[Real World] Pelican Bay SHU Hunger Strike Planned for July 1st

[Vivi]

While I hardly think they should be treated wonderfully, I don't think they should be treated so poorly that if they DO get released they're likely to be worse. If the descriptions of the conditions are accurate, that'll mess a god damned nun up pretty good let alone someone who's already messed up.

Really if you're going to make them into worse people while they're there you might as well kill them and save the time/trouble.

I thought the prison system was about keeping people from doing it again, after all, so either kill them or at least do something to make it less likely they will feel the need to depend on crime to survive when they leave.

[Auvic]

I think that's sort've the idea that half the people in this thread have, Veevs - the half that isn't "LOL THEY'RE CRIMINALS THEY DESERVE ANYTHING THAT COMES TO THEM LOL"

Although, honestly, in regards to "supporting dumbasses on the government's ( and by extension, the taxpayer's ) dollars", I can't imagine that there's much of an argument you could make for the elderly, infirm, mentally incapable, or anybody else living off welfare, whether by their own choice or not.

If only those super-criminals could apply that same drive to doing other things.

[Familiar]

Even though it's not the perfect system we have when dealing with criminals, there really aren't much other options. Or funds.

[Vivi]

That's half my point Familiar, if the solution is costing a shit ton and making the problem potentially worse then quite clearly we should explore alternative solutions.

For instance, we could start putting more people to death. I'm not kidding, its much cheaper to kill someone who is never going to leave the jail then it is to keep them alive. Could the same argument be said about the elderly or the infirm ect ect? Probably, the difference being they (probably) haven't done anything to warrant being in jail forever for.

Mind you I'm not saying "judge says life in jail just kill him." I mean "Life without chance of parole and has already tried and failed to appeal over and over and over again."

But that brings us back to the same issue that started this thread: if its arbitrarily, unfairly, or incorrectly being decided who needs punishment we're still screwed.

But hey, at least we'd kill them quicker then starving or SHU I guess.

You know what? Lets find an arbitrary group and blame them for all of this instead. Like Dollar store clerks. Yeah, its all their fault.

[Auvic]

Why can't we just blame Vivicorp, then? :|

[Vivi]

Because thats not arbitrary, thats blaming the actual culprit.

[Familiar]

I'm a Texan so I'm for the death penalty. Now it's just a matter of finding the people capable of determining who receives that punishment than sitting in a room for decades to rot away.

[DMD]

I'm a Texan too, but I'd be for the death penalty if I came from anywhere else, why? Because some people just need to be removed.

As far as these guys in question at Pelican Bay, there's millions if not billions of people around the world starving because they don't have food to eat, not because they don't want to be in prison.
 These people include children and elderly. There's veteran senior citizens right here in the U. S. that have to pick between eating real food or eating Alpo so they can afford thier medicine.
 There's kids in this world that never see a school and don't have clean water to drink.

 SO all these people get a spot on my "things I care about" list before the murders, hard core drug dealers, gangsters,  rapists and pedos in this or any other  prison. Let them suffer, let them starve if they want. It's not any worse than the things they did to others to get where they are.

[Inquisitor]

There is an alternative to "horrible rape-cage". It's called "rehabilitation". The US incarcerates more people then the Soviets ever did, and currently jails more people then the entire planet, and for longer timeframes. It's possible to have a prison system that works with proper psychiatric help, programs designed to reform prisoners, reducing sentences of solitary confinement (or, personally, the total removal of solitary), and eliminating life sentences with no chance of parole would not only dramatically reduce costs, it'd lead to less recidivism. The problem with the US prison system is you take people that've already failed society in some way, and then you separate them from normal society and surround them by the worst possible people. This generally gives you a lot of time to think about how mad you are at the world and, in a highly violent environment, breeds violent people.

Reducing the amount of inmates in the country, and generally working to reduce recidivism instead of blindly punishing people, would lead to lower law enforcement costs, lower incarceration costs as prisons are kept for only violent offenders, less money wasted in the courts, and a host of other benefits. The only benefit of treating people in prison like animals, they turn into animals. Maybe with all the money you save from swelling prisons and militarizing the police force, you could put some of that towards the dog food eating veterans DMD hangs out with.

The problem with the death penalty is entirely different discussion then what this thread is framed around. And the problem with the death penalty is that the courts aren't always correct: an innocent man should not be imprisoned and executed for a crime they can still be proved innocent of.

[Inquisitor]

And trust me, America has the money to fund prisons, education, socialized healthcare, and more. People are just too stupid (or too greedy) and set in their ways to agree to sensible things like raising taxes and slashing the military budget.

[Inquisitor]

So I don't derail my own thread:

The hunger strike is alleged to begin today. Here's another article about conditions and the types of people that get sent to the SHU:

You could call it a "prison within a prison": a supermax facility so isolating that some inmates say they haven't seen the night sky in years.

Prison reform advocates say that inmates at the Security Housing Unit of California's Pelican Bay State Prison began a hunger strike this morning, protesting conditions they call inhumane. Officials from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation confirmed that some prisoners had refused breakfast.

Pelican Bay houses some of the state's most hardened criminals, but the SHU is for the worst of the worst. A third of that prison's inmates are in SHU: a warren of sterile, white pods, connected to exercise pens. No windows. No noise. Often, no view of the sky. And no contact allowed with the outside world or the main prison population. Inmates spend more than 23 hours a day in their pods, with an hour or less in their pen.

It's enough to drive a person crazy ... and reform advocates say, that's exactly the problem.

    “April, '99: Here I am in this hole, locked down in the cement cell, 24 hours a day. I've lost my skin color, and I am pale.”

Ernesto Lira journaled his time in SHU. He was a petty thief the state determined was associated with a violent gang.

    “October 28, 2000. What a nice day. I almost felt the sun. This isolation is wearing me down. I can't believe I've been in the hole for five years. I believe I'm losing my mind. Days go by without protest or outcry—just a silent endurance of time. I'm in the wind.”

The wind was the only element of nature Lira says he could sense from the outside. It's a disconnection from humanity that reform advocates say triggers mental illness -- something akin to post-traumatic stress disorder.

A federal court determined Lira was denied due process when the state put him in SHU. He didn't win any monetary damages, but the state did clear his name.

CDCR officials have maintained that SHUs are their best bet to control a population of inmates that would otherwise create much more havoc. Some avowed gang leaders have told KQED's Michael Montgomery they can still transact business from within an SHU.

"This is the point that the Department of Corrections makes," Montgomery says. "Some of these people are determined to carry on criminal activites no matter where you put them. So at least, arguably, putting them in isolation is going to limit the amount of damage they can do."

Admittedly, CDCR has a much bigger problem: a court order backed up by the U.S. Supreme Court to reduce its overall prison population. There's no indication that state officials plan to change SHU at all, but even if they wanted to, there's not much they could do to modify the facility.

"It's not like you can add windows to these facilities," Montgomery says. "There aren't any rooms for inmates to be in together (for group educational programs)."

Reform advocates are demanding more educational materials for the inmates, more visiting time, one photo per year (possibly of their families), and an end to the debriefing process inmates endure before leaving SHU. In debriefing, inmates must rat out their criminal accomplices—presumably to ensure they can't go back to their lives of crime.

California's overcrowded prisons may soon be stacked with even more of the worst offenders. As part of the state budget, Governor Jerry Brown is realigning the prison population, shifting lower-level offenders to county lockups. That means more of the worst offenders will be in state prisons like Pelican Bay and others with SHUs.

Note: An earlier version of this post stated the Security Housing Unit at Pelican Bay was "full." The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said today (July 1, 2011) that the unit is at 93 percent design capacity.

Inmates:
- Get an hour outside of their cell, everyday.
- No windows
- No contact with anyone, even prisoners
- Rare exercise in enclosed space where they can't even see the sky (what's the possible point of this?)

And are striking for:
- The right to see their family
- The right to have a picture of their family
- Some fucking books
- The right to leave SHU without causing anyone else unfair retribution from the COs.

[Inquisitor]

That's half my point Familiar, if the solution is costing a shit ton and making the problem potentially worse then quite clearly we should explore alternative solutions.

For instance, we could start putting more people to death. I'm not kidding, its much cheaper to kill someone who is never going to leave the jail then it is to keep them alive. Could the same argument be said about the elderly or the infirm ect ect? Probably, the difference being they (probably) haven't done anything to warrant being in jail forever for.

Mind you I'm not saying "judge says life in jail just kill him." I mean "Life without chance of parole and has already tried and failed to appeal over and over and over again."

But that brings us back to the same issue that started this thread: if its arbitrarily, unfairly, or incorrectly being decided who needs punishment we're still screwed.

But hey, at least we'd kill them quicker then starving or SHU I guess.

You know what? Lets find an arbitrary group and blame them for all of this instead. Like Dollar store clerks. Yeah, its all their fault.

I forget the author but someone put forth a (much less fascist and extreme) idea of this. The argument was: Why not reintroduce the lash? For every year you would spend imprisoned, you get 2 lashes (about 40 hits). Of course, the point of this idea is: how many people would gladly take a day of terrible, possibly fatal torture in return for never having to step foot in prison?

[DMD]

And I still don't care if they rot and die, they did what they did to get there, let them.

[Auvic]

Oddly enough, the statement

"This is the point that the Department of Corrections makes," Montgomery says. "Some of these people are determined to carry on criminal activites no matter where you put them. So at least, arguably, putting them in isolation is going to limit the amount of damage they can do."

seems roughly analogous to "People're going to try and kill people no matter what you take away. So at least, arguably, keeping guns out of the hands of the populace is going to limit the amount of damage they can do."

Except that statement would never fly.

Also, more thoughts from my psychology class:
A few decades ago, a psych professor organized an experiment - he took part of a group of students, selected randomly, and had them become the "jailers" of a pretend-prison that was actually just an unused portion of the school's basements. The other students in the group were to be the "prisoners", though they didn't know this - they signed up for the experiment, and ( if I remember correctly ) were "arrested" much in the same way that real convicts are.

There was no trial, they were just sent to "jail".

Aside from that, the professor pretty much left the students alone, and just observed them - and had to stop the experiment in under a week.
Why? Because the "jailers" were going out of their way to create unnecessary, arbitrary rules to oppress their "prisoners", and there were multiple attempts at uprisings from within this prison that were forcibly put down by the "jailers".
In under a week, a group of students changed into a band of torturers and a crew of rebels, determined to do whatever was necessary to, respectively, keep the "prisoners" there - or try and get home.

Just one week.
And these were college students, without any history of violence or crime.

And you can think, seriously, that every bit of punishment that criminals get in whatever prison they happen to be kept in is justified?
I don't. I can't, rather - because there's far too much evidence that, given the chance, human beings take every opportunity to dole out gratuitous amounts of pain to others solely because they can, if they know that no retaliation will be forthcoming.
See: the Milgram experiments for another example.

And because I'm too lazy to go through and check all the details about the prison case, I'll give you the name of the experiment and let you look it up if you care enough to:
The Stanford Prison Experiment. It's on wikipedia, as is the Milgram experiments - and both of them have been extremely influential in the field of psychology for realizing just how vicious people are.
Not "can be", but are.


Edit: In case none of this previous post was on-topic:
I honestly don't know how you'd go about trying to fix this without essentially flipping around the entire American mindset towards wrongdoing: look at rehab centers, at detox centers, at prisons, at house arrests; honestly? I don't think any of them really do much at all that couldn't be accomplished more efficiently in another manner, but it's comforting to the American mind to simply brush the "undesirables" out of the public view for however long it takes people to forget, or at least to stop caring.
So as much as I applaud the efforts of these purported prisoners and their hunger strike, I don't have too much faith in their ability, even should every single one of them commit to the bitter end, to change the way Americans think about things. It seems to be a little too ingrained to change as simply as this.

[DMD]

Yep, they deserve every terrible thing that can has or will happen to them. Why? They did it and would do it to other peoeple given the chance. No pity for these scum.

[MadMusician]

Oddly enough, the statement

"This is the point that the Department of Corrections makes," Montgomery says. "Some of these people are determined to carry on criminal activites no matter where you put them. So at least, arguably, putting them in isolation is going to limit the amount of damage they can do."

seems roughly analogous to "People're going to try and kill people no matter what you take away. So at least, arguably, keeping guns out of the hands of the populace is going to limit the amount of damage they can do."

More like "These people are going to try to kill and rob motherfuckers no matter what you take away." Some people don't always do that shit, and some will always try.

And a slight side swipe at the gun issue: Sweden has guns in just about every household, yet they have nearly no gun crime. Hmmm....

[getdown]

Stay off that whiskey and let that cocaine be

SHU's are for high security inmates. These inmates are usually a danger to themselves or others.

[Vivi]

I forget the author but someone put forth a (much less fascist and extreme) idea of this. The argument was: Why not reintroduce the lash? For every year you would spend imprisoned, you get 2 lashes (about 40 hits). Of course, the point of this idea is: how many people would gladly take a day of terrible, possibly fatal torture in return for never having to step foot in prison?

Yeah that was a pretty extreme rant, but you've clearly gotten my idea. The issue being that would likely be seen as cruel and unusual which is a bit silly if they get the choice. Dear god even a one year stay would be horrible in exchange

And trust me, America has the money to fund prisons, education, socialized healthcare, and more. People are just too stupid (or too greedy) and set in their ways to agree to sensible things like raising taxes and slashing the military budget.

Education first. I can't provide a source so I'm not going to say something like "studies say" but I think I have read that people who manage to get a good education are less likely to commit crimes then others of their same socio-economic standing and countries with better education systems generally have lower crime rates. Personally this makes sense to me, if you have the means to support your family WITHOUT risking going to jail and screwing them over, wouldn't you? Of course this isn't going to stop close to all crime there are people who are legitimately insane or jerks, but it could easily remove a good chunk of those who have the potential to be actual productive members from ever going there to start with. It' likely help out the economy AND lessen costs in prisons in the future.

Socialized health care would be my next one, as if done correctly can actually REDUCE the cost per person spent in the US on healthcare meaning while it may cost a little more in taxes the overall effect would be more money the average person has. Don't believe me? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_health_expenditure_per_capita,_US_Dollars_PPP.png We're almost $3000 above the next highest. Pathetic, really. It would also lead to necessary medical procedures leaving people in low socio-economic status in situations where, again, otherwise fairly productive memebers of society feel the need (correctly or incorrectly) to turn to any given crime to live.

Then I'd worry about improving prisons (unless I could think of something else first). Keeping at least some of that population out would be better then trying to fix whats broken already, as cruel as it may be to some people in there.

(Twisting of my words in 3....2.....1.....?)

[Inquisitor]

I honestly don't know how you'd go about trying to fix this without essentially flipping around the entire American mindset towards wrongdoing: look at rehab centers, at detox centers, at prisons, at house arrests; honestly? I don't think any of them really do much at all that couldn't be accomplished more efficiently in another manner, but it's comforting to the American mind to simply brush the "undesirables" out of the public view for however long it takes people to forget, or at least to stop caring.
So as much as I applaud the efforts of these purported prisoners and their hunger strike, I don't have too much faith in their ability, even should every single one of them commit to the bitter end, to change the way Americans think about things. It seems to be a little too ingrained to change as simply as this.

The first step in trying to change the American mindset towards criminals is to show the American people exactly what their taxdollars pay for. Perhaps the American public opinion at large follows the simple minded logic of "well, they're bad people, but they deserve to be locked away for ever!", but most good people, when confronted with the reality of the conditions in person, have a hard time making an argument that excuses the horrendous treatment of prisoners. Or, they solidify their horrendous opinions about what should happen to people controlled by the government.

There is no logical reason for having a SHU. The correctional officer's excuse for building the SHU is that "these [criminals] can't be controlled and need to be segregated." It seems every prison in the country other then Pelican Bay, and around the world, seem to survive just fine without subjecting the inmates to extra-judicial punishment that they have no way of defending themselves again. The crimes of the people inside the SHU are not what's up for debate here, as it shouldn't even play into the discussion: the severity of people's crimes should in no way be indicative of how "shitty" we're allowed to treat them. Being sentenced to life without any chance of ever getting out is a punishment in itself; sending people to solitary for 2+ years, feeding them shitty food, and not allowing them to speak to their families, each other, or even exercise in some true sunlight is unconstitutional, inhumane, and, dare I say it, barbaric.

Torturing people has NEVER, EVER, EVER been shown to have positive effects on reducing recidivism. Cutting a man's hand off for stealing won't make them stop stealing - if it was hard enough to survive without stealing with two hands, it'll be even harder to be a legitimate member of society with a stump.

[Levistus]

There is no logical reason for having a SHU. The correctional officer's excuse for building the SHU is that "these [criminals] can't be controlled and need to be segregated." It seems every prison in the country other then Pelican Bay, and around the world, seem to survive just fine without subjecting the inmates to extra-judicial punishment that they have no way of defending themselves again. The crimes of the people inside the SHU are not what's up for debate here, as it shouldn't even play into the discussion: the severity of people's crimes should in no way be indicative of how "shitty" we're allowed to treat them. Being sentenced to life without any chance of ever getting out is a punishment in itself; sending people to solitary for 2+ years, feeding them shitty food, and not allowing them to speak to their families, each other, or even exercise in some true sunlight is unconstitutional, inhumane, and, dare I say it, barbaric.

But no, seriously, you must not have ever been subjected to someone killing your family or having to carry the grief of your own family killing someone else. Pelican Bay is specifically for the people that do the worst types of crimes. If someone slapped a cashier, they wouldn't be in Pelican Bay. If someone stole a TV, they wouldn't be in Pelican Bay. That supermax institution is for the psychos that murder their pregnant wives and go on raping sprees. Frankly, I believe a lot of people share my view of "I don't give a fuck." When you become a deviant and have to be forcibly removed from society, there's a level of transgression that you can pass that you don't deserve to exist anymore. You being put away for the rest of your life isn't just a punishment for you, but it's a sign to every law abiding citizen that they don't have to worry about you anymore; it's more of a service to us than a punishment to them. Their life-long misery is the punishment. Never having a good meal until the day they're scheduled to die is their punishment. All this liberal guilt is why these prisoners put on this front to try and get treated better when the cameras are rolling and they're getting attention from the media; they're playing the concerned population just like their played their victims when they were free men.

They're not going to get better care. They're going to stay in solitary confinement if they break rules. They're going to die if they don't eat their shitty food. And I ain't even mad.

[Inquisitor]

Torture is inexcusable.

[Auvic]

I think the only response that both Levistus and DMD are raising can be summed up like this:
"If you're such a criminal that you've been placed into a supermax facility ( i.e. serial murders or whatever ) then you deserve to get whatever you're getting, because you've chosen to remove yourself from society."

In response, there is:
"Torture is inexcusable." ( with an implied "regardless of the circumstances" following it )
and
"If you're already taking someone out of society to put them in confinement, for what purpose does it serve that you continue to force further punishments on these people than what they're already getting? Your own personal satisfaction isn't a valid reason."

[Soja]

You're right. Torture is inexcusable and housing unrepentant sociopaths for perpetuity is pointless.

Let's put a bullet in their heads and be done with everyone's suffering. At $0.10 a round, supermax prisons will be empty in no time and with huge savings.

[Auvic]

In a sense, yes.

I think I would prefer that we just executed those criminals instead of keeping them like that, actually.

[Kade]

Yep, they deserve every terrible thing that can has or will happen to them. Why? They did it and would do it to other peoeple given the chance. No pity for these scum.

First of all, no.

I forget the author but someone put forth a (much less fascist and extreme) idea of this. The argument was: Why not reintroduce the lash? For every year you would spend imprisoned, you get 2 lashes (about 40 hits). Of course, the point of this idea is: how many people would gladly take a day of terrible, possibly fatal torture in return for never having to step foot in prison?

Lashes and public shaming techniques work in Singapore. Safe place, that country.
By public shaming techniques, I mean having to walk down the street cleaning stuff up with a big "I AM A THIEF" sandwich board sign on.
Stuff like that.
It's also cool because it's public service, imo.

And trust me, America has the money to fund prisons, education, socialized healthcare, and more. People are just too stupid (or too greedy) and set in their ways to agree to sensible things like raising taxes and slashing the military budget.

Basically, yeah. I'd comment further but this is not what the thread is about, so I'll just leave it there. Agreed.

I'm not kidding, its much cheaper to kill someone who is never going to leave the jail then it is to keep them alive.

Last I read, this isn't true in California. It costs us millions of dollars to put someone through death row. BS legal redtape reasons.
So it's actually cheaper to just farm them into prisons. But I kind of wonder what the "true cost" of keeping someone in prison is, because according to what is being posted here in this thread (and what I've read outside this thread) we're cutting a lot of corners in our prisons already.

Thinking out loud to myself here, the dollar ammount of the "cost" of a prisoner isn't accurate if it doesn't also comp the cost of suffering, which (I guess) would be quantified by the cost of what upgrading to theoretically suitable living conditions would sum to... adjusted appropriately by the amount of time prisoners have been without these amenities? I don't know. - Shrug. - No idea how it'd be calculated myself, but I'd be interested in learning.

But anyway, the redtape issue could be fixed with new legislation, I guess.

Also, the "official" average taxpayer-money cost of keeping an inmate in prison for one year in California is 45k per year. Looool, raise your hand if you make less than that? Now imagine the "true cost"? Sshhhhhiiiit.

the severity of people's crimes should in no way be indicative of how "shitty" we're allowed to treat them.

Truth.
(Bearing in mind that I don't find the death penalty shitty. It's pretty humane, imho.)

Socialized health care would be my next one, as if done correctly can actually REDUCE the cost per person spent in the US on healthcare meaning while it may cost a little more in taxes the overall effect would be more money the average person has. Don't believe me?

For the second time in this post!Basically, yeah. I'd comment further but this is not what the thread is about, so I'll just leave it there. Agreed.

BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH that you don't deserve to exist anymore. You being put away for the rest of your life isn't just a punishment for you, but it's a sign to every law abiding citizen that they don't have to worry about you anymore; it's more of a service to us than a punishment to them. Their life-long misery is the punishment. Never having a good meal until the day they're scheduled to die is their punishment. All this liberal guilt is why these prisoners put on this front to try and get treated better when the cameras are rolling and they're getting attention from the media; they're playing the concerned population just like their played their victims when they were free men. blahblahblah

I think we'd all be hypocrites if any of us said, "I don't take (at least a little) pleasure in another human's pain."
... But in this case I'll gladly be a hypocrite and say that your entire post is barbaric. Making them suffer is not a "service".  It's completely unecessary. They're already removed from society.

@Auvic - I think that Stanford study was discussed in a National Geographic documentary about Solitary Confinement.  Interesting and relevant, if you're enjoying this thread.

You're right. Torture is inexcusable and housing unrepentant sociopaths for perpetuity is pointless.

Let's put a bullet in their heads and be done with everyone's suffering. At $0.10 a round, supermax prisons will be empty in no time and with huge savings.

If determining a man's guilt was a perfect process, then I would agree, but mistakes happen and they're all very tragic.

In zero-doubt-of-guilt cases though? Sure. Injection.