Jim in Anchorage Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I have no personal interest in this case, just stumbled across it. And yes the man is a cold blooded killer. But can we call ourselves civilized when we lock someone in a cage for 23 hours a day? I will let you make the call, I just don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 For a slightly less mumbo-jumbo synopsis, here's an article from CNN. Guy doesn't have the best of histories. Uses the argument that he's had "good behavior" for the last 19 years.... yet, that probably has something to do with being locked up as he is. What happens if/when he's let out in the GP, as he's advocating for? Prison guards aren't there to be human pinatas for the inmates. No matter how carefully a prison is run, someone who wants to create mayhem and murder and has nothing to lose, just has to wait for the right opportunity. Like a rabid dog held at the pound, there may be times when he looks like a perfectly normal mutt --- but make no mistake, he's still rabid. I don't like the theory of such confinement either. But when theory hits reality, sometimes nasty-ass decisions need to be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) No, I don't. I consider murdering innocent people to be cruel and unusual punishment and I don't think how 'civilized' we are has anything to do with our treatment of such a sub-human. Don't like solitary confinement? Then let's execute those who have so clearly demonstrated that they lack any qualities that make one a human being. That animal should have been shot in the back of the head and thrown in a ditch a long time ago. Edited February 25, 2011 by KD in CT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 The man is in prison. If he is controllable in solitary, then that's the place to keep him. Why consider moving him to GP where he has proven he is a problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 No, I don't. I consider murdering innocent people to be cruel and unusual punishment and I don't think how 'civilized' we are has anything to do with our treatment of such a sub-human. Don't like solitary confinement? Then let's execute those who have so clearly demonstrated that they lack any qualities that make one a human being. That animal should have been shot in the back of the head and thrown in a ditch a long time ago. Why you left leaning liberal wanker, what kind of post is this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 No, I don't. I consider murdering innocent people to be cruel and unusual punishment and I don't think how 'civilized' we are has anything to do with our treatment of such a sub-human. Don't like solitary confinement? Then let's execute those who have so clearly demonstrated that they lack any qualities that make one a human being. That animal should have been shot in the back of the head and thrown in a ditch a long time ago. I agree, it would be better to execute him instead. Solitary confinement for any length of time is pretty f-ed up. People absolutely lose their minds because humans are not wired for such an existence. It is definitely cruel and unusual punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronc24 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I agree, it would be better to execute him instead. Solitary confinement for any length of time is pretty f-ed up. People absolutely lose their minds because humans are not wired for such an existence. It is definitely cruel and unusual punishment. He gets to think about his crime every day. Unfortunately, so does the family of the prison guard. He got what he deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 He gets to think about his crime every day. Unfortunately, so does the family of the prison guard. He got what he deserved. You are allowed the opinion that he's getting what he deserves and that's fine. That's not the real question, however. The Bill of Rights specifically protects US citizens against cruel and unusual punishment. It has nothing to do with the crimes he committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 It is definitely cruel and unusual punishment. I don't know. Give me some books to read and an MP3 player, and I'd probably enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 You are allowed the opinion that he's getting what he deserves and that's fine. That's not the real question, however. The Bill of Rights specifically protects US citizens against cruel and unusual punishment. It has nothing to do with the crimes he committed. Is that a universal standard? Obviously, no, or we couldn't have jails. Cruel and unusual relative to what? Relative to all people who've killed other inmates and prison guards and are beyond maximum security risk. It became a necessary punishment based on his own actions. The article gives examples of others with similar records of killing other inmates and/or prison guards who have been and are held in solitary for such long times. So, it's not unusual relative to this classification of killer. And still, he is allowed to see family (through plexiglass, but that's not unusual either), write letters, and has a teevee in his cell. It's not like it's complete sensory deprivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Is that a universal standard? Obviously, no, or we couldn't have jails. Cruel and unusual relative to what? Relative to all people who've killed other inmates and prison guards and are beyond maximum security risk. It became a necessary punishment based on his own actions. The article gives examples of others with similar records of killing other inmates and/or prison guards who have been and are held in solitary for such long times. So, it's not unusual relative to this classification of killer. And still, he is allowed to see family (through plexiglass, but that's not unusual either), write letters, and has a teevee in his cell. It's not like it's complete sensory deprivation. I'm strictly speaking of extended solitary confinement. Are you arguing that causing someone to go insane is not cruel and unusual? Again, this is not a defense of his crimes. This has nothing to do with his crimes. Edited February 25, 2011 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I'm strictly speaking of extended solitary confinement. Are you arguing that causing someone to go insane is not cruel and unusual? By that standard, Dave_in_Norfolk's posts are cruel and unusual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I'm strictly speaking of extended solitary confinement. Are you arguing that causing someone to go insane is not cruel and unusual? Again, this is not a defense of his crimes. This has nothing to do with his crimes. So, you are arguing that his punishment has nothing to do with his crimes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I don't know. Give me some books to read and an MP3 player, and I'd probably enjoy it. I know we would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) I don't know. Give me some books to read and an MP3 player, and I'd probably enjoy it. You can't get MP3 players or CD players in NYS prisons. You can only have a tape player. Really. There's an entire business catalog with books and music on cassette that is marketed just to inmates and inmate's families. Strange business model, huh? Edited February 25, 2011 by Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 You can't get MP3 players or CD players in NYS prisons. You can only have a tape player. Really. There's an entire business catalog with books and music on cassette that is marketed just to inmates and inmate's families. Strange business model, huh? Fine, tape player. Though I don't know what's wrong with an MP3 player. CDs I can understand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 So, you are arguing that his punishment has nothing to do with his crimes? Nope. Crime and punishment should of course be directly related. The Bill of Rights does not say it's ok to subject someone to cruel and unusual punishment if the crime is heinous enough. Are you saying that the Bill of Rights should be not be followed to the letter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) I'm strictly speaking of extended solitary confinement. Are you arguing that causing someone to go insane is not cruel and unusual? Again, this is not a defense of his crimes. This has nothing to do with his crimes. Again, we're talking about degrees. "Normal" prison confinement can "cause" insanity. I'd say the cat's already out of the bag for anyone for whom this kind of thing is necessary. When this guy is in a socially-interactive environment, he kills. Pure and simple. I don't imagine the warden likes having to do it, from a moral or budgetary standpoint. But he's got a duty to protect other inmates and prison workers. I fully expect that if this 'Terrible Tommy' were released into a lower level of confinement and he kills again, the victim's family will sue and collect millions. It's Catch-22. Aren't you the defender of collective bargaining rights, in this case wrt safety regulations? How're you going to tell prison guards that guys like this who have such a history of attacking or killing guards have to go in the GP and be treated like any other prisoner. That's like making them play Russian roulette every time they're around this guy. Edited February 25, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Again, we're talking about degrees. "Normal" prison confinement can "cause" insanity. I'd say the cat's already out of the bag for anyone for whom this kind of thing is necessary. When this guy is in a socially-interactive environment, he kills. Pure and simple. I don't imagine the warden likes having to do it, from a moral or budgetary standpoint. But he's got a duty to protect other inmates and prison workers. I fully expect that if this 'Terrible Tommy' were released into a lower level of confinement and he kills again, the victim's family will sue and collect millions. It's Catch-22. Aren't you the defender of collective bargaining rights, in this case wrt safety regulations? How're you going to tell prison guards that guys like this who have such a history of attacking or killing guards have to go in the GP and be treated like any other prisoner. That's like making them play Russian roulette every time they're around this guy. 27 years of solitary confinement is guaranteed to drive someone insane. Catch-22 or not, either throw out the clause or follow the Bill or Rights. It was written that way for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) 27 years of solitary confinement is guaranteed to drive someone insane. Catch-22 or not, either throw out the clause or follow the Bill or Rights. It was written that way for a reason. Would putting him into the GP not be "cruel and unusual" punishment for all of the other prisoners / this guy's potential bunk-mate? Maybe they should install Internet in his cell and let him play Second Life. I mean, there's LOADS of people who're un-incarcerated that spend 23 hours a day doing that, and it's not deemed cruel or unusual. Edited February 25, 2011 by UConn James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts