[DRAFT] Ban on Extended Solitary Confinement

[El Fiji Grande]

You're asking me to OOCly recount what I think solitary means, but I think you know what this proposal is trying to prevent. It requires no stretch of the imagination.

OOC: I'll give you a proposal read-through later, but your definition "Solitary confinement be defined as the confinement of an individual in a location completely isolated from contact with other individuals" currently excludes all RL forms of solitary confinement that I can think of. It might be doable in some FT or PMT dystopian nation, but until you explain OOCly what you're going for, it'll be hard to explain to you how to fix it so it says what you think it says.

Oh dang, you're right. I guess interacting with a prison guard bringing you food for five minutes in one day could be considered contact with another individual.

So then, what I think solitary confinement is (and I'm going to use the IRL definition with humans, and neglect the RP setting of NS while I define this): it's a form of imprisonment where prisoners are moved to a separate cell, and are entirely isolated from human contact with the exception of the prison staff for nearly the entirety of any given day. Sentences are doled out by prison staff, not by the courts, with terms lasting from days to decades, the longest being 41 years. It's referred to as the SHU, the hole, the ice box.

I'll add the prison guard exemption.

[El Fiji Grande]

And also, have you ever heard of hermits? Or read about such things as solitary lighthouse-keepers in RL, back when the light needed tending by hand? Sane people don't go bonkers just from being restricted from human contact (or from being confined within a small area), even for weeks at a time.

So this is important - what makes lighthouse-keepers and hermits different? Well, for one thing, they aren't limited to a confined space, where the lights never get turned off, and they're fed prison food. They don't have to find ways to distract themselves in a claustrophobic, smelly cell. They can spend their days outside or looking outside, smelling the sea, hearing the birds, and enjoying the outdoors. Their meals can be more diverse, they can spend time learning if they please, or walking around. And if at any point, they want to stop being a hermit or a lighthouse-keeper, they can quit, and rejoin society as a whole. As the hermit Carlo Carretto put it: "Solitude is a serious, demanding affair and no one succeeds at overcoming the difficulties all at once. [...] For anyone who stands alone on the mountainside for forty days the alternatives are clear-cut: either one finds God and therefore happiness, or else one runs away, seized by fear and boredom." So what happens if you can't run away? What happens if you're stuck, and you don't have that choice to rejoin society?

To sum up why this proposal is important: solitary confinement is unnecessary, ineffective, and - according to the UN - more than fifteen days is literally torture. This ban uses GA#9 as a supportive argument, but extends that ban to juveniles and non-violent offenders in their entirety as well.

It's unnecessary, because there are alternatives to spending days, weeks, or even decades in solitary confinement. And the current (IRL) reasons that people have been sent into solitary range from arguably reasonable (such as prison violence, gang leaders, and protection) to the downright ridiculous (such as talking too loudly, rolling eyes at prison staff, and excessive bearding). It's overused and under-reported.

It's ineffective, because studies show that use of solitary confinement makes prisons more violent, not less. Perhaps it's because, as one juvenile states, "Being put in the hole makes you more angry, not less."

It's torture, because after fifteen days in solitary confinement, the effects of solitary have been shown to have lasting effects. These effects include anxiety, depression, anger, fading vision, paranoia, psychosis, hypersensitivity, poor attention span, and with inmates that started with a mental illness, accentuates that. For some, these symptoms can manifest themselves in even less time, which is why this proposal urges the ban on the practice in its entirety.

[El Fiji Grande]

You keep mentioning that not all people go crazy in solitary, but do you ever think of those that do? More than 80% of those currently in solitary expect to someday be released back into society. Based on all the evidence I've demonstrated, do you really think these people will be "corrected," and "rehabilitated?" Do you think this practice really makes communities safer? Do you think the extra cost to taxpayers is worth what they're getting? Do you really believe that prisoners deserve this treatment? This is a war-tactic. This is a human-rights abuse.

A few more: And, while I know that these are only anecdotal stories, I think that these stories will give some background into the injustices of the 'justice' system. A ban on extended solitary confinement would prevent many of the harsher sentences discussed in these stories. It wouldn't solve the problem entirely, but it's a good step forward to correcting for these injustices. Hear their voices, because few ever will.

This Is Solitary
Johnny Perez, on why solitary strips prisoners of their humanity
Stories of life in solitary
Out of Sight, Out of Mind
A psychologist tries to help those in solitary.
An allegedly innocent black man, now in solitary confinement
Man spends 24 years in solitary for stealing a hat and a dollar bill
How solitary confinement isolates you

[Araraukar]

OOC: First of all, I suggest mastering the art of editing replies into the same post, as posting many times in a row kinda counts as spamming your own topic.

Oh dang, you're right. I guess interacting with a prison guard bringing you food for five minutes in one day could be considered contact with another individual.

Yes, this was exactly the problem.

a form of imprisonment where prisoners are moved to a separate cell, and are entirely isolated from human contact with the exception of the prison staff for nearly the entirety of any given day

Only nearly? But it's is still necessary for people like big gang bosses, who could, if allowed to mingle with other inmates, run their gangs from inside the prison, and of course also make use of other imprisoned gang members.

Sentences are doled out by prison staff, not by the courts

This needs addressing (I haven't checked if you've already done so in the latest draft), as the abovementioned cases of seriously violent criminals and gang bosses should be sentenced to isolation by a court, not by prison staff.

So this is important - what makes lighthouse-keepers and hermits different? Well, for one thing, they aren't limited to a confined space, where the lights never get turned off, and they're fed prison food.

Well, lighthouse keepers of the kind that I was referring to, often lived on fairly inhospitable spits of rock, and during the storm season (which could be half the year) would in effect be confined inside the lighthouse. But where the hell do you live that makes you think eating prison food is a punishment? There already is a resolution about the treatment of inmates, you should check it out. And if you think it's impossible to sleep with lights on, I'd like to welcome you to visit here during summertime, when we don't have a night (sun goes below horizon but it doesn't get dark) for over a month... But you need to be careful with definitions; would turning the lights off during the night make it not solitary confinement of the kind you mean?

and you don't have that choice to rejoin society?

Isn't that the whole point of imprisonment? Not being allowed to rejoin the society for the duration of their sentence.

solitary confinement is unnecessary, ineffective

Except for the reasons I already listed.

and - according to the UN - more than fifteen days is literally torture

Well, 1. the UNmentionable organization is not WA, 2. I disagree with it, and 3. still doesn't address my points.

It's unnecessary, because there are alternatives to spending days, weeks, or even decades in solitary confinement.

Such as?

use of solitary confinement makes prisons more violent, not less

But if they remain locked-up, it doesn't actually matter.

It's torture, because after fifteen days in solitary confinement, the effects of solitary have been shown to have lasting effects.

Being locked up in very confined spaces with lots of other people and basically no privacy does that (and many of the symptoms you listed) too, yet prisons exist.

You keep mentioning that not all people go crazy in solitary, but do you ever think of those that do?

Actually, you're the one that keeps saying it makes one insane. We're probably disagreeing on what counts as sane to begin with.

do you really think these people will be "corrected," and "rehabilitated?"

Do note that the kind of people I've been talking about would not get released from prison, ever.

Do you think this practice really makes communities safer?

Locking up dangerous criminals? Absolutely.

Do you think the extra cost to taxpayers is worth what they're getting?

I think putting people in "the hole" actually costs less than treating them humanely...

Do you really believe that prisoners deserve this treatment?

Yes.

This is a war-tactic.

I disagree with a lot of war-related things, but we also already have a prisoners of war treatment resolution that you should check out.

A ban on extended solitary confinement would prevent many of the harsher sentences discussed in these stories.

An absolute ban, even on court-mandated solitary confinement, would create all kinds of issues in the care of inmates belonging to the special categories I keep talking about, that absolutely would create issues with "extra cost(s) to taxpayers". If anything, it'd likely encourage nations to make death sentences more common.

[El Fiji Grande]

You've made a few good points, and a few bad ones. The proposal still definitely needs work.

[Kenmoria]

“I would much prefer the definition of ‘violent criminal’ to include anyone who has acted violentley during incarceration as well as before it. Also, the prohibition on isolating mob bosses and individuals with psychosis still bothers me. As a compromise, maybe allow a shorter period, say 10 days?”

[Araraukar]

II. A non-violent criminal is defined as an individual who did not use force or injure any other individuals when they committed the crime they were convicted for.

OOC: So a rapist holding a gun to your head to make you agree to copulate with them, doesn't count as a violent criminal?

[Aclion]

Defining solitary confinement as lack of interaction with other prisoners raises issues for penal systems that try to encourage interaction between prisoners and non inmates, as opposed as interaction between prisoners, in order to further rehabilitation; and would also be a problem for very isolated prisons like a ships brig or frontier town, which may simply not have other prisoners for a prisoner to interact with.

[Kenmoria]

“A more minor note: please put line breaks between your active clauses to reduce the wall of text, and I see no reason not to number the final clause along with the others.”

[Wallenburg]

Exactly why is it necessary to have inmates--especially violent ones--interact with each other? What social needs cannot be met through interaction with...well, literally anyone else?

[Araraukar]

OOC: Okay, I've tried being subtle about this, but GA #149, Treatment of Inmates means that any nation that would need anything you're trying to make happen with your proposal, would be in violation of existing resolutions (and thus unlikely to obey yours either). In other words, what you have here is a big pile of duplication, peppered with some contradiction.

[El Fiji Grande]

“I would much prefer the definition of ‘violent criminal’ to include anyone who has acted violently during incarceration as well as before it. Also, the prohibition on isolating mob bosses and individuals with psychosis still bothers me. As a compromise, maybe allow a shorter period, say 10 days?”

That, however, would be an arbitrary number of days, which I would like to avoid. However, I will consider that amendment.

II. A non-violent criminal is defined as an individual who did not use force or injure any other individuals when they committed the crime they were convicted for.

OOC: So a rapist holding a gun to your head to make you agree to copulate with them, doesn't count as a violent criminal?

That would clearly be a use of force.

Defining solitary confinement as lack of interaction with other prisoners raises issues for penal systems that try to encourage interaction between prisoners and non inmates, as opposed as interaction between prisoners, in order to further rehabilitation; and would also be a problem for very isolated prisons like a ships brig or frontier town, which may simply not have other prisoners for a prisoner to interact with.

That's a good point. I'll have to think about that.

“A more minor note: please put line breaks between your active clauses to reduce the wall of text, and I see no reason not to number the final clause along with the others.”

I'll add the line breaks. I don't want to add the final clause as it is not a legally actionable item.

OOC: Okay, I've tried being subtle about this, but GA #149, Treatment of Inmates means that any nation that would need anything you're trying to make happen with your proposal, would be in violation of existing resolutions (and thus unlikely to obey yours either). In other words, what you have here is a big pile of duplication, peppered with some contradiction.

If this resolution is duplicative of previous resolutions, then why doesn't your nation already follow the terms highlighted above? You've given me every reason to believe that your nation firmly believes in the usage of solitary confinement, but if solitary confinement is already prohibited by previous resolutions, then aren't you violating the rules of the WA?

That said, I happen to believe that under section 3e of GA #149, isolation is specifically not prohibited.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Okay, I've tried being subtle about this, but GA #149, Treatment of Inmates means that any nation that would need anything you're trying to make happen with your proposal, would be in violation of existing resolutions (and thus unlikely to obey yours either). In other words, what you have here is a big pile of duplication, peppered with some contradiction.

OOC: I’ll comment later when I have more time, but this is wrong, and while Ara raises some good points throughout this thread, understand that they do not have a mainstream view of how the duplication and contradiction rules work.

[Moronist Decisions]

Speaking as the author of GA#194, Treatment of Inmates, I don't see how this even comes close to duplicating or contradicting. I've looked everywhere around that document and can't see how it addresses solitary confinement.

That being said - and speaking personally - I cannot in good faith support this.

II. A non-violent criminal is defined as an individual who did not use force or injure any other individuals when they committed the crime they were convicted for.

III. No non-violent criminal shall be made to suffer through solitary confinement of any period.

This is not appropriate. A non-violent criminal may commit violent acts while incarcerated. Also, there are situations when any inmate may need to be isolated, e.g. for health (quarantine), processing, or other necessary acts. The way you have defined solitary confinement:

I. Solitary confinement be defined as the confinement of an individual in a location completely isolated from contact with other individuals, with the exception of prison guards.

without any "short-term" limits would practically forbid any transportation of one inmate, temporary holding in a single cell while an inmate is to cool off briefly, time for disciplinary hearings, and so on.

I understand where this is coming from, but this needs some thinking through.

[El Fiji Grande]

...without any "short-term" limits would practically forbid any transportation of one inmate, temporary holding in a single cell while an inmate is to cool off briefly, time for disciplinary hearings, and so on.

I understand where this is coming from, but this needs some thinking through.

Others have made that point as well. I've been trying to find ways of wording it such that any short term limits do not become loopholes to be abused and aren't in any way arbitrary.

[Araraukar]

If this resolution is duplicative of previous resolutions, then why doesn't your nation already follow the terms highlighted above? You've given me every reason to believe that your nation firmly believes in the usage of solitary confinement, but if solitary confinement is already prohibited by previous resolutions, then aren't you violating the rules of the WA?

OOC: I'll get back to you in more details also to explain why I believe it's duplication/contradiction, but just a quick note on ^that: I've made only a single post in IC - that means, as a representative of Araraukar - on this thread, and to my knowledge nothing in it says anything about violating the previous resolution? Especially given what you think of as solitary confinement.

[Kenmoria]

...without any "short-term" limits would practically forbid any transportation of one inmate, temporary holding in a single cell while an inmate is to cool off briefly, time for disciplinary hearings, and so on.

I understand where this is coming from, but this needs some thinking through.

Others have made that point as well. I've been trying to find ways of wording it such that any short term limits do not become loopholes to be abused and aren't in any way arbitrary.

(OOC: Until that’s addressed, the proposal doesn’t make much sense, and could include things at ridiculous as being searched for less than a minute in room inhabited solely by prison guards. I might suggest that intent be part of the restrictions, but this looks very hard to define well due to several blurred lines.)

[Raducha]

You should elaborate on some of the psychological damage done to victims. In the first paragraph, you acknowledge that there is damage, but there is no reference to what type of damage.