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?
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.
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.
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.
