It's torture because some organization has defined it as such. I disagree that it is torture. If the practical choice is between putting a crazy violent person in a room where the only person he can hurt is himself, and letting that crazy violent person into the prison population where the only person he can randomly hurt with a shiv made from a newspaper is EVERY OTHER INMATE AN GUARD, I will choose the former, even if it drives said crazy person even crazier. Choosing otherwise is unethical, because it negates the human value of the other inmates and guards, and says that the right of this one person to not be driven crazy is MORE IMPORTANT than the rights of other prisoners and guards to be free from random violent attacks.
Sure. Take a prisoner who continually collects his own feces in his room, and throws it at every guard who walks by, on a regular basis, or continually tosses it at other inmates. Now, maybe you don't care about the guard who has to deal with this every day.
Putting said prisoner in solitary reduces his ability to throw feces at people all the time. You can roll your eyes, but reality is that there are prisoners who do this, and real, live, people who have to, wait for it, put up with this shit. They have to clean themselves up, they have to clean up others, and then they eventually have to clean up the inmate, who will likely throw his most recently collected batch of feces at them again. This happens, it's real.
For said prisoner, sometimes the only option is to put them in a room where the only person they can throw feces on is themselves.
Bullshit. Jails are SUPPOSED to be bad to be in, so that the prisoner who is smart enough to behave and eventually be released *might* say to himself, "Gosh, I had better not break the law or I will end up there again." Reform of the individual is an important part of why we put people in prison. But prison advocates rarely admit that an equal reason we put people there is to punish them.
But more important than both of these reasons is to keep that prisoner from the general populace so they won't commit the acts again that got them there. That is the #1 reason to put someone in prison.
But a prison has it's own social order of course, and you can commit crimes even while in prison.
So we have a place for people who commit crimes against guards and other prisoners while in prison.
That is called Solitary Confinement. Where at last you are reduced to such a state that LITERALLY the only person you can hurt in any way, shape, or form is YOURSELF.
By definition it does. You can either put them in a huge room by themselves or a small room by themselves, but some people will use any human contact AT ALL to try to become violent.
Can you come up with a plan not involving solitary confinement where a prisoner is physically unable to throw feces at you as you deliver their food?
There are some prisoners who are put in solitary because they literally use every opportunity they can to throw their own feces at people. Some say that is because they are in solitary and were driven to do this, but for others they were put in solitary BECAUSE they do this. The sad practicalities of prison make it very difficult to isolate these types of individuals without putting them in solitary.
Quite often they cannot. Many of these prisoners use any interaction in any way with guards or other prisoners to become violent.
Seriously, there's quite a few TV shows about life in prison. It's depressing but instructive to watch. Many of these shows are more documentaries than entertainment.
And one of the things you can take away from these shows is, never underestimate how evil and cruel psychopaths can be, ESPECIALLY those on death row.
There's always been a debate in American society concerning justice...why do we put people in prison? To rehabilitate them? To punish them? To protect people in the outside world from them?
In some ways it can be argued that all three are useful as arguments.
But at the end of the day, in the real world, away from these sorts of philosophical arguments, there are real prisoners in for a stint with a hope to get out someday, and guards (who are free, with real outside lives) and then there are psychopaths. The facts are that there are SOME people whose only admitted goal in life is to cause as much harm to others as possible, because they enjoy it.
It is inhumane to the rest of the prison population and guards to keep these people near others. That is why you put them in solitary.
For someone in prison for life, I don't care about reforming them or punishing them. My concern is with keeping other people safe. The ones in for life have nothing to lose. So why not attack a guard just for kicks if you don't have to worry about going into solitary?
In fact, often the threat of solitary is the ONLY thing that keeps some prisoners from doing this.
The facts are, despite your hyperbole, that there are quite a few prisoners who literally have nothing to lose because they are in for life, and will use any opportunity to attack and/or kill guards or other prisoners. That is a fact. It's cruel to those other prisoners and guards to allow those individuals to remain in the general population. In fact, it's inhumane and horrific for THEM when they have to worry about Joe Psycopath and the shiv he made from a piece of rolled up newspaper. Where is your concern for them?
Do the cops have a legal basis for arresting person 1 and 2? What's that you say, the cops saw them beating up a homeless person earlier? Then yes they do, and it doesn't matter what they say, their answer has no bearing on whether or not they are arrested. It does have a bearing on whether or not the cops can enter the house.
Did the cops see person 3 beating up the homeless guy? No, they just saw the first two. So person three can say no, and the cops can't enter, period, without a warrant.
You live in the same world I do, which is that you can often find lawyers who will take a case on appeal and take it all the way to the Supreme Court if they think there is a good chance of it being overturned or it furthering their career as a lawyer.
Just like anything the Supremes rule on, if it is unclear, judges may rule on it differently later, thus resulting in further litigation to clear things up.
If a cop thinks it is not clear that "resident" or "occupant" legally refers to a human only, and takes it upon himself to believe that a doggie saying "woof" constitutes consent, that issue could very well be re-litigated and end up back before the court. Happens all the time.
He isn't a resident. SCOTUS specifically claimed that these folks were residents. If the cops got an assent from a hobo, and searched, any evidence they found would be thrown out because he wasn't a legal resident.
Asking a woman who lives there, weak-willed simpleton or not, who is ALSO A RESIDENT if it is OK to search is perfectly reasonable. It's not a bad law, and shocked as I am to say it I entirely agree with Alito's reasoning on this.
Yes, it is accurate; read the article. The guy was arrested for domestic abuse, among other things, which he was convicted of; ergo, she was recently beaten.
The cops don't have to have an emergency to ask an occupant if they can enter. They can do it at any time, for any reason. Just as you can say no, at any time, for any reason, unless they have a warrant. You are aware of this, right?
Quite possibly, which is why you should think carefully before answering yes if you are that other resident. In the woman's case, she had just been beaten by the dude, and he had a gun and a bunch of gang/drug-related items in the house, which the cops didn't see fit to try to tie to her; in fact they arrested the guys doe domestic violence.
All precedents are abused. So what. When they are abused, litigate them. As soon as some idiot cops somewhere says that Fidos "woof" is a nod of approval to enter, that suspect will take it to court, and it will be litigated.
Yes, so that makes you a traitor, by your own definition. You are promoting the eroding and denial of the freedom of that woman, who had just been beaten by this guy, to allow the cops to search the house in which SHE ALSO WAS A RESIDENT.
"Denying someone in Rojas' position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence," Alito wrote for the court.
Promoting otherwise, by your own definition, makes you a traitor.
How can you sue someone for "allowing violation of your privacy?" Is this on the books? Is there a law somewhere I am not aware of where that is something you can sue over? Or did you make that up?
Screw that. The cops don't need to find the people who are actually on the lease. They don't need to find who paid the last rent check. That is not their job. All they have to do, and SHOULD have to do, is get approval from an occupant to enter the place to search. If the woman, who had just been beaten by her boyfriend, wanted to say no, she could have, and that would have been that.
Or maybe she thought, "Hey, NOW'S a perfect opportunity to get rid of that scumbag once and for all. Come on in, Coppers!" Which they did, and now that jerk is serving 14 years behind bars. Good for her.
Slashdot Mirror
That has no bearing on whether or not solitary is a useful way of dealing with certain criminals.
It isn't torture.
It's torture because some organization has defined it as such. I disagree that it is torture. If the practical choice is between putting a crazy violent person in a room where the only person he can hurt is himself, and letting that crazy violent person into the prison population where the only person he can randomly hurt with a shiv made from a newspaper is EVERY OTHER INMATE AN GUARD, I will choose the former, even if it drives said crazy person even crazier. Choosing otherwise is unethical, because it negates the human value of the other inmates and guards, and says that the right of this one person to not be driven crazy is MORE IMPORTANT than the rights of other prisoners and guards to be free from random violent attacks.
I disagree.
Sure. Take a prisoner who continually collects his own feces in his room, and throws it at every guard who walks by, on a regular basis, or continually tosses it at other inmates. Now, maybe you don't care about the guard who has to deal with this every day.
Putting said prisoner in solitary reduces his ability to throw feces at people all the time. You can roll your eyes, but reality is that there are prisoners who do this, and real, live, people who have to, wait for it, put up with this shit. They have to clean themselves up, they have to clean up others, and then they eventually have to clean up the inmate, who will likely throw his most recently collected batch of feces at them again. This happens, it's real.
For said prisoner, sometimes the only option is to put them in a room where the only person they can throw feces on is themselves.
[citation needed]
Bullshit. Jails are SUPPOSED to be bad to be in, so that the prisoner who is smart enough to behave and eventually be released *might* say to himself, "Gosh, I had better not break the law or I will end up there again." Reform of the individual is an important part of why we put people in prison. But prison advocates rarely admit that an equal reason we put people there is to punish them.
But more important than both of these reasons is to keep that prisoner from the general populace so they won't commit the acts again that got them there. That is the #1 reason to put someone in prison.
But a prison has it's own social order of course, and you can commit crimes even while in prison.
So we have a place for people who commit crimes against guards and other prisoners while in prison.
That is called Solitary Confinement. Where at last you are reduced to such a state that LITERALLY the only person you can hurt in any way, shape, or form is YOURSELF.
By definition it does. You can either put them in a huge room by themselves or a small room by themselves, but some people will use any human contact AT ALL to try to become violent.
Can you come up with a plan not involving solitary confinement where a prisoner is physically unable to throw feces at you as you deliver their food?
There are some prisoners who are put in solitary because they literally use every opportunity they can to throw their own feces at people. Some say that is because they are in solitary and were driven to do this, but for others they were put in solitary BECAUSE they do this. The sad practicalities of prison make it very difficult to isolate these types of individuals without putting them in solitary.
Quite often they cannot. Many of these prisoners use any interaction in any way with guards or other prisoners to become violent.
Seriously, there's quite a few TV shows about life in prison. It's depressing but instructive to watch. Many of these shows are more documentaries than entertainment.
And one of the things you can take away from these shows is, never underestimate how evil and cruel psychopaths can be, ESPECIALLY those on death row.
There's always been a debate in American society concerning justice...why do we put people in prison? To rehabilitate them? To punish them? To protect people in the outside world from them?
In some ways it can be argued that all three are useful as arguments.
But at the end of the day, in the real world, away from these sorts of philosophical arguments, there are real prisoners in for a stint with a hope to get out someday, and guards (who are free, with real outside lives) and then there are psychopaths. The facts are that there are SOME people whose only admitted goal in life is to cause as much harm to others as possible, because they enjoy it.
It is inhumane to the rest of the prison population and guards to keep these people near others. That is why you put them in solitary.
For someone in prison for life, I don't care about reforming them or punishing them. My concern is with keeping other people safe. The ones in for life have nothing to lose. So why not attack a guard just for kicks if you don't have to worry about going into solitary?
In fact, often the threat of solitary is the ONLY thing that keeps some prisoners from doing this.
The facts are, despite your hyperbole, that there are quite a few prisoners who literally have nothing to lose because they are in for life, and will use any opportunity to attack and/or kill guards or other prisoners. That is a fact. It's cruel to those other prisoners and guards to allow those individuals to remain in the general population. In fact, it's inhumane and horrific for THEM when they have to worry about Joe Psycopath and the shiv he made from a piece of rolled up newspaper. Where is your concern for them?
I think that technically "All Y'all's" as a plural possessive would be correctly incorrect usage here.
Whatever.
Do the cops have a legal basis for arresting person 1 and 2? What's that you say, the cops saw them beating up a homeless person earlier? Then yes they do, and it doesn't matter what they say, their answer has no bearing on whether or not they are arrested. It does have a bearing on whether or not the cops can enter the house.
Did the cops see person 3 beating up the homeless guy? No, they just saw the first two. So person three can say no, and the cops can't enter, period, without a warrant.
You live in the same world I do, which is that you can often find lawyers who will take a case on appeal and take it all the way to the Supreme Court if they think there is a good chance of it being overturned or it furthering their career as a lawyer.
Just like anything the Supremes rule on, if it is unclear, judges may rule on it differently later, thus resulting in further litigation to clear things up.
If a cop thinks it is not clear that "resident" or "occupant" legally refers to a human only, and takes it upon himself to believe that a doggie saying "woof" constitutes consent, that issue could very well be re-litigated and end up back before the court. Happens all the time.
He isn't a resident. SCOTUS specifically claimed that these folks were residents. If the cops got an assent from a hobo, and searched, any evidence they found would be thrown out because he wasn't a legal resident.
Asking a woman who lives there, weak-willed simpleton or not, who is ALSO A RESIDENT if it is OK to search is perfectly reasonable. It's not a bad law, and shocked as I am to say it I entirely agree with Alito's reasoning on this.
This is correct, and I thank you for pointing it out. People use Y'all incorrectly way too often.
Yes, it is accurate; read the article. The guy was arrested for domestic abuse, among other things, which he was convicted of; ergo, she was recently beaten.
The cops don't have to have an emergency to ask an occupant if they can enter. They can do it at any time, for any reason. Just as you can say no, at any time, for any reason, unless they have a warrant. You are aware of this, right?
Quite possibly, which is why you should think carefully before answering yes if you are that other resident. In the woman's case, she had just been beaten by the dude, and he had a gun and a bunch of gang/drug-related items in the house, which the cops didn't see fit to try to tie to her; in fact they arrested the guys doe domestic violence.
All precedents are abused. So what. When they are abused, litigate them. As soon as some idiot cops somewhere says that Fidos "woof" is a nod of approval to enter, that suspect will take it to court, and it will be litigated.
Yes, so that makes you a traitor, by your own definition. You are promoting the eroding and denial of the freedom of that woman, who had just been beaten by this guy, to allow the cops to search the house in which SHE ALSO WAS A RESIDENT.
"Denying someone in Rojas' position the right to allow the police to enter her home would also show disrespect for her independence," Alito wrote for the court.
Promoting otherwise, by your own definition, makes you a traitor.
How can you sue someone for "allowing violation of your privacy?" Is this on the books? Is there a law somewhere I am not aware of where that is something you can sue over? Or did you make that up?
Screw that. The cops don't need to find the people who are actually on the lease. They don't need to find who paid the last rent check. That is not their job. All they have to do, and SHOULD have to do, is get approval from an occupant to enter the place to search. If the woman, who had just been beaten by her boyfriend, wanted to say no, she could have, and that would have been that.
Or maybe she thought, "Hey, NOW'S a perfect opportunity to get rid of that scumbag once and for all. Come on in, Coppers!" Which they did, and now that jerk is serving 14 years behind bars. Good for her.