home

Eric Rudolph Says Supermax is Driving Him Insane

The United States has the right to incarcerate convicted offenders. But, does it have the right to torment them, drive them insane or impose conditions of confinement that cause extreme physical disabilities?

No, we're not talking about detainees or Guantanamo. We're talking about Supermax at Florence Colorado, often called Alcatraz of the Rockies.

The latest to complain: Eric Rudolph:

Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph laments in a series of letters that the caged atmosphere of the federal prison where is spending the rest of his life is designed to drive him insane.

Rudolph, who hid out from authorities for five years in the woods of western North Carolina before being captured, says in correspondence with a Colorado newspaper that his surroundings at the Supermax prison are getting to him.

"It is a closed-off world designed to isolate inmates from social and environmental stimuli, with the ultimate purpose of causing mental illness and chronic physical conditions such as diabetes, heart disease and arthritis," he wrote in one letter to The Gazette of Colorado Springs.

Rudolph wrote that he spends 23 hours a day in his 7-by-12-foot cell, adding that his only exercise is in an enclosed area he described as a "large empty swimming pool" divided into "dog-kennel style cages."

"Using solitary confinement, Supermax is designed to inflict as much misery and pain as is constitutionally permissible," he wrote.

America. Prison Nation. Torture Nation.

< Pinochet Dead | May We Please Have Your Vote....Again >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Short drive (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by 3waygeek on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 07:22:33 PM EST
    But seriously, that's the entire idea behind the Supermax prisons -- the testbed for Gitmo.

    No one belongs in either. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 07:36:39 PM EST
    Not even Eric Rudolf.

    Not only does it drive them insane, the fact that Supermax's and Gitmo exist doesn't help the mental state of those who support building them, or those who like seeing people in them.

    As at least one comment below attests to.

    Parent

    There is a place for supermax (none / 0) (#20)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:53:24 AM EST
    And it's for people who have been convicted of terrorist offenses. The reason is that we need to keep them from spreading terrorist ideas amongst those who are going to be allowed to return to society. As far as whether they go crazy or not, it doesnt really bother me if they do primarily b/c i'd rather put them in supermax and keep them from talking some other future parolee into bombing a building and killing a bunch of people.

    Parent
    I guess (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:06:26 AM EST
    you bought what Bush has been selling.

    Parent
    well..... (none / 0) (#29)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:16:05 AM EST
    if he's crazy enough to blow up a lot of people once, why take the chance on letting him spread his ideas. i think it's logical to assume that he didnt blow up the olympic park b/c he wanted to see how big the explosion was. he must have had a motive and i dont want him in prison spreading his ideas.

    drug trafficers learn more about their trade in prison from other inmates. why risk letting people, who already have a chip on their shoulder from the way they've been treated within the system, learn about a way to get back at society for putting them away for 20 yrs or whatever.

    maybe there is a better way than supermax, but if they've gotten there by killing 10s or 100s or 1,000s of innocent americans, some isolation may be what they need. it's not going to take back what they did, but we're being on the safe side by not letting them contaminate others with their views. i care more about the well being of innocent society members than i do about the people who take away their lives.

    Parent

    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 08:59:03 AM EST
    why take the chance on letting him spread his ideas

    You counter ideas with better ideas...not chains and cages and inhumane treatment.

    Parent

    execute (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:09:20 PM EST
    Why not just execute him?

    Parent
    Bush? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:25:03 PM EST
    There hasn't been a trial yet, Jim. Don't get ahead of yourself.

    Parent
    You're missing the point of the post (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:24:58 AM EST
    There is a better way than supermax. And it has nothing to do with terrorism.

    It has to do with what a society decides it's values are. Not with what terrorists decide societies values are.

    As Scar said: Inhumane is inhumane. Period.

    Parent

    What is it? (none / 0) (#31)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 10:44:01 AM EST
    what is the better way than supermax? How else are you going to house offenders of the worst kind - those who randomly detonate explosive devises. Whether it's the point of the thread or not, the guy who's complaining here is a terrorist. And for me, it's not about a society deciding what its morals are as much as it is about where the line is between being morally correct to offenders and letting any pinholes get in our system that might cause our society to be the next iraq. i personally would rather err on the side of the innocent civilians than on the side of the convicted offenders. It's more important to save the life of the little girl who could be on the bus that would have been exploded if an offender of a supermax place had convinced a near-future parolee that bombing a bus is a good idea.

    Maybe that scenario wont happen, but with people who have already done things like that, why take the chance. If there is a better way to do the same thing w/o supermax, let's check it out.

    Parent

    Why be afraid of their ideas? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:06:28 AM EST
    Supermax prison are designed, as Jeralyn said above, to:
    to torment them, drive them insane or impose conditions of confinement that cause extreme physical disabilities

    Those are fear and revenge driven goals that serve no purpose other than to produce people who are insane and/or have extreme physical disabilities.

    If that is all you want there is nothing that will convince you otherwise. But I really don't think it is want you want.

    If their ideas don't make sense no one is going to be infected by them in a regular prison.

    If they are already insane then psychiatric treatment in a regular prison, and contact with people who are not insane, even other criminals, is probably the only thing that may bring them around, if anything will.

    Supermax prisons are designed to produce people that will justify Supermax prisons. They are not designed for anything else. And I think they area as dangerous to society as they are to inmates.

    This thread, and scribes comment here in that thread, even though it refers to Gitmo, applies here.

    Also here (pdf) is an example of the results of extreme sensory deprivation.

    Parent

    Why take the chance? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:16:20 AM EST
    Why take the chance? This is why, IMO.

    Parent
    Off Centered (none / 0) (#35)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:39:51 AM EST
    Sure that's a good point to make, but it doesnt apply to this situation. It applies better to the 'build a new fence across the US/Mexico border' idea - which is bull$4!t by the way. What this is doing is saying to citizens, 'if you're going to act like terrorists, we're going to treat you like terrorists'. It's not that we're being scared into our own little hole. It's saying if you try to intimidate us, we're going to put you in your own little hole.

    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:50:15 AM EST
    It's not that we're being scared into our own little hole. It's saying if you try to intimidate us, we're going to put you in your own little hole.

    Doing one is doing both. It is being reactive instead of proactive. It is letting your prisoner dictate to you.

    The world is a dangerous place. It is going to kill you some day. And me. And everyone else. There is no getting around that. Even putting the rest of the world other than youself in supermax would not enable you to avoid that fact.

    Things will happen to us. Some good. Some bad. We cannot change that. We have no control over that.

    The only thing we have control over is our how we respond to things that happen.

    I choose to not respond out of fear. I choose to not be the ball in a pinball machine.

    All security is personal and psychological. There is death into trying to be too secure.

    I would rather have more life in my years than years in my life, thanks.

    Parent

    I know that sounds like (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:53:41 AM EST
    the most impractical thing in the world. But it only sounds like it. It is a way of living and of relating to the world. And it is the most practical thing in the world.

    Parent
    Responding out of fear? (none / 0) (#38)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:08:55 PM EST
    I'm not sure that 'responding out of fear' is what we're doing here. What we're doing is trying to be protective the best way we can. As long as we are only using supermax for extremely high risk offenders, terrorists and maybe serial killers and mass murderers, I can live with it. To be cautious and to be ruled by fear are two completely different things. In this case, it's caution that keeps us from being terrorized again. I'll give you an example - let's pretend that the 9-11 hijackers didnt die and we busted them and sent them to prison. Let's further assume that they landed in a prison where they could socialize with other citizens. If they had any impact on our offenders about to be parolled and a group of them got together and blew up the golden gate bridge for example, you and I both would be looking for answers as to why they we let them be preached to by the 9-11 hijackers in prison.

    maybe that helps you understand my position, maybe not, but my point is that what every day citizens are giving up for supermax is worth the potential benefit of having it. That is not being ruled by fear. It is being cautious.

    Parent

    edger wrote (1.00 / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:44:52 PM EST
    The world is a dangerous place. It is going to kill you some day. And me. And everyone else. There is no getting around that. Even putting the rest of the world other than youself in supermax would not enable you to avoid that fact.

    Blather worthy of a middle school student.

    The proper response is to protect yourself and your loved ones as best possible. To ignore the truly evil people in the world  by talking about "attitude " is nuts.

    But then you did claim to be a "consultant." Of what I can't imagine.

    Parent

    It's nothing Jim. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 05:48:55 PM EST
    Just another one of those "no one one expected you to get it" things. You have my sympathies though. I know there are so many of them that it gets difficult to cope.

    Parent
    Oh, I get it. (1.00 / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:26:01 AM EST
    You think that we can negoitate with the terrorists and that if we just remain calm all will be okay.

    Ask those on those 9/11 flights how well that worked.

    Parent

    No... you don't. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 09:30:33 AM EST
    So lock them up. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:15:10 PM EST
    But what need is there to subject them to sensory depreivation. What need does it fill to drive them insane or make them physically ill.

    That is sick fear and revenge based behavior, IMO.

    If they are never going to be released there is no need to do that.

    If they are going to be released it is counterproductive in the extreme to do that.

    No?

    Parent

    It's like torture. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:21:38 PM EST
    No, it's not like torture.

    It is torture.

    And the only reason anyone tortures is because... they like doing it.

    Parent

    My point is (none / 0) (#41)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:29:10 PM EST
    that what every day citizens are giving up for supermax is

    self respect and the moral high ground.

    Parent

    He is right (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Domino on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 09:57:39 PM EST
    Rudolph is right.  The purpose of Supermax is to take away sanity.  I don't care what anyone did, this is cruel punishment.  I am not sure about the unusual part of it.  

    Coffin (1.00 / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:16:03 PM EST
    Hmmmm sounds like he is in a coffin.

    Like some others he was involved with.

    And you? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 07:50:32 PM EST
    Hmmmm sounds like he is in a coffin.

    Yes, and you sound like a vampire.

    Parent

    Heh. Indeed. (none / 0) (#12)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:31:25 AM EST
    Spoken like a true Social Liberal (tm).

    Parent
    Stone cold killer (1.00 / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 06:38:52 AM EST
    Why should a social liberal give a flip about a stone cold killer?

    Parent
    I don't really (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jen M on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:03:05 AM EST
    care that much about a stone cold killer. Part of me says "HA".  But the other part of me knows that as a civilized society we are responsible for the well being of those we imprison. Certain minimum standards must be maintained. This is what separates us from him.

    Parent
    Exactly. (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:01:05 AM EST
    And Jim, even though (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 07:04:33 AM EST
    it's not a  fair comparison, after all Bundy's nowhere near being in Bush's class, neither one of them would belong in the kind of place that gets you so priapic.

    Parent
    Stay on subject? (1.00 / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:17:40 AM EST
    Who's talking about Bundy?? Can't you stay on subject??

    And I find it intersting that you have sympathy for them and hatred for Bush.

    Parent

    F*ck that Jesus guy, too (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:37:09 AM EST
    He had sympathy for tax collectors and prostitutes but not the Emperor. And wasn't he a hypocrite? Didn't he preach that you should show compassion for the people who it's easy to show compassion to, and to hell with everyone else? What was wrong with Jesus?

    Thank God we have brilliant philosophers like Jim to set us straight.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#26)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:46:30 AM EST
    Have you ever witnessed the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial, Jim? Just curious.

    Parent
    Easy, easy... Jim (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:25:30 AM EST
    Bush doesn't belong in a supermax either.

    I'd rather seem him do a walkabout in Baghdad and press the flesh with the Iraqis who must love him as much as you do for bringing freedom, democracy and stability to their country.

    Wouldn't you?

    But a supermax? Never. No one could get close to him there.

    Bush is the thread topic, Jim? Yes?

    Parent

    Amazing, he IS capable of staying on subject (none / 0) (#19)
    by aw on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 08:31:18 AM EST
    when it comes to punishment, because that is one of his favorites.

    Parent
    Or (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:21:41 AM EST
    Why should liberals give a flip about a stone cold vampire, like ppj?

    Parent
    Inhumane is inhumane (none / 0) (#25)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:38:31 AM EST
    That's why. No ifs, ands, or buts.

    Parent
    Rudolph (none / 0) (#1)
    by chris in sacto on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 05:36:49 PM EST
    His confinement sounds eerily similar to those housed in Pelican Bay, California.  

    Ah.....what's a terrorist to do (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kitt on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 06:23:46 PM EST
    Rudolph didn't just cop to the Olympic park bombings. He's also believed responsible for women's health care clinic bombings. So, I could really give a crap about Mr. Rudolph.

    Besides...what's not to like here, although 'here' is Pelican Bay.?

    Fostering personal growth opportunities for inmates by providing an atmosphere that encourages education, vocational training and work training to better prepare them for successful reintegration into society.


    Supermax (none / 0) (#9)
    by chris in sacto on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 09:51:50 PM EST
    The Pelican Bay link is slick PR, given what really goes on.  Pelican Bay was created for trouble makers in the California prison system.  Funny thing, one minute they're in a dog cage, allowed one hr of daylight, the next they're on a Greyhound bus with 87 bucks in their pocket headed home.  Rudolph may never be allowed freedom again but there are plenty of others who are subject to the same treatment who will walk our streets again.  How do you prepare them for that day?  

    US Supermaxed

    Parent

    Richard Paey's 25 years for oxycontin was upheld (none / 0) (#4)
    by jerry on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 07:13:25 PM EST
    Also in the news and related to our prison nation,

    A drug sentence without justice

    "Florida's drug trafficking laws were stretched beyond their logical limit when they were applied to Richard Paey, a Pasco County man now serving a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence. Paey suffers from debilitating and chronic pain, and he may have violated the law in order to obtain more pain medication. But Paey was convicted of a crime designed to put away drug kingpins and sentenced accordingly. It is a sentence that should not stand.

    "This sentiment was well articulated in a stinging opinion by Associate Judge James Seals in the 2nd District Court of Appeal case of Paey vs. Florida, in which Paey appealed his sentence as cruel and unusual punishment. Unfortunately, Seals was writing in the dissent.

    "Two members of the three-member panel voted to uphold Paey's sentence in a ruling Wednesday that said there was no legal error. The court said that while conditions surrounding Paey's case would "naturally evoke sympathy," it was the executive branch that should be appealed to for a pardon or commutation of sentence, not the courts. "Mr. Paey's argument about his sentences does not fall on deaf ears, but it falls on the wrong ears," wrote Judge Douglas Wallace for the majority.

    ...

    "Due to a catastrophic auto accident and botched back surgery, Paey, who uses a wheelchair, lives with unremitting back pain. He came to the attention of law enforcement when he filled prescriptions for 700 oxycodone pills and large quantities of other pain relief medications within 36 days. While Paey said his doctor okayed his treatment, there was evidence that suggested Paey tampered with the prescriptions."

    Air America Phoenix has a nice clip comparing El Rushbo with Richard Paey

    Richard Paey (none / 0) (#8)
    by 1980Ford on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 09:00:26 PM EST
    And Rush Limbaugh.

    But Limbaugh, like Foley, helped get these laws passed, so mandatory good guy rather than mandatory sentence.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#10)
    by Donna Darko on Sun Dec 10, 2006 at 09:55:04 PM EST
    Does it have the right to torment them, drive them insane or impose conditions of confinement that cause extreme physical disabilities?

    Supermax prisons are designed to drive people insane so no, Florence, CO and Gitmo do not have the right to make people ill.

    he should've thought of the consequences before (none / 0) (#21)
    by krazycory on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:03:47 AM EST
    i have a friend that is in florence. you dont get sent there for no reason. you have to be a very high profile case or a true trouble maker. i've been to prison myself although it wasn't a super-max, he should've thought of the consequences before he did his crimes. the people he killed don't have any options left nor do the victims families

    me again (none / 0) (#22)
    by krazycory on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:17:09 AM EST
    i should've put that my friend was moved from the marion prison and that is worse than florence. tracy didn't kill anyone!! he is just a true trouble maker!! (bless his heart)

    Parent
    The big lie (none / 0) (#27)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 09:58:13 AM EST
    And I find it intersting that you have sympathy for them and hatred for Bush.

    Not Necessarily (none / 0) (#34)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 11:34:23 AM EST
    If their ideas don't make sense no one is going to be infected by them in a regular prison.

    I disagree. There are thousands of al-Qaida cells all over the world. Sectarian violence in Iraq is growing and is perpetuated through random attacks of miliary AND civilian targets. These are examples of how ideas of killing innocent civilians spreads, even though it's irrational/crazy/rediculous. Prison inmates have been mostly cut off to regular society and their only influences are from within the prison. Many probably already have a chip on their shoulder for having been sent away. It seems entirely possible that they would be susceptible to being drawn into the kinds of ideas that mass murderers have.

    I just feel that we have an interest in keeping these kinds of guys away from other offenders, and we have to keep a close eye on them b/c of the dynamic nature of many of the terrorist personalities. If there is another way to do that, which doesnt cost taxpayers billions of dollars, is a more acceptible form of treatment, that doesnt potentially turn lessor criminals into killers, and that keeps them from escaping, then let's check into it. Until we have new ideas, supermax may be the best alternative we have right now. I dont think we should expend a whole lot of tax dollars or jeopardize the safety of citizens to make sure that these inmates remain healthy.

    What if we had an exercise session (Yoga or Tai Chi or jumping jacks or sit ups, or mild weight training) inside their prison cells? Then they get their exercise. It's not Bally's total fitness, but it's more exercise. As far as mental stability, perhaps a weekly session w/ a psychologist might help. (I wouldnt be surprised if they already have something like that though.) Would that be more reasonable? What is it that is causing such a big problem? If it's being cut off from social interaction, my answer is "Sorry Charlie, waved goodbye to social interaction when you decided to try to blow up society one park at a time." If it's lack of exercise, within our means, let's try to fix it. If it's poor workout conditions, let's see if we can fix that within our means.

    You are (none / 0) (#44)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:40:07 PM EST
    intentionlly or not, using bush's 'war on terror' smokescreen to sell suspermax. And torture.

    There could not, IMO, be a worse justification.

    Parent

    I dont think (none / 0) (#46)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:24:01 PM EST
    that it's fair to call everything someone says a lie just b/c they said it. There is a lot of potential for terrorists to make an impression on regular inmates. I feel this way b/c prisons have a reputation of making criminals become bigger criminals. (ie jorge jung learning about Columbian cocaine in prison) The reason that I feel that prisoners may be more susceptible to terrorism than others is that some might have a few things in common with foreign terrorists. For example, I would probably have some real resentment for government if I had gotten locked up for 20 years for a non-violent drug charge. And dont think the terrorists wouldnt love to get in there and corrupt some of the minds of the future parolees. It's exactly what they're doing and have done in Iraq. They reached a section of the society that felt mistreated and oppressed and tried to push terrorist ideas on them. That's why the increase in sectarian violence is really heating up over there. Just because it's GW Bush's idea doesnt make it wrong.

    Parent
    i suspect mr. rudolph (none / 0) (#42)
    by cpinva on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    wasn't dealing with a full deck to begin with. though not legally insane, he clearly isn't rational, or he wouldn't have committed the acts that got him imprisoned. my sympathy level for mr. rudolph, and his ilk, isn't real high. especially so since someone else was initially accused of the olympic bombing, and nearly had his life ruined as a result.

    that said, if we aren't going to execute him, we have an obligation to imprison him humanely. the idea of keeping him away from other inmates, who may be getting out before they die, so as to avoid him spreading his nutcase ideas, isn't farfetched.

    perhaps what is needed is a prison solely for those serving life sentences, with no possibility of parole. that would eliminate the concern of "infection", they aren't going anywhere.

    Yes, I agree. (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 12:34:20 PM EST
    perhaps what is needed is a prison solely for those serving life sentences

    There is no need to make them sick. Or sicker.

    I agree (none / 0) (#45)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:12:49 PM EST
    that we shouldnt be making them sick(er), but letting them be a part of the regular prison population could potentially be extremely dangerous. We need to find out what it is that's making them sick(er) and try to eliminate that without allowing them back into the regular prison population. If there is no way to do that, it is not worth risking the possibility of letting them spread their ideas. If we do all we can to help them, short of releasing them to regular prison population, then I dont think we've given up anything morally b/c we have more of a moral responsibility to the innocent masses that make up our decent society. Obviously, long term solitary confinement in prison is not moral for regular offenders (including most murderers). However, for the extreme offenders such as terrorists or serial killers that may be a potential threat, even from behind bars, suto solitary confinement for extended periods is the best way to prevent them from becoming a bigger threat.

    Solitary confinement may be viewed as torture, in a way, if it unnecessarily causes illness. But I dont think we can afford, as a society, to risk having dangerous offenders in regular population. That's not only for our sake, but also for the safety of lesser offenders. With terrorists as examples, as the number of convicted terrorists in our prison system grows, they'll become somewhat powerful within the prison if they can get together somehow and come up w/ a way to kill inmates in some sort of violent jihadist (for lack of a better term) rebellion.

    Parent

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#47)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:31:21 PM EST
    that would work if we could keep all the terrorists away from each other so they dont try to come up w/ a way to kill the ones in prison who dont agree with them. We have an obligation to humanely house and reasonalby protect the other offenders also.

    Parent
    The most curious thing about (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:52:57 PM EST
    nearly all your comments here is the constant and repeated reference to terrorism, as if it is a special case in which it ends justify means.

    Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. It has been with us for thousands of years, and will probably always be.

    To use it as justification for supermax prisons is abandoning values that are claimed to be immutable. Or is having none in the first place, IMO.

    The topic is Supermax prisons and their effect. Not terrorism.

    Inhumane is inhumane.

    Are you claiming an exception?

    Parent

    I am claiming (none / 0) (#51)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:16:32 PM EST
    that it is reasonable to keep a terrorist separate from other inmates. House them in their own cell, feed them, let them exercise and do everything else that other prisoners get to do, but dont let them comingle with the general prison population. Any visits from citizens should at the very least be supervised. If they need additional punishment, take their tv away for a little while or whatever. Chaining them to their bed in a strip cell should not happen. I dont see any point in not allowing them to have tvs as long as they're on good behavior. books are good. Giving them 23 hours in a room by themselves is not above and beyond regular punishment. I am claiming that supermax prisons, as an idea, are not completely inhumane. As long as they have all the rights that other prisoners have, less the social interaction, then that sounds pretty humane to me. In a way, by killing innocent people, terrorists in particular have told us that they dont want social interaction. I am not claiming that there should be exceptions for humane treatment. I'm trying to come up w/ a way to humanely house these extremely violent and potentially dangerous individuals w/o allowing them to have any unsupervised social interaction that could lead to potential terrorist plots.

    Parent
    ::worse than:: worse than animals (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:28:37 PM EST
    I am claiming that supermax prisons, as an idea, are not completely inhumane... I'm trying to come up w/ a way to humanely house these extremely violent and potentially dangerous individuals w/o allowing them to have any unsupervised social interaction

    IOW, you want two classes of supermax prisons. One inhumane, and one worse than inhumane, simply out of fear [ or concern:-) ] that giving them just the inhumane treatment

    could lead to potential terrorist plots.

    You know... it may help to keep i mind here that ALL supermax prisoners are there BECAUSE they are dangerous. If some scare you more than others that is no reason to treat them worse than worse than animals. You run the risk of becoming.... etc.

    Parent

    Do you (none / 0) (#54)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:46:50 PM EST
    feel that not allowing the prisoners to have any interaction to the outside world is inhumane? That's the part of suprmax that I feel is worth keeping. Beating the inmates, or depriving medical care, or depriving reasonable literature, or depriving tv when not warranted should not be part of the deal. Though it would be nice to provide them space to work out in a better environment would be nice, but I'm not sure if it's possible unless you let them run out on a track for ten minutes each and have someone running at all times of the day. For that to work, you could only have 200ish inmates per tract facility in a supermax environment. Perhaps we could give them a basketball goal or equipment (if it will fit) of their choosing in their small workout room.

    If you think it is inhumane to disallow them to socialize with others, then we disagree. In those extreme situations, I do not feel that keeping them separate from other offenders is inhumane. As far as the other things that happen at supermaxes, several things should be handled differently.

    Parent

    I used your definition and asked questions (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:51:48 PM EST
    you're avoiding...

    Parent
    Human and non-human? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    We have an obligation to humanely house and reasonalby protect the other offenders also.

    NO.

    We have an obligation to humanely house and reasonalby protect ALL offenders.

    Parent

    find out what it is that's making them sick(er) (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 01:45:44 PM EST
    1.) supermax effect

    2.) SUPERMAX PRISONS: THEIR RISE, CURRENT PRACTICES, AND EFFECT ON INMATES  [PDF]

    3.) What is a Supermax prison?  [.TXT]

    In general.  Supermax prisoners are locked into small cells for approximately 23 hours a day.  They have almost no contact with other human beings.

    There are no group activities:  no work, no educational opportunities, no eating together, no sports, no getting together with other people for religious services, and no attempts at rehabilitation.  

    There are no contact visits:  prisoners sit behind a plexiglass window.  Phone calls and visitation privileges are strictly limited. Books and magazines may be denied and pens restricted.  TV and radios may be prohibited or, if allowed,  are controlled by guards.  

    Prisoners have little or no personal privacy.  Guards monitor the inmates' movements by video cameras.  Communication between prisoners and control booth officers is mostly through speakers and microphones.  An officer at a control center may be able to monitor cells and corridors and control all doors electronically.

    Typically, the cells have no windows.  Lights are controlled by guards who may leave them on night and day.  For exercise there is usually only a room with high concrete walls and a chin-up bar. Showers may be limited to three per week for not more than ten minutes.  

    "Prisoners are confined to a concrete world in which they never see a blade of grass, earth, trees or any part of the natural world."

    There are complaints that inmates who misbehave while in supermax or control units are put into "strip cells" (sometimes at temperatures near 50 degrees with only boxer shorts to wear and no bedding), or are chained spread-eagle and naked to concrete beds.  Other complaints include denial of medical care, interference with mail, arbitrary beatings, "hog-tying" (intertwining handcuffs and ankle-cuffs), "cock fights" (double celling inmates who are likely to attack each other), and injury to inmates during "cell extractions."

    John Perotti, writing after having spent 10 out of 12 years in control units, says:  "Every aspect of life in the Control Unit is meant to debase and degrade a prisoner's very soul the purpose being that when released to general population where conditions are somewhat improved, the prisoner causes no problems . . . for fear of being sent back to the Control Unit."



    Possible Changes? (none / 0) (#53)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:36:21 PM EST
    There are no group activities:  no work, no educational opportunities, no eating together, no sports, no getting together with other people for religious services, and no attempts at rehabilitation.

    Give them requested books, within reason, and let them get any rehabilitation from that. If they're never getting out anyway, what good is it to spend a lot of taxpayers' money to rehabilitate them? We should provide, within reason, any written texts they want so that they can work towards their own rehabilitations.

    There are no contact visits:  prisoners sit behind a plexiglass window.  Phone calls and visitation privileges are strictly limited. Books and magazines may be denied and pens restricted.  TV and radios may be prohibited or, if allowed,  are controlled by guards.  

    That's not completely unacceptable as long as tvs, books, and magazines are only denied due to misconduct that warrents having them removed. No contact visits should be supervised.

    Typically, the cells have no windows.  Lights are controlled by guards who may leave them on night and day.  For exercise there is usually only a room with high concrete walls and a chin-up bar. Showers may be limited to three per week for not more than ten minutes.  

    Light control is reasonable b/c you need to be able to see them so they dont attempt an escape. Exercise limits are unfortunate, but realistically, it may not be feasible to give them much more than that. We should strive to provide better exercise facilities if possible. They should be able to shower at the very least once a day for up to ten minutes.

    There are complaints that inmates who misbehave while in supermax or control units are put into "strip cells" (sometimes at temperatures near 50 degrees with only boxer shorts to wear and no bedding), or are chained spread-eagle and naked to concrete beds.  Other complaints include denial of medical care, interference with mail, arbitrary beatings, "hog-tying" (intertwining handcuffs and ankle-cuffs), "cock fights" (double celling inmates who are likely to attack each other), and injury to inmates during "cell extractions."

    beatings should never happen unless in self-defense, cock fights shouldnt happen, strip cells should never happen, medical and dental care should always be available. Their mail should probably be read b/c if we're trying to keep them from contaminating others w/ their ideas, we should make sure they're not disseminating or receiving any material that would be counter-productive to that goal. However, any correspondance that doesnt cross into that realm should be passed on untampered.

    "Every aspect of life in the Control Unit is meant to debase and degrade a prisoner's very soul the purpose being that when released to general population where conditions are somewhat improved, the prisoner causes no problems . . . for fear of being sent back to the Control Unit."

    That's rediculous b/c fear is not a good deterrant, especially under the toughest of tough conditions. If we're going to release them, they should have every opportunity for rehabilitation, both through institutional programs and self-controlled rehab. If we're going to let them back into the public population, we cant shut them off from all other human interaction for 10-12 years.

    Parent

    Good suggestions I think... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:50:37 PM EST
    If you think that supermax prisons should exist at all. Which I don't at all, and I don't think you do, since with those changes a supermax would no longer fit the current definition or 'model' of a supermax.

    Have I interpreted you correctly there?

    And is this one...

    beatings should never happen unless in self-defense, cock fights shouldnt happen, strip cells should never happen, medical and dental care should always be available.

    ...meant to apply to all current supermax (and ex-supermax) prisoners? Or just the ones you don't want to classify as "terrorists"?

    Oh, and are you ok with nearly naked and freezing? You left that one out I think.

    Parent

    Funny... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:56:23 PM EST
    Except for the nearly naked and freezing, and the class system of inhumane and worse than inhumane...

    ...we seem to have comme full circle back to ordinary prisons.

    If we can clear up those two issues I think we have a solution.

    Tear down all supermax prisons. I agree with you.

    Parent

    Who does it apply to? (none / 0) (#60)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:03:13 PM EST
    Oh, and are you ok with nearly naked and freezing? You left that one out I think.

    didnt forget it, lumped it in w/ strip cell.

    The suggestions should apply to all supermax prisoners. The idea that supermaxes should even exist is to have a prison where there is no socializing between the inmates. The inmates housed there should only be extremely violent offenders who are a threat to each other, other offenders, and decent society. None of the prisoners housed in supermaxes should have sentences of less than life without perole. It's like a last resort (for lack of a better term) sort of place to house those that are beyond rehabilitation, were given life w/o perole, and are a threat to others from inside prison walls if left as part of the general population.

    Parent

    RE: didnt forget it, lumped it in w/ strip cell. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    Ok, I missed that. Thanks.

    We seem to have redefined supermaxs to nearly the conditions in an ordinary prison.

    Who do we depend on to label "those that are beyond rehabilitation"?

    And you avoided the "terrorist" designation again, I believe.

    Parent

    Judges (none / 0) (#62)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:20:50 PM EST
    Individual judges will have to have the responsibility of defining that sort of thing. I used terrorists as the example mostly b/c they are the ones who seem to fit into the category of being nearly obvious inmates of supermaxes. I think in some situations, there are other murderers or what have you that could belong in a humanely run supermax, but the line does get blurry pretty quickly. I dont think putting a federal line on it is good enough. It should be a case by case basis. A lot of times, something looks a lot different on paper than it really is, and to define it in w/ a predefined explanation that disallows any subjective reasoning is just asking for problems. I can easily see it becoming a problem as to who you put in a supermax. The appeal process might ought to allow a defendant to appeal their placement in a supermax.

    We seem to have redefined supermaxs to nearly the conditions in an ordinary prison.

    That is what I think a supermax should be with the exception that the inmates dont get to have outside contact with anyone at all unless supervised. Just one step farther than maximum security prison units.

    Parent

    case by case (none / 0) (#63)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:45:27 PM EST
    I guess it is courts and judges who make the determination about whether or not someone is beyond rehabilitation. At least I hope so, though I imagine in practice it is parole boards, psychiatrists, and the prison staff and guards themselves who do. Those are other problems, for another time, I suppose.

    It should be a case by case basis.

    I agree completely with that peacrevol. This has been a really good discussion. Thanks.

    A lot of times, something looks a lot different on paper than it really is, and to define it in w/ a predefined explanation that disallows any subjective reasoning is just asking for problems.

    This is a problem, yes. I have no answer. Humans are subjective. Total objectivity is probably impossible, I think.

    There is only one thing left that sort of gnaws a bit in the back of my mind though.

    How is it possible to go "Just one step farther than maximum security" with other than just semantics? What is more maximum than maximum? This is the point at which standards and values are in danger of being tossed out of expediency or fear. I think there has to be an objective definition produced and agreed upon. That obviously would be through a political (and ethical) process of standards setting. I'd hate to be back to dealing with something like torture isn't torture anymore because we simply redefined torture, you know?

    Thanks...

    Parent

    Hey (none / 0) (#64)
    by peacrevol on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:56:14 PM EST
    How is it possible to go "Just one step farther than maximum security" with other than just semantics? What is more maximum than maximum?

    Get George Carlin on the phone!!!

    Parent

    Hah!!! (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    Good answer, pea! Heh... Carlin probably has it down by now too!

    Parent
    It probably has something to do with... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 04:03:11 PM EST
    It's not (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 02:52:39 PM EST
    an easy problem. Is it?

    No wonder Eric Rudolph is complaining (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edger on Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 03:00:31 PM EST
    Just talking about it drives me nearly insane. ;-)

    it's immoral (none / 0) (#74)
    by eric on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 10:57:47 AM EST
    As we all learned in law school, there are three primary reasons for incarceration:  incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution.

    Incapaciation - to keep the criminal from doing it again by taking him out of society and keeping him under lock and key

    Rehabilitiation - to treat the criminal and correct his behavior so he doesn't go it again

    Retribution - to punish the criminal to assuage society's need "to get even"

    In many circles, retribution is seen as an invalid and unethical because it is merely lowering ourselves and acting upon a base human emotion - revenge.  I agree.

    As long as a dangerous person is sufficiently incapacitated so that he can't hurt anyone else, making that person's life difficult is wrong and serves no purpose outside of getting even.  That isn't something that we should be fostering, in my view.

    Well said, eric. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:04:17 AM EST