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.
I would prefer, of course, that it wasn’t solitary.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Isn’t that the reason you need permission in the first place?
He did this constantly leading up to the trial, at some point you lose the benefit of the doubt
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.
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.”
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.
Yes prisons generally are like that.