get distracted by
thoughts in the beginning. If that happens just start at 1. No blaming, just
start again.

You can do this for a very long time without getting bored.

After a while you can stop counting, and naturally drift into the vipassana
(insight/wisdom) part. Just observe your breath and start noticing whatever
else is going on. Sounds, your thoughts, feelings, fears, joys, etc, etc.

~~~
adrice727
I practiced more _traditional_ methods of Vipassana (U Ba Khin and Mahasi
Sayadaw) for years, but have actually found a combined metta/insight practice
[1] to be more effective, both in terms of mental/emotional wellbeing and
progress of insight.

1\.
[http://library.dhammasukha.org/uploads/1/2/8/6/12865490/a_gu...](http://library.dhammasukha.org/uploads/1/2/8/6/12865490/a_guide_to_twim.pdf)

------
bobsgame
Someone who made millions from Bitcoin or some nonsense please give this guy a
million dollars. There needs to be some secret fund for people like this. It's
obviously not a fair reparation but it's _something_.

------
nether
This is the worst of racism. The next time a white HNer tells PoC to just turn
the other cheek toward racist words, point them to this. Racist attitudes are
what enable horrific crimes against blacks, such as these.

~~~
okreallywtf
This is why the of the alt-right and mens-rights and conservative christians
fucking terrify me. Somehow, while making slow steady progress a seemingly
large swath of people have gotten the idea that things are exactly backwards.
As far as they are concerned, whites, males and Christians are under attack
and are now lashing out at minorities, women, and non-Christians as if they
are "turning the tide" rather than continuing centuries old conflicts.

Every time I read someone talk about a SJW (social justice warrior) somewhere
I cringe thinking about what my country will be like in 10 years if not
sooner. People seriously think SJWs and political correctness are our actual
problems as if things are fine otherwise.

There are a lot of good people here but there are a lot of people with no
empathy and little knowledge and then about 200 million people who just do not
care as long as the power and internet stay on and they are left alone.

~~~
InfiniteBeing
What do you consider to be mens-rights?

------
dandare
I don't think my American friends understand how the civilized world looks at
US.

------
iagooar
To some extent, solitary confinement is way, way worse than death sentence. It
is burying people alive. It's a miracle a person can survive for so long and
walk out of it in one piece. I imagine the psychological scars must be pretty
profound...

------
oriettaxx
and there is even worst: here exceptional testimony of Madagascar's thirty
years imprisonment in a recent very book (french only, unfortunately) I
suggest

[http://www.plon.fr/ouvrage/la-sentinelle-de-
fer/978225924354...](http://www.plon.fr/ouvrage/la-sentinelle-de-
fer/9782259243544)

------
pmoriarty
29 years in solitary confinement? What did this guy do, infringe copyright?

------
cholik
I spent 29 years in solitaire

------
eevilspock
My sadness is we all read this, feel sad, and move on with our comfortable
lives.

That we are powerless is bullshit.

------
MrZongle2
I know, right? Worst. Country. Ever. /s

~~~
erikpukinskis
That's a straw man argument. No one claimed it was the worst country ever.

~~~
MrZongle2
A country that would, and I quote, "...blatantly violate every kind of basic
human right" doesn't sound particularly nice, does it?

 _Every_ kind of basic human right? I guess we're tied with North Korea, then?
If that's the United States, who's worse?

~~~
erikpukinskis
You really don't see the difference between the phrases "worst country ever"
and "not particularly nice"?

You're going to have a hard time both learning and teaching if you can't reign
in your language a little. No one around you is actually understanding you
because your language doesn't represent your true thoughts. You are the only
person hearing the arguments you think you're having.

~~~
MrZongle2
_" You're going to have a hard time both learning and teaching if you can't
reign in your language a little."_

Did you happen to see the original post I responded to....with the "and then
they blatantly violate every kind of basic human right" nonsense?

My response was due to the hyperbolic nature of _that_ statement. It was
sarcasm, you know, thus the /s at the end. It is _this_ breathless, over-the-
top outrage that I object to, and so if somebody _supports_ that position I'd
like to know where exactly they draw the line: is the US truly a terrible
country, the _worst_ country ever, or just somewhere in the bottom 10%?

If we're going to be absurd, let's get a handle on where the boundary is.

You, on the other hand, appear to have missed the entire point here. But
thanks for the sanctimonious lecture.

------
jMyles
The prison system in general, and solitary confinement (and other forms of
emotional torture) in particular is a good enough reason in my opinion to
dismantle the state and start over.

And it's only one of about 4-5 good reasons right now.

Let's do it.

~~~
jernfrost
How about reform? Revolutions have never worked. They just lead to more
violence.

I think the problem is that there are too many problems in the US and people
focus on too many issues rather than focusing on the underlying issues.

Little can happen until the election system is changed. Hence one needs to
vote in politicians who will change it. To make that happen more young people
and minorities need to vote. That means whatever you think of prison systems,
or anything else, getting more people to vote is number one priority.

What people don't get is that, by merely voting you can make a change even if
the choices are shit. If politicians knew lots of young and minorities tended
to vote, then the politicians would start attempting to take advantage of that
and push issues these groups care about.

~~~
TylerE
> Revolutions have never worked

I suspect the French would disagree.

Also, we haven't exactly been paying tea tax to Britain for the last 230-odd
years either, for that matter.

~~~
dragonwriter
> > Revolutions have never worked

> I suspect the French would disagree.

France (and particularly the 1789 and 1848 revolutions) is pretty much the
first example people making that claim point to. (Though I suppose you can
make a case that the 1848 revolution worked, it just faced an extended
counterrevolutionary setback in the form of the Second Empire.)

> Also, we haven't exactly been paying tea tax to Britain for the last 230-odd
> years either, for that matter.

Regional separatist movements are a different thing than revolutions, even if
one of the latter gets named as if it were the former.

