No-Touch Torture?
Forensic psychologist Stephen K. Erickson has an interesting post up at the Crime & Consequences blog regarding a Time article describing the "mistreatment" of violent criminals in Supermax facilities. Dr. Erickson disagrees that supermax prisons are causing madness:
"Modern science has confirmed this, with electroencephalograms showing that after a few days in solitary, prisoners' brain waves shift toward a pattern characteristic of stupor and delirium. When sensory deprivation is added ... the breakdown is even worse."
Dr. Erickson points out that supermax prisons do not eliminate sight, sound, and tactile stimulation. The Times article seems to imply that they do and goes on to suggest that natural lighting, a radio, and TV be put in the supermax cells to ward off madness; what will Time suggest next: that supermax prisons provide violent criminals with a teddy bear and a big hug? You think I'm joking? Just wait, it's just a matter of time.
Professor Berman over at Sentencing Law and Policy has this post on this week’s Time magazine’s feature article on supermax prisons. Professor Berman quotes the Time piece:
"Modern science has confirmed this, with electroencephalograms showing that after a few days in solitary, prisoners' brain waves shift toward a pattern characteristic of stupor and delirium. When sensory deprivation is added ... the breakdown is even worse."
What is notable here is that, once again, the popular press and even legal scholars misunderstand how to interpret neuroscience results. There are likely many times during the day when everyone’s brain waves would show a pattern of stupor and delirium. EEG’s reveal brain activity, but they cannot be used exclusively to diagnose. The implication in the Time piece is that supermax prisons are so horrendous that inmates invariably descend into madness. Time proffer’s of the EEG data seems to solidify this conclusion with the certainty of science. Yet, EEG waves “characteristic” of stupor should be accorded little weight as evidence of this claim. Brain waves similar to stupor can appear frequently during “normal life” outside of prison."
Dr. Erickson points out that supermax prisons do not eliminate sight, sound, and tactile stimulation. The Times article seems to imply that they do and goes on to suggest that natural lighting, a radio, and TV be put in the supermax cells to ward off madness; what will Time suggest next: that supermax prisons provide violent criminals with a teddy bear and a big hug? You think I'm joking? Just wait, it's just a matter of time.
posted by Helen at 10:26 AM
48 Comments:
When I see liberals being more concerned about the welfare of criminals ( or terrorists) than about the victim's,
my brain waves show a pattern of stupor and delirium!
Friend of USA,
Mine too, do you think they'll fluff our pillows?
I'd be willing to bet that on bad days, programming marketing research surveys produces "a pattern characteristic of stupor and delirium." Ya know, I really feel sorry for all those murderers, rapists, child molestors, etc. in supermax prisons. Poor guys.
I have a solution for the editors of TIME. I suggest that the felons be released into a "halfway house" right next door to those same editors and writers.
I suggest a work-release program into the Beverly Hills area, as well.
Why, there would be editorials callling for no parole in no time!
First of all, our prison population should be a fraction of what it is.
Second of all, what about the innocent people in prison? Should an innocent person be driven crazy on top of being illegally incarcerated? And history shows that there are a number of innocent people in prison even for serious crimes like murder and rape, so don't claim it doesn't happen.
And save the "liberal" namecalling, I'm a libertarian.
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but the only way to get put in Supermax is by being dangerous in the context of prison. The prisoners are not put in Supermax becasue of their crimes, but because of their behavior in prison. These prisoners are very dangerous.
Part of the Supermax program is to shape behavior. The other part is to protect the other prisoners and the guards from very violent people. While the liberals will say that they are violent because they are in Supermax (the same people who say there is violence in Iraq because we are there)any coversation has to deal with the fact that they are dangerous Hannibal Lecter types.
If Supermax is too offensive, how about SuperHaldol or SuperValium. On enough of the right meds these folks would not be a trouble to anyone. And no Supermax!
Trey (who is not holding his breath)
Anonymous at 2:31 pm
I thought libertarians avoided the use of "should." Maybe I am thinking of Libertarians.
Anonymous 2:31:
I agree that too many people are in prison, but this is because of drug offenses, not violent crime. I know people in prison for growing marijuana, my take? Let them go--the drug war frankly, is a bust and we would be better off keeping violent criminals in prison for longer periods of time rather than wasting the prison space on those who use or abuse marijuana.
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but the only way to get put in Supermax is by being dangerous in the context of prison. The prisoners are not put in Supermax becasue of their crimes, but because of their behavior in prison. These prisoners are very dangerous.
Granted, some of them should be there, and gang activity is often involved. But should they then be driven insane? Seems to me like a dishonest way to slip a punishment in that would be unconstitutional.
(the same people who say there is violence in Iraq because we are there)
No, there is violence in Iraq because we deposed the tyrant that was brutally keeping all the groups in line. (The reason these conflicting groups are contained in one country in the first place is due to colonial Britain.) Then we stuck around and provoked rancor as an army of occupation. The more we stick around the more we will be attacked. And the more we will radicalize the moderates and create more terrorists. You know that some of the police the US hires and trains over their become sectarian death squads, right? Yeah - that's a formula for peace.
If Supermax is too offensive, how about SuperHaldol or SuperValium. On enough of the right meds these folks would not be a trouble to anyone. And no Supermax!
How about things that just aren't suspected to drive people crazy?
Should be "there" above.
Well, I guess that eliminates grounding as an appropriate method of disciplining children. My kids always DID say that it was inhumane to send them to their rooms without television or phone privileges when they were acting like little terrorists. I guess the rest of us just have to tolerate uncivilized behavior. We wouldn't want to be considered mean or anything...
Anon asked "How about things that just aren't suspected to drive people crazy?"
I am more of the whatever it takes to keep these people from killing while they are in prison. I offered a solution, adequate doses of tranquilizers.
What is your proposal?
Trey
Oh, and read on Strategy Page for some accurate info about the Islamic moderates and secular Middle Easterners. The moderates are not being radicalized. The there now is a power grab by warring radicals.
Big Dave - I think you're thinking of Librarians.
P.S. I KNOW you aren't joking about the teddy bear and hug. I am acquainted with a woman who is undergoing court-ordered pscyhological treatment to learn anger management strategies. Her therapist "prescribed" her to hug a teddy bear. It was some nonsense about her not having had enough hugs as a child ... Now, I can understand how emotional neglect can scar a person, but I don't see what a teddy bear is going to do to cure it.
Some prisoners end up in Supermax prisons if their safety is at risk. For example, prisoners whose crimes have been publicized heavily or young prisoners not imprisoned in the juvenile system. Supermax prisons have been proven to be very expensive and not necessarily effective.
bugs, thanks for the hearty guffaws. You're a hoot!
Have they done the brain waves of prisoners in regular lock up who must avoid gang rape in the shower everyday? True, they may not have stupor and delirium waves but I suspect such prisoners would welcome some alone time. Instead Time is concerned about the effects of isolating those who ended up in SuperMax by victimizing others. In the words of comedian Paula Poundstone, "Isn't prison suppose to be just a little bit bad for you?"
I'd wager $1,000 you'd see the same EEG results measuring passengers on long distance international flights.
Or passengers on long Greyhound bus trips...
Or the guys who used to man the radar on Shemya...
Or the winter time layover staff at McMurdo Bay...
in my case i would love to be in solitary, i am a very centred person, i live in my mind.
i have a radical idea, all these dangerous prisoners, put them into a pit fight contest, it would save the government a lot of money, and raise income. the survivor get a cushy cell.
i am surprised they wouldnt do this in 20 odd years or less
brummbar-
When "suspected" becomes "proven," then you've got something.
No, you don't use people as guinea pigs. If there's a question about it you stop it.
I am more of the whatever it takes to keep these people from killing while they are in prison. I offered a solution, adequate doses of tranquilizers.
I might support that, if the side effects are disclosed and they consent to it.
What is your proposal?
I don't have one. Just expressed my opposition to techniques suspected to drive people crazy.
Oh, and read on Strategy Page for some accurate info about the Islamic moderates and secular Middle Easterners. The moderates are not being radicalized. The there now is a power grab by warring radicals.
Link please.
As far as the moderates are concerned, I think its pretty safe to say that whenever we accidentally bomb a wedding or someone's house there's a good chance of making a life enemy. And the occupation plays right into Osama's recruiting propaganda - occupying a muslim country, killing muslims, etc.
In the words of comedian Paula Poundstone, "Isn't prison suppose to be just a little bit bad for you?"
No, the sentence is for prison, not rape. The fact that not much is done about it makes it arguably a Constitutional violation.
j. peden-
On the Faux Liberal argument, there should be no prisons. But at least then we could defend ourselves freely.
What's a "faux liberal"? I hope you're not alluding to a certain brand of racist nonsense because you're too cowardly to come out with it directly.
OK, now as far as driving these poor guys "insane": What type of people do we find in a Supermax prison? I'd wager that 99% of them are extreme sociopaths. Their entire lives center around satisfying their basest desires, anytime that the mood strikes them. They are accustomed to total freedom of action because they know no moral or ethical bounds, and they intimidate those around them. They are not capable of feeling or understanding any other emotion. Period.
So you put them into Supermax, and what happens? For the first and only time in their lives, their freedom of action is significantly constrained. They are unable to pursue the base activities which provide them with the only emotions they know. They are, in a very real sense, imprisoned not just physically but in their own minds.
Is it no wonder that they go insane? And if they do, so what? They weren't at all stable to begin with. And the only alternative, from their point of view, is to turn the loose again and let them kill and destroy some more. Trying to provide them with any other accommodation is pointless because they are inherently incapable of understanding or emphathizing with it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that these people think and feel like you and I do. They don't.
No, you don't use people as guinea pigs.
You have a problem with clinical drug trials then?
Or beta releases of software...
Etc, etc.
Purple Avenger:
I had to laugh at your post.
My dad spent a year on Shemya in the early 1960s. I have a photograph of a large, round concrete plug in the middle of the island with an anchor chain attached to it. Dad said that periodically someone would go out and pull on the chain with all their might to try to pull the plug and sink the island. He had a lot of funny stories about the insanity on Shemya.
For the first and only time in their lives, their freedom of action is significantly constrained. They are unable to pursue the base activities which provide them with the only emotions they know.
This is precisely why I have never understood why "good behavior" in prison warrants consideration before parole boards. How someone behaves while locked up is not a very good indicator of how they will behave in the outside world.
Regarding supermax, it seems to be the only option for certain inmates. They commit serious crimes, are sent to prison--and continue to act violently or dangerously, knowing there are severe consequences. They must be prevented from continuing to harm others; how is this achieved other than isolating them from others?
The article at one point innocently states that human contact with guards and other prisoners would "stabilize" those in solitary confinement. I laughed out loud at that one--I'm sure the guards and prisoners would have something to say about that! The author's reasoning is a classic cart-before-the-horse argument. Let these people out of supermax and in a few years, we'd be reading complaints about how our prisons don't protect inmates from the most violent offenders.
What about this case in Australia? Where do you draw the line on moral and ethical treatment of patients?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2001977,00.html
If it is effective, does it absolve the practitioner? Lacking any picture, I can just imagine similar treatment at Abu Ghraib.
anonymous 5:09:
The article you point to can hardly be used as an example of what the Times article described. Not having a TV, radio and natural lighting in your prison cell are not in the same category as sexual abuse and whipping someone you are treating for psycholgical problems--if you cannot tell where the line is drawn between these two situations, I hope you do not have to make too many moral decisions.
cousin dave-
I'd wager that 99% of them are extreme sociopaths. Their entire lives center around satisfying their basest desires, anytime that the mood strikes them. They are accustomed to total freedom of action because they know no moral or ethical bounds, and they intimidate those around them. They are not capable of feeling or understanding any other emotion. Period.
You don't know that for sure. There have been innocent people on death row. For all we know they were defending themselves or they pissed off the wrong guard. And we don't violate peoples' human rights and violate the constitution based on your flawed judgment.
Is it no wonder that they go insane? And if they do, so what? They weren't at all stable to begin with. And the only alternative, from their point of view, is to turn the loose again and let them kill and destroy some more. Trying to provide them with any other accommodation is pointless because they are inherently incapable of understanding or emphathizing with it. Don't make the mistake of thinking that these people think and feel like you and I do. They don't.
Again, history shows that some of these people are likely innocent. That's why its a good idea to honor human and Constitutional rights, because sometimes you are wrong.
purple avenger-
You have a problem with clinical drug trials then?
Or beta releases of software...
Etc, etc.
Not when full informed consent is given and they follow little things like the Nuremberg Code, the Convention Against Torture, and other state, federal, and international laws.
I have a big problem with involuntary medical experimentation, medical assault, medical abuse, etc.
knoxwhirled-
Regarding supermax, it seems to be the only option for certain inmates. They commit serious crimes, are sent to prison--and continue to act violently or dangerously, knowing there are severe consequences. They must be prevented from continuing to harm others; how is this achieved other than isolating them from others?
Say you were locked up in a prison on false charges tomorrow. You realize that you would likely have to use violence at some point to defend yourself, right?
Can anyone identify any innocent prisoners in Supermax prisons? Any at all? My understanding is that these are pretty clearly recidivists with a propensity to ongoing violence. Moreoever, I think there's a pretty clear process for assigning prisoners to
Supermax. I don't think its the sort of prison one gets sent to under uncertain conditions.
Can anyone identify any innocent prisoners in Supermax prisons? Any at all? My understanding is that these are pretty clearly recidivists with a propensity to ongoing violence. Moreoever, I think there's a pretty clear process for assigning prisoners to
Supermax. I don't think its the sort of prison one gets sent to under uncertain conditions.
I'm not aware of any cases. But then again many tend to think that innocent people don't wind up on death row.
j.peden-
So would it be racist to call a racist a racist?
Don't know. It would depend on the situation. Personally, I'm not a racist.
But someone that actually supported and participated in racist actions, crimes, and policies would certainly have a tough time calling anyone else a racist without being a poser and a hypocrite. No matter what racial, ethnic, religious, etc. group they belonged to.
Great Article.
OnlyMedicalBooks
j.peden-
So what?
So you asked the question, I just said it depends and that people that support and participate in racist crimes, policies, and actions were basically inarguably racist, regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, etc.
anonymous 11:42
But my understanding is that the two cases are different. Based on the article, it doesn't sound like people are placed in supermax for a one-time offense. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sounds like there is a pattern of ongoing and projected behavior. Consequently, for the system to produce a false positive (imprisoning the innocent), you'd have to have an ongoing series of low probability events. That starts to get diminimously improbable very quickly.
anon 8:43: By your standards, all forms of imprisonment violate the Constitution and human rights. Therefore, we should not imprison criminals at all. Let's just let them all run loose. As long as you are willing to let a few of them move in with you.
Some prisoners are sent to Supermax facilities because of their behavior inside the prison system, but others are sent there because of the nature of their crimes and the need to isolate them as much as possible from other prisoners and the outside world.
For example, terrorists such as Ramzi Yousef, Eric Rudolph, and the Unabomber have all been sent straight to the federal supermax in Florence, Colorado, after receiving their sentences. The same holds true, I think, for former FBI agent/Russian spy Robert Hanssen. The late Gambino family boss John Gotti was sent straight to the federal prison in Marion, Illinois, when it served as the federal supermax.
j.peden-
No, same anonymous.
bill dalasio-
That may be the process, but it doesn't invalidate my hypothetical. Unless you are a member of certain groups, you might have to protect yourself with violence repeatedly.
cousin dave-
anon 8:43: By your standards, all forms of imprisonment violate the Constitution and human rights. Therefore, we should not imprison criminals at all. Let's just let them all run loose. As long as you are willing to let a few of them move in with you.
I already live with a couple, although they are unlikely to be prosecuted.
But that's beside the point.
And no, all forms of imprisonment don't violate the Constitution. Of course unconstitutionally imprisoning someone always violates the Constitution.
Maybe someone has mentioned it, but isn't part of the idea of Supermax to protect the "regular" prison population?
I'm always amazed at the degree of cruelty humans are capable of. This includes the criminals and "us" the good guys. Driving someone crazy thur deprivation is evil. I'd rather we just kill them.
Interesting thread of comments.
I notice that many of the posters choose to use witty analogies to articulate where their own personal high road ends and support for mistreatment and abuse of others begins.
Common sense dictates that the punishment experienced by those who choose to break societal rules can and will be administered in varying degrees of severity.
But why support abuse that is ancillary or incidental? Why distinguish between violence applied to innocent persons juxtaposed to those who are convicted criminals?
If the during the application of justice a person can expect to contract hepatitis, be raped or suffer sensory deprivation than lets be up front and out in the open about it.
Perhaps doing so would more sharply define the difference between what is moral and acceptable.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
情色文學sex383線上娛樂場情色小說情色視訊情色交友情色論壇ut聊天室情色網台灣a片王免費視訊a咆哮小老鼠麗的情色小遊戲台灣情色網視訊 美女 168論壇情色遊戲情色小遊戲情色小站情色影片情色貼片美女視訊18禁地少女遊戲
Post a Comment
<< Home