|
Didn't the person who invented lethal injection design it so there was a at least a minimum level of suffering? I swear someone mentioned that earlier in this thread. Edited for clarity BattleMaster fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Jan 23, 2011 |
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
BattleMaster posted:Didn't the person who invented lethal injection design it so there was a minimum level of suffering? I swear someone mentioned that earlier in this thread. That may have been the idea, but as far as I know there's good evidence that it actually causes a lot of pain, either routinely or in cases where it doesn't work properly. Also, Pentobarbital (used in pet euthanasia) is used for physician assisted suicide, so the idea of it being an "animal drug" and thus unsuited to human use is silly. There was actually a TV documentary in the UK starring of all people Michael Portillo (a conservative politician) about the different methods of human execution, and found faults with ALL currently approved methods. I think the show concluded that the most humane method was Nitrogen hypoxia, where you breath pure nitrogen and die from lack of oxygen. Because the feeling of suffocation is caused by an excess of CO2 and not lack of oxygen, the subject does not become short of breath or panicked, but instead a feeling akin to drunkenness is followed swiftly by unconsciousness. Again, I'm dead set 100% against the death penalty, but at the very least they could use a scientifically proven painless method.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 19:53
|
|
|
I worded it poorly. I meant that the inventor designed it specifically so that prisoners suffered. Other methods he explored were deemed too humane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
HBKevin posted:However, I'm a Christian I knew this before I got to the post when you actually said it. Christian morality hinges on free will existing. Prison is of course going to be strongly supported by this belief, that through "self-determination" criminals became such. What do you say to someone who does not believe in free will and finds it to be an incredibly weakly supported justification for torture/imprisonment/etc? There is no evidence that such a thing as "free-will" even exists, especially in the way in which you employ the term, self-determination. I think you and every other person who believes in free will and thus imprisonment simply has not met that impetus which causes man to stray from "morality". You egotistically believe you have resisted the force through your courage, strength, faith or whatever other nonsense your ego feeds on. I would say this egotism is the main reason free will is believed in at all, followed secondarily by the instinctual (animal) appeal of the belief that you can/should punish people for wronging you. In reality, you are privileged by good circumstance. The part that I struggle with is how much I want to hate your type for subjecting anyone to retaliatory psychological torture, when by my own logic I must forgive you for that too. I don't have the luxury of choosing which souls to forgive and which to punish into repentance. I have to forgive without restraint or limitation, because there is a reason for everything, even things that are hard to understand, such as what makes one man a saint and another a criminal. I guess my, admittedly wrongful, hatred stems from wanting to blame those who have more power, for the retaliations, as well as the crimes. I see the crimes as going unprevented, when they could have been prevented, but because of status quo maintenance and this 'personal responsibility/morality mindset' were not. Throughout the centuries, what need have we had to find the underlying causes for a persons straying from morality, when we can just invent the notion of "self-determination", and justify the erasure (usually in some horrific manner) of that person from existence. It may actually be the case that the bulk of the responsibility is on the powerful and privileged, but I should not hate them for failing to see their role and what needs to be done, I have taken a few easy-ways-out in my life too. They certainly have their ability to appeal. When you give up this idea that another person can be blameworthy, you are naturally going to foster more peace. How many murders were caused because a killer believed the person he killed, through self-determination, harmed them in some way? How many punishments have been exacted because the judge/jury/society believed that person, through self-determination, harmed them? How can you kill a person when you know it was misfortune and/or misunderstanding that led them to harm you? How can you punish people to the degree our prisons punish, when you know that, though they may truly have been mistaken or misled in some way, they didn't personally "choose" to do you harm? Free will is a dangerous and harmful idea. The world would be better off without it. If it does prove to be unshakable from Christianity and their sense of morality, I'm afraid that religion must go with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:The drugs designed for animals probably cause less pain than the current cocktail* Which is far more important to certain death penalty proponents than actually being painless. By making this as clinical as possible, we make it seem just liek a medical procedure and we dehumanize the whole process. If instead of lethal injection, we beheaded people we might be reminded that we're killing a human being.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
Theos posted:I knew this before I got to the post when you actually said it. Here's a couple videos with neuroscientist David Eagleman talking on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EREriwV71mA This one over mostly the same stuff, but this is shorter and in an interview setting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSQY7zHk5y8
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
Or you can believe in free will and still think our criminal justice system and prison system is way too harsh and intolerably cruel anyway. Just because we don't have self-determination doesn't mean we don't have any choice whatsoever. Determinists state their case a little too strongly for my tastes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 02:44
|
|
|
AmbassadorFriendly posted:Or you can believe in free will and still think our criminal justice system and prison system is way too harsh and intolerably cruel anyway. Just because we don't have self-determination doesn't mean we don't have any choice whatsoever. Yeah, whether or not free will actually exists is pretty irrelevant because we do know for certain that biology and environmental factors play at least a significant role in decision making. That alone is enough reason to favor a rehabilitative system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 02:51
|
|
|
Holy poo poo posted:Yeah, whether or not free will actually exists is pretty irrelevant because we do know for certain that biology and environmental factors play at least a significant role in decision making. That alone is enough reason to favor a rehabilitative system. I think a rehabilitative justice system works, but I'd see that as one that sues prison as a last resort, with a series of less consequences like probation, jail terms, in and out patient programs and more before prison actually kicks in. Prison used to be where you'd go after a long period of attempts at setting you straight. Now we'll send you to prison for being a low level crack dealer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
nm posted:I'm in favor of rehabilitation, but has a rehabilitative prison system actually worked anywhere in the world? (Honest question) Most of the Western World has a lower recidivism rate than us. I think Norway, for example, had something like half of ours and most European countries had something similar. I don't have the numbers but they're somewhere in this thread. The primary difference between us and most of those countries is that our justice system presumes punishment to be justice, and thus more to be more just.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
nm posted:I'm in favor of rehabilitation, but has a rehabilitative prison system actually worked anywhere in the world? (Honest question) Nearly all of Nothern Europe, huge swathes of western Europe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 03:31
|
|
|
AmbassadorFriendly posted:Determinists state their case a little too strongly for my tastes. What about evolutionists? It's just scientific method, the theory with more evidence wins out until it is overturned by a better theory. A nondeterministic universe in which we experience free will is going to require a lot of evidence that I have never seen. It is just such an extraordinary claim, especially when you pair those two ideas, nondeterminism and free will. One is rooted in quantum physics and the other in highly advanced neuroscience. That gets to why I state my case so strongly, especially in the context of a thread on criminal justice and prison. If we have a theory that could throw doubt into every conviction ever uttered, we HAVE to pay attention to that. Otherwise, our entire sense of morality and who we are as a "just" people is just empty. Until there is enough evidence to support free-will as a scientific theory, it can not be the basis for our morality or judicial system. The links may prove to be there, between quantum physics' nondeterministic results and neuroscience, but they are not established enough to form the basis of our entire system of morality. If the issue wasn't so crucial to who we are and who I believe we want to be, a society that is at the very least, fair, I wouldn't state the case so strongly. Frankly though, I don't care if you think I'm coming on too strong, or if anyone buys into that underhanded attempt to discredit me by saying I came on too strong. Your belief was challenged and the best you can do is say I state my case too strongly? I'm sorry, but if I was facing any one of the fates of the prisoners in this thread, I would be praying that someone stated this case with strength. Free will is not established as a scientific theory and peoples lives are in the balance. If that's too strong for you...who gives a poo poo about your "feelings".
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 03:39
|
|
|
TGLT posted:Most of the Western World has a lower recidivism rate than us. I think Norway, for example, had something like half of ours and most European countries had something similar. I don't have the numbers but they're somewhere in this thread. The primary difference between us and most of those countries is that our justice system presumes punishment to be justice, and thus more to be more just. Anyone know how or if parole works in these systems? Because recidivism numbers can be jacked up by returns to prison while on parole for stupid violations like a first DUI or failing a drug test for THC. I guess this matters to me because if we can't really have a rehabilitative prison system, we should stop sending so many people to prison and work on pre-prison diversion programs like probation, use of social workers, short jail sentences, drug counselling, and even programs like Delancy Street. I'd also be curious about what pre-prison process they have in places like Norway. I suspect you could reduce recidivism rates simply by delaying prison so that released prisoners are older (generally above about 35 even "career criminals" cease to be very criminal). nm fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 03:41
|
|
|
Theos posted:Frankly though, I don't care if you think I'm coming on too strong, or if anyone buys into that underhanded attempt to discredit me by saying I came on too strong. I'm not trying to argue with you. It's not a game where I'm trying to win and beat you. I just said I wasn't convinced. There's no reason to be offended. I didn't show up to the thread with a strong opinion on free will and a ton of research to back up my beliefs primarily because it's the prison thread. I thought I'd just say "hey, you can also believe in free will and still think things are really lovely in prison and those people should be treated with compassion and whether free will exists or not has nothing to do with whether people should be treated compassionately." I would agree biological and environmental factors as well as neuroscience mean that we don't have complete autonomy and self-determination but I just haven't been sold that there means there is no choice, anywhere, about anything. That's what I meant when I said "determinists state their case a little too strongly." But seriously, look at your post. It's half you talking about how sorry you feel for Christians and half assertions on how dangerous the idea of free will is. There's no argument, there's no information on neuroscience or evolution or quantum mechanics. You didn't challenge my beliefs whatsoever, you disagreed with them and then threw a fit when that somehow didn't convince me you were right. Give me some information and I'll read it dude, I'm not an unreasonable guy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 03:59
|
|
|
Holy poo poo posted:Yeah, whether or not free will actually exists is pretty irrelevant because we do know for certain that biology and environmental factors play at least a significant role in decision making. That alone is enough reason to favor a rehabilitative system. But that is exactly what I'm saying, and is exactly why free will is relevant. There is more evidence that biology and environmental factors play a significant role. The other option is incomprehensible as a valid scientific theory, it's a loosely defined position that inevitably leads one down a triple rabbit-hole of quantum-physics, neuroscience and the idea of a "self". I get that we might someday know through extensive research in those three areas that we do have free will. All I'm saying, indeed demanding strongly, is that you do the research THEN form the judicial/moral system, instead of the reverse, which is our current situation. What are we going to do if the research takes 20 years and goes nowhere? Hindsight is going to be a real bitch then. Science's very formulation is to prevent things like this. You don't accept a result, then try your damndest to dig deeper and deeper into three of the most complex fields of study in order to justify it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 04:03
|
|
|
AmbassadorFriendly posted:But seriously, look at your post. It's half you talking about how sorry you feel for Christians and half assertions on how dangerous the idea of free will is. There's no argument, there's no information on neuroscience or evolution or quantum mechanics. You didn't challenge my beliefs whatsoever, you disagreed with them and then threw a fit when that somehow didn't convince me you were right. Give me some information and I'll read it dude, I'm not an unreasonable guy. I know, and you at least have the decency to recognize a problem in our judicial/prison system. That you think your beliefs weren't challenged is because how you perceive the scientific paradigms that are competing. It also has to do with the way in which science functions. it goes, evidence then theory it does not go, theory then dig forever at some of the greatest mysteries science has ever encountered looking for proof, while maintaining that the theory is correct. It's a weird issue with this particular problem, the default position can vary from person to person because of how innate the feeling that we do make choices seems. I would say the default position should be the one that requires less extraordinary proof, ie. rigorous investigations into QM, philosophy of mind/self, and neuroscience. It's like when atheists say the burden of proof is on the theist. The theist has to prove some really extraordinary claims, the atheist does not have to provide scholarly articles showing why miracles don't happen. Behaviors being influenced (possibly entirely, possibly only enough to remove ultimate moral responsibility from the individual) by the things that happened before them, is not an extraordinary claim, at all. The problem with you asking me for information, is that we have to come to some kind of consensus about the present state of our knowledge in behavioral studies, neuroscientific studies, philosophy of mind, etc. Then we have to agree on how far we can take those studies in our formulation of a theory. What is the limit of our current evidence in the formulation of the theory, in other words? Believing in free will is jumping a few steps further than the current scientific limits to our understanding of the problem. That next portion of the bridge we are building is up to the person making the more extraordinary claim to substantiate. I see a lot of attempts to substantiate it, but very little admission that it's just not there yet. I know it may seem like a huge derail that I've brought up the issue of free will, but in my mind it is central to the issue of prison and prison reform and what must change and why we should change it. I am honestly trying to contribute to a discussion on what it is going to take to convince the general population that there is even something wrong with what is going on and why that is so difficult. Theos fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:I worded it poorly. I meant that the inventor designed it specifically so that prisoners suffered. Other methods he explored were deemed too humane. Nope, totally wrong. Lethal injection was thought up by Bill Wiseman, a young Oklahoma legislator who voted what his constituents wanted rather than his conscience; in favor of reinstating the death penalty after Furman. He then went about trying to make the death penalty as humane as possible. He came to regret both his vote and his 'invention.' His story is both interesting and compelling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A42135-2003Dec6¬Found=true the article posted:William Wiseman Jr. sits on a worn cottage sofa as rain pelts his reflection on the sliding glass door behind him. "I can't think of any rationale for destroying life," he says the day after Thanksgiving at his family cabin in the Blue Ridge foothills near Harrisonburg, "but I thought if we're going to kill someone on purpose, we should do it gently."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
Theos posted:It's a weird issue with this particular problem, the default position can vary from person to person because of how innate the feeling that we do make choices seems. Yeah this really seems like a "burden" issue to me, I get how the scientific method works. Which claim is more "extraordinary" seems pretty drat subjective as well. Theos posted:Behaviors being influenced (possibly entirely, possibly only enough to remove ultimate moral responsibility from the individual) by the things that happened before them, is not an extraordinary claim, at all. See, "entirely" is a pretty extraordinary claim in my eyes. That's what I meant when I say "determinists state it too strongly." I don't think we're there yet. But I have little knowledge on the scientific literature so I might be totally wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 05:32
|
|
|
AmbassadorFriendly posted:Yeah this really seems like a "burden" issue to me, I get how the scientific method works. Which claim is more "extraordinary" seems pretty drat subjective as well. Yeah, perhaps the difference in "extraordinariness" is not as great as I imagine it to be, but I think my position is safer because nondeterminism itself is a very new idea and a very weird one at that. I also perceive what must be a massive difficulty in substantiating a link between neuroscience and the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, where most people get the idea of nondeterminism, just from our technological limitations on examining either one. Also, even once such a link is substantiated, if it can be, it would have to say what role the "self" plays in the process. That is, if we want to base our morality off of it. I guess that is an important lesson for me, I could have argued for the importance of closer examination of the issue on a scientific level, more effectively, without insisting that determinism was the hard-boiled truth. I have more "faith" in how important it is that the real practical issue be examined, than in my belief that determinism is the truth. This makes it seem like I'm vehemently insisting on correctness when in reality what I am trying to do is vehemently insist on the admission that more thought is required because errors may have been made. There is also a time constraint involved, because the fates of human beings are being decided, so rigorous scientific investigations which may settle the issue, could come too late for some. Theos fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 05:45
|
|
|
GA: Seven prison guards suspended after allegations of retaliatory beatings following strike
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
Bottom line: our prisons are predicated on torture. The public response has been apathetic because of a Christian wet-dream of Eternal Damnation and the misguided ideal that torment is good for the soul. The simple fact is, we can save money and reduce recidivism if we didn't systematically indoctrinate prisoners into a life of physical and emotional abuse. As seen in Harlow's experiments on rhesus monkeys and other trials like Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment, there is proof that the current system of incarceration, coupled with brutal conditions, are having a negative effect on society as a whole. Systematic torture leaves any ex-con with severe social, physical, and emotional problems, leading to a higher recidivism rate (often for dramatically elevated crimes; druggies go in, gang-bangers come out). Meanwhile there are serious end-of-life implications of Life sentences. There are numerous reports in this very thread about withholding treatment, especially heinous when guard misconduct result in the need for emergency medical intervention...and it isn't given. Inmates have lain, bleeding, on concrete floors overnight, for gently caress's sake. And finally, there's the whole "make the criminal pay" for everything from his involuntary exile to any legal fees associated with their defense...you know, the fees that are Constitutionally waived if they cannot afford them. Convicts have to pay for everything from "public" drug treatment to legal aid fees, even their parole officers. There is a growing under-class of people who cannot earn enough to cover these fees, instead being sucked back into prison where they are a number and a pay check for private companies. Anyone, including our gracious Christian guest, HBKevin, arguing that harsh conditions are necessary for public protection are deluding themselves and accepting the wholesale dehumanizing of a significant portion of American society. These people will be cared for their entire lives, mostly as a result of their own lives before incarceration, but 100% harmed by their time in prison, as well. Whatever problems they had before, will be nothing after years, or even decades, living in our prisons. No person will return from incarceration able to respond appropriately to societal demands. What it really comes down to, again, is this Christian ideal of "hard time". "Hard time" is neither a deterrent nor a rehabilitation tool. Sanctioned torture includes: isolation chambers, 0 human contact, sleep depredation, and all the wider tactics used against criminals (like mandatory minimums, youths as adults, "social crime" laws, and burdensome fees). We've seen evidence for each one of these in this thread, and more on top of that. It isn't working. It might help your Christian brethren sleep at night, jizzing into their sheets about how the sinners are getting their justice, but it makes our neighborhoods more dangerous, costs more in taxes, and will likely cause the Christian God to judge US for how we "treat the least amongst you".
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 17:12
|
|
|
Is it possible to walk up to a jail and be ask to be put in solitary confinement without actually having to commit a crime?anonumos posted:Yes. Seriously, can I just walk up and be like "put me in solitary confinement". It's probably safer than a homeless shelter. Kingsbury fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
Kingsbury posted:Is it possible to walk up to a jail and be ask to be put in solitary confinement without actually having to commit a crime? Yes. quote:TX Man Cleared After 30 Years Behind Bars Kingsbury posted:Seriously, can I just walk up and be like "put me in solitary confinement". It's probably safer than a homeless shelter. anonumos fucked around with this message at 19:27 on Jan 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
Kingsbury posted:Is it possible to walk up to a jail and be ask to be put in solitary confinement without actually having to commit a crime? Ignoring the stupidity of your request, you do realize that many jails now charge inmates for room and board, as well as various processing fees? And no, a jail is absolutely not going to let random people walk in and check themselves into a cell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 22:08
|
|
|
There's a way to do it; but it involves doing a whole bunch of other things you probably don't want to do, risking serious injury, costing a whole lot of money at the end, and probably catching a charge or two in the process. Why not just get one of those Glenn Beck buckets of freeze-dried food / a couple cases of Ramen noodles and lock yourself in the bathroom for a month? It'll be a lot easier and safer, plus way cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:There's a way to do it; but it involves doing a whole bunch of other things you probably don't want to do, risking serious injury, costing a whole lot of money at the end, and probably catching a charge or two in the process. He won't get the full-on four-blank-walls-and-no-control-over-your-time experience, though! EDIT: but seriously Kingsbury you should do what HFG suggests
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:There's a way to do it; but it involves doing a whole bunch of other things you probably don't want to do, risking serious injury, costing a whole lot of money at the end, and probably catching a charge or two in the process. I am intrigued by this post. Can you explain for the more daring/stupid of us?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 22:59
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:I am intrigued by this post. Can you explain for the more daring/stupid of us? I thought the implication was intended to be that the best way to end up in jail is to commit a crime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
Kingsbury posted:Seriously, can I just walk up and be like "put me in solitary confinement". It's probably safer than a homeless shelter. You sort of answered your own question as to why it isn't allowed, with your second sentence there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 23:01
|
|
|
21stCentury posted:I am intrigued by this post. Can you explain for the more daring/stupid of us? Go to police station and confess to a crime you didn't commit, this will take some convincing since people do this all the time and cops are used to it. Once they put you in county, simply choose not to pay your bail, then beat someone half to death and they'll probably put you in solitary (they don't take requests). This is the most dangerous part, because the CO's might not get to you in time before his friends do, and you won't know who all is friends with each other. If it turns into a racial thing you might get killed, so watch out for that. You run the risk of a street charge for the assault too. Eventually they'll figure out you don't belong there and should let you out, unless you get the assault charge. Once you're out you're going to have to pay a lot of fees for the time you were in there, plus whatever they feel like putting on there for the false report or whatever, and whatever fines or bail you owe if you wind up catching that assault case. Pre-experiment checklist: 1) Do I have anything important to do for the next few weeks? 2) Do I have 5x white shirts, 5x boxers, and 5x pairs of socks? 3) Do I have $5,040? (20 for your books, 20 for your phone card, 5K for the fees/fines) 4) Can I win a fight against an adult man who's probably been in a few? a) against a whole bunch of guys in a jail riot? b) against a team of roided up SORT cops? 5) Can I live with myself if I seriously injure someone I've never met for essentially no reason? 6) Is my boss/wife/parents going to be cool with all this? 7) Given that everyone in the jail is from my community, and all their friends/kin will find out about this, and never forget, do I still want to do this? 8) Do I like bad food? a) lights, noise when I want to sleep? b) pain?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2011 23:21
|
|
|
Theos posted:But that is exactly what I'm saying, and is exactly why free will is relevant. There is more evidence that biology and environmental factors play a significant role. The other option is incomprehensible as a valid scientific theory, it's a loosely defined position that inevitably leads one down a triple rabbit-hole of quantum-physics, neuroscience and the idea of a "self". I understand what you're saying, and I largely agree; I don't think free will exists. My point is that even without conclusively answering the free will question, current knowledge on consciousness and decision making (lacking though it may be) is overwhelmingly on the rehabilitative justice side. I guess I seem like I'm taking a moderate stance here, but I'm really not. We should absolutely pursue further understanding in this area, but for the purposes of a legal system we already know enough that it's absurd a retribution vs. rehabilitation debate is even occurring (and even more absurd that retribution is widely supported in America).
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 03:43
|
|
|
This is sort of on topic but off topic. This was smuggled to some activist friends of mine (Refugee Rights action network) from a detainee at an Australian Detention Center for Refugees. quote:In the name of God, we are very happy to see you all outside the camp [protesting] for human rights. We prey no human see again and live again inside the camp. Because detention is very painful. Sir Leonora camp now have pregnant women, 30 under age children 4-8 years old inside. Lot of problem and tention. I wish I could tell you that this only happens in Australia and we are working on it. Unfortunately this is happening across europe and the united states, and pretty much everywhere else too. These places gently caress people badly. Most of these people are utterly innocent of any crime, have been traumatized by wartime experiences and are now terrified of being deported back to their opressors. For the past 10-15 years lobbying has happened by governments across governments to implement more harsh refugee interception and fold back the protections of the UN Refugee conventions. This imperils millions of people across the globe. In australian detention centers we have had suicdes, children sewing their lips together in protest , solitary confinement used as a response to PTSD, riots, bashings by private prison guards, and so on and so on. And more than likely its happening in your country too. This is prison for victims.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 05:24
|
|
|
duck monster posted:This is sort of on topic but off topic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
duck monster posted:This is sort of on topic but off topic. Yeah, in Canada we have a big group of Tamils in one of these dumps and they've been there for months. Just because they may be Tamil Tigers. We have no evidence either way but you know those women and children might be terrorists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
nm posted:Yeah, anyone interested in this in the US should read up on ICE castles. They're disgusting and make many of our prisons look great. Remember than many of the people in them have never committed a crime beyond wanting to live in the US. Got you covered, boss quote:For immigrants, it can be even worse, with denial of attorney or family visits- even going so far as to shuffle them around to different facilities without telling anyone where the inmates are actually located, within Homeland Security's immigrant-only network of secret prisons (the so-called ICE Castles).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:Got you covered, boss There have been incidents where even when they have hired attorneys they refuse to tell their attorneys how to contact them. ICE castles are a big reason why that American citizen (with developmental disabilities) got deported to Mexico last year. Yes, they deported a developmentally disabled American citizen (who was born here). Worse: He's not the first. There are actual LPR (legal permanent residents) and US citizens in these facilities who have committed no crime but being suspected by ICE of being illegal immigrants. And now they have to prove they are here legally, even if they are US citizens, often without legal assistance. Absolutely disgusting. I think it is important to re-emphasize US Citizens because these aren't foreign nationals, not illegals, but people born in this nation with same rights as you. Some of them are far less brown than you might think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
If a US citizen runs into to this situation and is wrongfully detained and then deported, can he later sue the federal government, or does sovereign immunity come into play? (Yes, I understand that post people in this situation probably lack the resources to bring a suit against the government.) Ganguro King fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Jan 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 04:02
|
|
|
Ganguro King posted:If a US citizen runs into to this situation and is wrongfully detained and then deported, can he later sue to federal government, or does sovereign immunity come into play? Courthouse News Service posted:Judge Nixes Suit Against ICE Over Lack of HIV Care Oh, and Juan Baires? The HIV-positive 26 year-old that died from heart attack after doctors cut the fibrous tissue (epimysium?) from his chest muscles to relieve his incredible pain from not getting HIV meds for a month?  ...according to ICE records. JMBosch fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Jan 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
HidingFromGoro posted:Got you covered, boss Please tell me these people aren't forced to work in there...
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
JMBosch posted:If Juan Baires' family's suit against ICE was thrown out, anyone else's probably would be too. (Consider this whole article bolded.) Wait. Maybe I'm making bad assumptions, but surely the body corporate involved here, in this case ICE, is civilly responsible for actions taken in its name by its agents? Surely this is jurisdictionally incoherent?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2011 17:06
|
|