

Is Long-Term Solitary Confinement Torture? - Atul Gawande - mhb
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande

======
gills
That's probably something an individual should consider before choosing to
commit a crime worthy of being forcefully exiled from general society.

~~~
gojomo
There's a big difference between "should consider" and "does consider".

So if you're hoping that the fear of solitary-confinement-torture has a
deterrent effect, but in fact it does not, should the confinement-torture
still be practiced? Is it enough that the jailers get pleasure from the
practice?

~~~
gills
I chose the word 'should' intentionally; the existence of solitary confinement
as punishment is evidence of the failure of a small fraction of the population
to be deterred from certain crimes by the prospect of complete separation from
society. It would be unreasonable to expect any deterrent to be effective for
100% of the population.

It is not a failure of the criminal justice system, that criminals-to-be do
not evaluate the potential consequences of their actions. Nor does the
pleasure of a perverse subset of guards cause individuals to perform actions
resulting in solitary confinement.

...and stop tacking the word 'torture' on the end of 'confinement' as if
repeating it over and over proves some kind of point.

~~~
gojomo
The word 'should' is notoriously slippery. Your comment seemed to suggest that
the 'torture' aspect could be a feature rather than a bug, because it would be
considered by those contemplating a criminal act. If I misunderstood your
comment, I apologize.

Solitary confinement is the choice of the jailers; at the time it is applied,
the jailers have complete control over the situation. If it fails to deter or
to reform, instead only causing pain and perhaps even greater psychoses and
criminality, then that is a failure of the criminal justice system.

Calling it 'confinement torture' emphasizes the essential point -- at the
scale it is applied, it is intentionally inflicted severe pain. Leaving off
'torture' makes it sound minor, like being grounded. A caning or stoning would
at least be more honest.

I wouldn't necessarily disqualify punishments from use simply because they are
painful. But I would subject them to a higher standard of evaluation. We
should be very sure the benefits outweigh the costs. And driving someone crazy
-- perhaps making them more violent and antisocial, perhaps causing permanent
psychological impairment -- looks to me like it outweighs the benefits...

...unless the pleasure others receive by applying punishment is also counted
as a benefit.

~~~
gills
I see where you are coming from now, and I appreciate that you took the time
to explain so thoroughly. I guess I was not aware that it was discretionary to
the jailers; with that in mind I can see how it could be used as a weapon, a
torment, not necessarily associated with the original sentence commensurate to
some crime. Where there is no accountability, there is often abuse, and my
earlier comment that criminals 'should' (sorry...) consider it as a potential
consequence was predicated on measured and accounted application. I wasn't
trying to be cruel.

