Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (799156)	8/3/2014 2:10:56 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 1578144

"So your solution is life in solitary confinement......" No it isn't. The criteria I proposed was permanent separation from the general population. The prisoners in the general population are expected to reenter society at some point, and so their treatment and disposition should be according to that expectation. Heinous Criminals have crossed a line which permanently separates them from societal considerations, benefits, and advantages. Due to the numbers of heinous criminals currently identified in our society, I see no reason not to place them all in one facility. A facility that provides only the basic necessities of life, which doesn't include a private cell. "solitary confinement......in war, if an enemy does that to our soldiers, we consider it torture." Any imprisonment, whether by an individual or by the state can be seen as torturous depending on your point of view. Lots of things are termed torture by individuals which do not rise to the legal definition. I've heard parents and teenagers describe each other's treatment as torture, for example. If it were me, even a short prison sentence would be claustrophobic and as such tortuous. We have agreed as a culture not to view incarceration for crime as a violation of our legal definition of torture, are you objecting to that?