
The Deadly Consequences of Solitary with a Cellmate - miiiiiike
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/03/24/the-deadly-consequences-of-solitary-with-a-cellmate
======
rdtsc
People talk about institutional evil. This is an example of it. You can almost
trace their thinking "Oh, so solitary is bad now. We'll fix it. Put two people
in a 10x4 cell. See, not solitary anymore, and we doubled the capacity too.
Bonuses for everyone".

Ideally you'd think those who made those decision would be disciplined,
pensions would be cut, etc. But nothing like that is gonna happen. Even if the
family wins the lawsuit, it will be taxpayers paying for it.

One a deeper level, I wouldn't be surprised if many of those involved in
running the prison would be thinking things like "well good, less people less
worries. So what if he kills another one". Even more perverse, in some
countries, prisoners who are known to kill and attack their cellmates are used
as a coercion tool. That is effective against political prisoners and other
undesirables who need to "confess" or be punished -- "behave or you'll end up
in Sesson's cell <wink-wink>". On paper it looks completely by the rules and
clean.

~~~
superuser2
This is also what happens when well-intentioned people are vastly more
successful at fighting prison construction than fighting mass incarceration.

Our prisons are routinely at 1.5x, 2x, 3x capacity. Being against the prison
industrial complex feels good, but in doing so you become directly, personally
responsible for the fact that there are now 3 people in a cell meant for one,
people living on cots in a gymnasium with no privacy whatsoever, in such close
quarters that even the most patient people would be at each other's throats.

Until the prison population _actually_ declines, we ought to at least be
building prisons fast enough to stay at design capacity.

Google your state - you'll be amazed. Prisons aren't designed to be
comfortable, but they sure as hell get a lot less comfortable with too many
people in them.

~~~
gnaritas
There's a simple solution to that, set people free. We don't need to build
more prisons, we already imprison more of our population than any other
country in the world, we have too many prisons and too many people in them. We
need to imprison less people. Release all inmates who committed victim-less
crimes, if more room is needed, release all inmates who committed non violent
crimes-there are better ways to deal with them than prison. Prison should be
for violent criminals only. Release all drug users, release all drug pushers,
none of those people belong in jail.

~~~
omegaham
According to this site[1], felons incarcerated for drugs comprise 16% of the
total prison population. 64.8% are incarcerated for violent offenses and
property crimes, both of which have victims.

The most interesting part, to me, is the "public-order" criminals. When my
girlfriend worked corrections, she noted that at the state level, the vast
majority of prisoners were in for violent crimes - rape, robbery, murder,
arson, etc. At the county level, however, a large number of prisoners were in
for what she termed as "criminalized insanity." They're too mentally ill to
function, so they live on the streets until they get arrested for doing some
small crime - loitering, public urination, trespassing, etc. They get locked
up for a few days, get a court date, and get released. Then they go right back
to the streets, miss their court date, get arrested again for a bench warrant
next time they have a run-in with the law, get sentenced to a slightly longer
stay, get released on probation, violate probation, get arrested again the
next time they have a run-in with the law...

Wash, rinse, repeat. All of this is _really_ short-term... and yet they're
forming 13.8% of the incarcerated population. We're spending an _enormous_
amount of resources on what amounts to impromptu, ad-hoc, half-assed mental
healthcare, and none of it works. But eliminating it entirely and saying, "Go
forth and sin no more" is going to do absolutely nothing unless there are
corresponding programs that can actually help such people.

That kind of coordination - saying, "Okay, we're going to have to spend $x
million extra dollars extra for a few years until the mental health benefits
start to decrease the cost of jails and prisons" \- is extremely difficult, if
not impossible to accomplish.

Regarding drug pushers and prison - I constantly swing back and forth on this
issue, mostly because they _are_ morally degenerate for exploiting human
weakness for profit. If you google Whiteclay, Nebraska and go to images[2],
you'll find a whole bunch of pictures of wasted Indians lying in alleyways
right outside the (white-owned) liquor stores. It's created an enormous amount
of frustration in the community, and the response from the government is
"Well, it's not illegal to sell alcohol to alcoholics."

I give pause to the folks who demand unrestricted drug use for everyone,
(which is what decriminalization is - if something's restrictions have no
teeth, namely incarceration, it's unrestricted. Same exact reason why
financial laws are flouted so often - no teeth) because this is the natural
result - businesses that exist solely to profit off of human pain and despair
and create it on an industrial scale.

The real question, and one that I can't even begin to unravel because there's
so much goddamn bullshit on the Internet from agenda-pushers on both sides, is
"Is this state of affairs, where a large portion of the population is
incarcerated for vice, preferable to a state of affairs where vice is openly
permitted?"

Personally, as someone who lives in a relatively affluent suburb, I'd say that
legalizing everything would be a massive boon to me. My taxes will go down,
and more importantly I'm insulated from the consequences by a lack of public
transit and vigilant cops who are, er, unfriendly to the lowlives who
occasionally wander away from the city. The folks in the city and poorer
towns, who actually get to deal with the massive consequences of widespread
addiction, might beg to differ.

[1]
[http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...](http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339)

[2]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=whiteclay+nebraska&client=ub...](https://www.google.com/search?q=whiteclay+nebraska&client=ubuntu&channel=fs&biw=1920&bih=901&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwjf666Lzt7LAhUC1WMKHSmNDEAQ_AUICCgD)

~~~
Dove
> this is the natural result - businesses that exist solely to profit off of
> human pain and despair and create it on an industrial scale

There are plenty of middle ground options between criminalization and total
freedom. And in fact, if you look at the way alcohol is handled, you see a lot
of those. It isn't illegal to possess alcohol in large quantities or to drink
to excess, but in some places, public intoxication is illegal (or seen as
something of a public nuisance that police are expected to humanely help
with). It isn't illegal to sell alcohol, but sometimes it is illegal to
knowingly sell it to a drunk person. There are age limits. It's banned at
certain events. So forth.

There are a lot of rules, and they vary a lot, and I wouldn't go so far as to
say they are _rational_ , exactly, but some are humane. And some do strike a
good balance between allowing people to choose to enjoy responsibly (or even
irresponsibly), while limiting the danger and nuisance to the rest of society,
and while -- on the third hand -- limiting how predatory you can be in selling
it and preying on human weakness.

It would probably be naive to suppose that the exact same set of rules would
work for all substances, but it does suggest that outright criminalization and
junkies on the sidewalk aren't the _only_ options.

------
llamataboot
Mass Incarceration is truly one of those things I can't think too much about
or I just feel an unrelenting hopelessness and rage. It seems absolutely
diabolical to me that in the United States we have simply taken away the
humanity of so many people (with absolutely egregious racial and class
disparities) in the name of keeping "us" "safer". Not only is it an absolute
failure from a moral perspective, it doesn't work from any pragmatic
perspective either. Costs are high, recidivism is shocking, and prisons seem
to be designed to absolutely foster the worst parts of the human-animals
locked in cages.

I don't think there's an easy answer. From a systemic perspective we are
locked into a socio-political ratchet. It is far easier to argue for harsher
treatment for "criminals", with zero political downside, than to argue the
opposite. As long as prison seems to be something that happens to other
people: darker, poorer, less educated, there is an empathic gap that exists
that makes it hard for the average schmo just trying to get by with his 60
hours a week of work to care very much.

I can only hope that someday we'll look back on the fact that the United
States had the second highest incarceration rate in the entire world as an
absolute black mark, right up there with slavery and genocide, or colonialism.

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

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

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

~~~
PhasmaFelis
I don't think most people are arguing that these two guys, or people like
them, should have been released. The problem is that we're filling up the
prisons with drug users and other non-violent offenders, and as a result
everyone gets squeezed, from kids who got caught smoking pot right on up to
cold-blooded murderers. Fix the overcrowding on the low end, and the high end
has room to expand as needed without reducing the sentences for hardened
killers.

~~~
Natsu
I should hope at least that is the prevailing sentiment, but I've met enough
people who told me otherwise to have reason to worry.

------
rbobby
Not a godly sort but this passage seems appropriate:

> Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or
> thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take
> care of You?' Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent
> that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to
> Me'. These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into
> eternal life.

America has a horrible problem with incarceration. It seems obvious but if the
state takes away someone's rights (freedom) the state assumes a duty of care
for those individuals. And a duty of care isn't extinguished because it costs
too much or would be difficult to comply with or would be politically
unpopular.

Specific to costs... if incarceration is costing too much then do something
about the underlying root causes that result in incarceration.

------
joesmo
I don't understand why our society thinks its ok to treat people this way just
because they've been convicted of a crime. Being removed from society and put
in jail IS the punishment. Why does society suddenly see these people as no
longer human, trash that can be dealt with any way, packed like sardines, left
helpless to be raped and murdered?

Yes, some of these people have done unspeakable things, but they are being
punished already. Does society itself need to continue to do unspeakable
things to those convicted? Honestly, I thought we were beyond that, but I
guess not. Is it any wonder that we accept torture of foreigners now when
we've always accepted torture of citizens?

~~~
llamataboot
I agree with this, but arguably jail itself is an unreasonable punishment for
many/most crimes, especially under the guise of rehabilitation, which it
absolutely isn't designed for. Many countries have figured out how to balance
public safety, restitution/punishment, and rehabilitation in ways that are
empirically more effective on all fronts than the US good-ole-boy culture of
"lock em up and let God sort em out". The Scandinavian countries especially
come to mind.

~~~
joesmo
Of course. Putting non-violent offenders in jail doesn't even make sense when
you have options like house arrest, especially jailing them before trial. I
agree though, the US has an extremely cruel culture that's always, since
before its creation, been based on oppression and enslavement, and it really
shows up in the way it treats its citizens and others throughout the world.

------
jonpaine
It's disgusting that we treat humans like this. A reasonable person can
understand perspectives on both sides of many contemporary hot topics, but I
see no such leeway here.

Isn't it time we stand up and simply fix something which is so clearly broken?

~~~
justicezyx
How we should treat the "animal" that kill people then?

~~~
whiddershins
All humans are capable of horrific acts. It is a part of our humanity, we are
apex predators who organize socially. The evolved algorithm in our brain that
manages that dissonance is extremely complex and will necessarily fail at
times.

We can't tolerate or condone antisocial behavior, but it is a mistake to feel
safe in the thought "we" are better than "them."

We are they, they are we.

~~~
justicezyx
Hmm, I guess I am too much a CS people.

When I say "animal", I mean human as a kind of "animal". In terms of people
killing people, that is a reflection of the "animal" side of human. Thus I use
"animal".

If you think I mean they are "animal", and I am not "animal"; and I am better
then them. Sorry, I do not possess that prejudice.

My question simply is: How we treat the "animal", which are people showing
high-degree of animal instinct of a human, who killed other human?

That's not an implication that they should be treated as "animal".

~~~
trhway
i wonder why "animal" surfaced here at all. Animals kill for food or self-
defense, it isn't a voluntary act, it is what they have to do. Killing for
other reasons, voluntary killings, murders - it is all almost exclusively
human trait. In particular, animals don't do murders, it is human invention.

~~~
EliRivers
Some animals kill far more than they need to for food. They kill one, and
instead of eating it or leaving with it, kill many more and then just leave
the fresh kills behind. That's not for food, and it's not for self-defence.

~~~
trhway
and just naming such an animal would advance this debate a great length ...

~~~
EliRivers
Foxes.

I think you could have looked that up yourself, but you're not here for
answers. You've already made your mind up.

------
aristidb
One quote stuck with me: “But it’s a tough place to do time. People that say
cons have it easy, they ain’t never been in Menard.”

Not an American, but between saying that cons have it easy and the fact of
mass incarceration in the first place, it seems that there's a certain
mercilessness in American culture.

~~~
oh_sigh
Who exactly says cons have it easy? I've never heard that one before.

~~~
tyingq
Google for something like: why do we treat prisoners better than

Lots of results, most highly misinformed. People imagine that most/all
prisoners get 3 meals a day, television, etc. Not true.

------
danieltillett
A terrible story. The thing that sticks with me is the whole situation was
rational. You have a murderer who will never be released (nothing to lose) who
wants to live alone. The only way he can get this is to kill someone and we
somehow expect anything other than the outcome that resulted.

------
nuttinwrong
One look at that cell photo in the article and I think I would bash my head
into the wall until I was dead. To think about living in those conditions is
unimaginable. To do this to another human being, no matter what crime they
committed is pure cruelty. I'd like to see the people who voted for these laws
spend 10 days in that cell. Absolutely disgusting.

~~~
briandear
If more people thought like you, perhaps more people would think twice before
raping, murdering and robbing. I have trouble sympathizing with violent
criminals.

~~~
ljf
OK, but what is making the US a more violent place than other comparable
countries?
[http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/is_the_u_s...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/02/is_the_u_s_more_violent_than_other_countries_what_the_data_shows.html)

~~~
jessaustin
USA is a historically-colonized nation with a large diverse population.
"Comparable" would be Mexico, Brazil, or Nigeria. Comparing USA to Netherlands
is a joke.

~~~
atemerev
OK then.

In Nigeria, incarceration rate per 100,000 people is 30. In Mexico, 196. In
Brazil, 193.

In the US, 737.

~~~
jessaustin
I don't disagree with you, but my comment addressed 'ljf's question about
violence, directly above it. This myth that USA should exactly resemble a tiny
homogeneous European nation has been encouraged by the prison-LEO-judicial-
industrial complex in order to argue for ever more draconian punishments:
"We're not like Holland yet, so let's lock up 100,000 more minorities!"

~~~
atemerev
Netherlands are not that homogeneous. In Amsterdam, there are 25-30% of
residents who are not Dutch. In Geneva, where I live — more than 50% non-Swiss
residents.

------
PaulAJ
No problem. These guys just need to get together to launch a class-action suit
against whoever is responsible alleging unconstitutional cruel and unusual
punishment. Shouldn't take more than 15 years to wend its way up to the
Supreme Court, at which point all of these guys will get voucher for a
MacDonalds Happy Meal.

------
junto
I genuinely wonder what is cheaper. Building a couple of new prisons, or
housing these convicts for the extra 30 years for the murders inside the
prison due to over-crowding.

I don't understand multiple occupancy cells in prison. Dangerous convicts are
in prison usually for something unpleasant or violent that have done to
another human being. Putting them side by side in a hen coop sounds like
absolute stupidity. Unless of course the whole plan is to have them slowly
kill each other off to remove the problem prone from society.

------
dang
Also
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11362269](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11362269).

------
willu
"The only way to alert a guard was to bang on the door and hope the sound
could be heard above the din."

Do cells not have cameras? I would think it'd be feasible to detect fights
with basic motion detection.

~~~
clort

      "The space itself appeared to be decomposing.
       The front wall, next to the door, was made of corroded metal.
       The paint on the wedge-shaped shelf had almost completely chipped away;
         the beds were caked in rust;
         and the floor underneath the toilet was stained brown and black.
       Dust and crumbs accumulated in every corner."
    

You suppose this was a high tech institution?

------
wolfgke
> "If you can come up with a better way to do this, understanding the fact
> that we are 162 percent of capacity without double celling, I'm willing to
> listen to you"

Introduce less and shorter prison punishments into the laws so that there are
simply less inmates?

------
afandian
I couldn't bring myself to read the article past the death. Were the prison
authorities charged with murder? Did any charges stick?

~~~
tyingq
I doubt anything will come of it.

This happened: [http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2013/03/inmate-who-
gave-b...](http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2013/03/inmate-who-gave-birth-
to-baby-in-toilet-files-suit-alleging-cruel-and-unusual-punishment-at-dawson-
state-jail.html/) (tldr, inmate delivers her baby in a cell, with no medical
oversight, at all)

No criminal charges. They did shut down the jail, but likely for other
reasons.

------
imtringued
The point of solitary confinement is to protect inmates from attacking each
other. Putting two attackers into one cell makes the problem even worse.

After the first inmate murder there is no consequence for further murder,
you're there for the rest of your life anyway. It doesn't matter if you kill
one or twenty cellmates.

For the prison this is probably a boon because their overcrowding problem is
"solving itself".

~~~
Someone
Assuming a fixed fee per prisoner-day, for a commercial prison, overcrowding
is the boon.

I would also hope a commercial prison would be fined if inmates die while in
its care.

------
peter303
Reminds me of my grad student office

------
djejjejbe
Cruel and unusual punishment.

But the US doesn't give a fuck about law, justice, or the Constitution.

The people should stop giving a fuck about their corrupt government. These
problems will not be solved politically or non violently.

------
justin_vanw
I don't buy the thesis here that 'solitary confinement' is the reason this
happened. These guys were both murderers before (including when they were free
in the world and totally unconfined) and seemed unbothered by the thought of
killing each other. These guys are exceptionally aggressive and with major
psychological issues on top. They are going to kill over and over unless they
change (not likely) or we simply never let them interact with another human.

This is the consequence of having any person like the two highlighted in this
article living and breathing and having the ability to interact with any other
human. If you are going to lock them up and never let them interact with
anyone ever again, then that is considered torture as well:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-the-
tort...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-the-torture-of-
solitary-
confinement/2013/02/20/ae115d74-7ac9-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_story.html)

So the choice is to either let them kill each other (you can try to stop it,
but so long as they have physical access to other people they will kill them
for no reason), or you don't allow them that access and this is torturing
them. Seems like a Catch-22.

For my money putting horrible people like this together is a way of letting
them solve societies problems by killing each other. It's certainly not
desirable to have this happen, but clearly nobody is solving it in any other
way.

~~~
Rapzid
I don't like the title much either. They weren't actually in solitary
confinement anyway. It was just a small cell.

