Jeez, how much longer until we can codify into law that solitary confinement is cruel and unusual?
There are circumstances where you need to keep someone in solitary, whether it's for their own safety or for the safety of others. You can't well put a hated prisoner in with the general population without expecting that they'll be murdered. On the other hand, you have prisoners who have made a living out of murdering prison guards.
What do you do with Thomas Silverstein[1]? Terry Nichols? Members of the mafia? Caught spies? They'd likely either kill or be killed. I don't really see a better option than isolating them. These aren't people who are there to be rehabilitated.
While it's true that those people need protection I'm not sure it's true for everyone else.
The one exception is parents comparing offspring, where 'children' applies to your offspring regardless of age - ask an 80-year-old about his children, and he'll talk about 60-year-old people.
This doesn't mean the actions aren't inhumane or don't need evaluation or correction, but please avoid the inflammatory language.
Cant vote, cant smoke, cant drink, cant fight in the military. People keep trying to speak on your behalf, and waive your rights without asking them.
I'm only for punishing 16 year olds as adults IF they are also given the rights and responsibilities of adults. At least start with representation (voting).
Perhaps the solution is the creation of a legal area of 'semi-responsibility'? That between young childhood and adulthood there is a period where you're considered responsible, but at a reduced rate. This concept is clearly already in place - for example in my state, you simply cannot try someone under the age of 10 for murder, so you get 'minors under 10', 'minors over 10', and 'adults' - but it appears to be an administrative hodge-podge managed differently for different laws. Perhaps making an interstitial 'semi-responsible' range more codified might assist when making laws?
I honestly don't know - IANAL, let alone one that deals with juvenile law.
We don't treat animals that bad. Putting people, at whatever age, in small boxes and throwing away the key for an arbitrary amount of time IS TORTURE.
I don't care if you stole a loaf of bread. I dont care if you assaulted a classmate. Nor do I care if you raped and murdered multiple people. Torture is NEVER an acceptable answer to committing crimes. If someone's that bad, file for a capital case and attempt to have the state murder them.
In any case, solitary is not a judicial punishment. The court doesn't say "shove this person in solitary for 90 days, then a regular sentence for the next 180". Solitary is punishment for not behaving yourself once you're in prison. It's not pleasant, but it's one of the few options available to control inmates without resorting to physical violence (which is also torture).
If you're going to take away solitary, you need to come up with a viable mechanism for ensuring the good behaviour of prisoners. And given the overcrowding in the US system, it has to work without a lot of resources. I agree with your sentiment - I'm a rehabilitation-not-prisons guy - but solitary serves a function that still needs to be performed if you take it away.
As I say above, the first step is to simply just not put as many people in prison to begin with - fewer inmates means fewer people in solitary from a straight numbers perspective, and I imagine it'd drop again due to reduction in overcrowding.
But really, if you follow your 'five whys', the solution to this problem is not treating the symptom that lies at the very end of the chain. Measures that stop people even being incarcerated in the first place are what should be supported. This article is describing one of many of the foul symptoms of the US having a ridiculously high incarceration rate.
And I'm not using that adjective as a throwaway - the level of incarceration in the US truly deserves ridicule. It is a national disgrace.
Old and wiser me would say when people stop asking such fake questions and take heart going into careers of law or public administration.
American justice does serve the rich. American justice does discriminate against all manner of individuals. And I should not have to pursue a career in criminal law to point out that these conditions are useless, wasteful and absolutely barbaric.