Hacker News Reader

Comment by spongebobstoes | Hacker News Reader

I think it's wrong to use solitary as an extra (and extra-judicial) punishment.

Prisons should need a strong medical/safety justification for putting prisoners into isolation, which is torturous for many people.

View on HN

You’re right. But in this case SBF engaged in an external interview, without permission, over a link normally reserved for access to attorneys.

When the interview came out, it’s safe to assume the prison had no idea how it happened. He was in solitary for 24 hours, possibly so they could ensure there were no smartphones or anything else.

It also may have been just to punish him. But there’s at least one reasonable reason, given that it was only 24 hours.

What does your response have to do with the medical needs/safety of SBF or the other inmates? I don't see the connection.

The safety and needs of a prisoner are not the only concerns. The safety and needs of the victims and public are also a concern. Moreover, if there was a breach of security (which is at least close to the definition of what happened), temporarily securing the prisoner in a separate location to assess what happened and how it happened doesn’t immediately strike me as unreasonable.

I would prefer, of course, that it wasn’t solitary.

> The safety and needs of a prisoner are not the only concerns.

The only ethical stance I've ever heard for torturing someone is the "ticking time bomb" scenario popularized during George W. Bush's administration. (I disagree with that ethical stance, but that's beside the point.)

In your scenario the bomb isn't ticking. Nor is there even a bomb-- only a breach of security with an undefined relationship to safety and needs of people who aren't in any immediate danger.

Read the Senate Report on Torture for an in-depth analysis of the problems with that ethical stance.

If, for example, someone convicted of sexual assault decides to give an interview without permission, and proceeds to reiterate the details of the crime, that would undoubtedly harm the victim of their crimes. That is what I meant by the safety and needs of a prisoner not being the only concerns.

SBF didn't sexually assault anybody, but the rules exist for such reasons, and SBF breaking those rules surreptitiously doesn't make it okay. The first concern, I imagine, was "how the fuck did that happen?" which meant assessing the damage.

Should he have been thrown in solitary for 24 hours? Probably not, but should he have been isolated from his room and other prisoners for 24 hours? Probably, while they assessed what had happened and how.

If he had snuck contraband in (a smartphone), then that would have been, for example, a real safety issue, since smuggling in contraband doesn't end at cell phones, and the pathway doesn't change. Initially, it was not clear how it occurred.

That's all I'm saying. I know the slippery slope argument, and I agree with it, and I have previously read the Senate Report on Torture, and do not disagree.

I don't think one day in solitary quite counts as torture. Obviously longer term it is, but one day is hyperbolic.

Prison alone is torture.

If he had smuggled items there could be safety implication and yes even medical implications (eg if he was boofing an iPhone)

Nah, solitary is nearly always punitive. Other justifications don't really hold water.

Solitary confinement is torture, plain and simple. I'm not a fan of SBF, but no one should have to endure it, even just for 24 hours.

“Solitary confinement may only be imposed in exceptional circumstances, and "prolonged" solitary confinement of more than 15 consecutive days is regarded as a form of torture.”

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/02/united-state...

I cannot find a single reputable source that states solitary confinement for a total of 24 hours is torture.

I'd argue jail itself is a form of torture. It's quite barbaric and shocking we do it for anything beyond violent crime.

"5 seconds of water bordering isn't torture, but 30 seconds is."

"5 seconds of 110v shocks isn't torture, but 30 seconds is."

Solitary is absolutely torture no matter the duration. The duration threshold for "torture" is relative in this case so someone could consider it "torture" after just a few minutes.

This seems extremely authoritarian. Obviously prisoners lose many rights due to their conviction, but I see no reason that freedom of speech or of the press should be among them. Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor or otherwise in furtherance of some crime, I think a prisoner should be able to speak with whoever he wishes.

> Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor or otherwise in furtherance of some crime.

Assessing this is precisely why permission is required. Also victim protection, for example; a criminal recounting the crime in an interview in detail would potentially retraumatize their victims.

There are lots of reasons permission is required. I agree it’s not pleasant, and feels wrong, but there are real reasons that are not “prisoners aren’t people.”

At the risk of being accused of a slippery slope, you could use similar logic to control speech of others too.

I think the real justification is part of prison is living a life of servitude where you basically have no control and everyone else makes the decision for you. America already more or less decided free speech was a danger worth accepting, and limiting prisoner communication won't put a dent on the collateral from that.

> Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor or otherwise in furtherance of some crime

Isn’t that the reason you need permission in the first place?

> Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor or otherwise in furtherance of some crime

He did this constantly leading up to the trial, at some point you lose the benefit of the doubt

I think think you are correct here to a point. If you want to say SBF has lost the benefit of the doubt and is never allowed to engage in business related to crypto or to communicate with the former management of FTX I think that's reasonable. I also think it's reasonable to say that as a convicted criminal in prison the level of suspicion is so high that all your communication with anyone (except lawyers) can be monitored without additional due process. But going from that to "you can't communicate with anyone at all unless we say so" is a step too far.

How do you tell if he's talking to co-conspirators and doing more crimes or not unless you are monitoring who he is talking to?

"This seems extremely authoritarian"

Yes prisons generally are like that.

This was absolutely in furtherance of his crimes. A Tucker Carlson interview was item 3 on the list he kept of ideas for how to get away with it.

Seeking a pardon is legal and actions in furtherance of that end are also legal as long as those actions themselves are not crimes. You are allowed to try to "get away it" in the context of legal process. Legally, seeking a pardon is no different than filing an appeal.

> Seeking a pardon is legal and actions in furtherance of that end are also legal as long as those actions themselves are not crimes.

I agree with this, but prisons have no obligation to let prisoners do everything that's legal. That's kinda the point of prison. If SBF has some important information to share about what it's like on the inside or why he should get a pardon, he can forward it through his lawyer.

> Legally, seeking a pardon is no different than filing an appeal.

I don't agree with this. There's all kinds of ways in which formal legal processes are different than general speech, and this is one of them. Prisoners get to talk to their lawyer and file legal documents because these are critically important rights, which can't be suspended even for a good reason.

Going on Fox News from inside prison is not the way a pardon gets requested.

It is when the POTUS is a Fox News addict who actively enjoys the appearance of impropriety...

appearance? :)

I mean, some people prefer covering it up to flaunting it :)

Carlson is doing his own thing now, he got fired from Fox in 2023.

It is in 2025.

Seems expensive and passive aggressive. Just horsewhip him. He'll get the message.

I broadly agree with this but it raises a bigger question -- how do you punish someone who is already in a process of punishment?

That's an especially important question when someone is going through a very long punishment process, like what does another life sentence mean to someone who has a life sentence? You can't execute someone twice, right?

If someone breaks a very important rule in prison there needs to be some way to put an immediate stop to that behaviour and to disincentivize them from doing it again and in a situation like this is seems like solitary confinement is the most effective way to do that.

Surely prisoners still have some privileges that could be taken away as a punishment (going outdoors, books, tv, computers, phone, visits, classes/work...

Maybe leading with a stick instead of a carrot isn’t the right approach?

It's hard to carrot already-wealthy prisoners.

For average folks, sure.

I don’t know, I feel like there is much more room for positive incentives than negative. Prisons put people on a pretty level playing field.

Like, the well behaved could be served pork chops and peas instead of slop and mush.

Have you ever experienced prison yourself or through someone close? Prisons don't put people on a level playing field at all. It is significantly more comfortable to be rich in prison than poor in prison.

So what are you suggesting to handle misbehaving inmates? A strongly worded memo?

A simple middle ground would be confinement to your cell with a book or two, but still in the presence of people. You'd take your meals there, not in the cafeteria. You wouldn't get to hang out with people or go outside. The jail equivalent of a time out. Not fun, probably boring, but not literal psychological torture.

Prison already is psychological torture.

Perhaps not in (for example) the Nordic model. But in some primitive countries, methods to mentally and emotionally torture prisoners seem to have become some sort of art form.

They’re already in prison, applying extra pain with no trial or anything like that is not very civilized, to the contrary.

Ban visitors?

If SBF was able to get a smuggled phone, as the article speculates, to do an unauthorized interview, then he is clearly using his connections to sidestep aspects of his incarceration. Putting him in solitary is an appropriate way to cut him off from engaging in further such corruption, and it should be repeated for any further violations. The only problem here is that it took this long for them to identify that he had the ability to do things like this.

Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same manner as any other citizen.

you don't have to be particularly well connected in prison to get access to a phone. Just knowing who to talk to and being able to give them something they want. phones are right up there with drugs and tobacco being smuggled into prisons.

If they accuse him of having a phone they should probably find it before punishing him

You think Tucker fabricated the interview using AI?

Tucker Carlson went to court to argue that no reasonable person would believe what he says on the air. [1] Yet American conservatives hang on his every word.

So it doesn't much matter whether the interview was fabricated, edited, or otherwise fraudulent. It was aired to lay the groundwork for a pardon. Look for SBF to receive a pardon from Trump in the future (cf. Ross Ulbricht.)

1: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-...

In reading the actual judgement that's not the case:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Mc...

Tucker Carlson is specifically cited as maintaining that he spoke the truth on page 5. Rather it's Fox News that argues that Tucker Carlson was stating an opinion with hyperbole for effect:

"Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect...

This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.”"

At any rate, the case is a lot more complex than just one guy claiming no one believes anything he says. Using it to justify the possibility that the interview by Tucker Carlson was not with the actual Sam Bankman-Fried by with a potential imposter or AI is absolute bonkers.

you actually read the case instead of parroting a talking point? witch

Help me out here. What part of "Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect" is a "talking point?"

What was Carlson actually stating, and what was the context? Obviously some people took it seriously, or it wouldn't have ended up in court.

> Obviously some people took it seriously, or it wouldn't have ended up in court.

Wait, you actually think he was sued by people who took his statements seriously (aka fans)? The people taking it seriously were likely misconstruing rhetoric in a literal sense. This happens quite a bit. Sometimes the rhetoric is out of line, sometimes not. One could argue that his meaning is clearly understood by fans, like a big inside joke, and that the ridiculous claims are just another form of entertainment.

That said, if you watch Tucker now you'll see that he's much more serious than when he was on Fox News. I don't think applying the results from that case in any way to his independent journalism makes sense.

That said, if you watch Tucker now

I'll take your word for it, how's that.

You're missing out. He gets some VERY interesting interviews and asks the hard questions. I think he went kinda easy on SBF but that is probably because he didn't want to have SBF cut the interview short.

Your contention is that only billionaires can get contraband in prison?

Are you by any chance familiar with prison?

>Your contention is that only billionaires can get contraband in prison?

That's a whole new sentence.

There's no logical progression from:

"Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same manner as any other citizen."

"only billionaires can get contraband in prison"

Rethink the modalities in the two comments and try again.

I'd agree if he were in solitary for an extended period of time, but is 24 hours really that torturous?

Have you ever sat in a small room, by yourself, with nothing to do, for 24 hours? It's no picnic.

But regardless, what length of time do you think is needed before it could be termed torture? And whatever your answer is, I hope you'd agree that opinions might differ on what that length of time is.

I absolutely agree the length of time and opinions might differ.

He's in prison, it's not supposed to be a picnic. It's also not supposed to be torture. But 24 hours, strikes me as an adult "time-out". He'll be asleep for 8 or more hours of that - more because he's bored, what else is he going to do.

What would you suggest to solve the problem solitary is aiming to solve? Chesterton's Fence was built for a reason. Solitary isn't torturous in the traditional sense of the word. It is consistent with the idea of prison--it's just a worse version of prison. It acts to disincentivize rule breaking within the system. What other ways can we attack this problem with high enough confidence that removing the proverbial "fence" will not result in a total disaster.

> Solitary isn't torturous in the traditional sense of the word.

"Traditional" is irrelevant; psychological torture is just as much torture as physical torture is.

> Solitary isn't torturous in the traditional sense of the word.

I think it might actually be. It can break people.

It is. Psychological torture is torture.

"It can break people" can be said about all sorts of common things in society.

>which is torturous for many people.

That's why it's used as a punishment.

The story here is that a criminal that stole billions is staging a prison escape through an openly corrupt political administration and their subservient media apparatus.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com