America’s Most Isolated Federal Prisoner Describes 10,220 Days in Extreme Solitary

[GoldenRivet]

if he has repeatedly demonstrated intention and ability to cause harm to other inmates as well as guards then by all means place him in solitary.

Solitary confinement in my opinion should be like regular confinment

8' x 8' cell consisting mostly of a bed and a toilet. as for recreation - i think more like 3 hours per week is a bit more fair than what he is claiming.

TV???? someone mentioned TV

TV is not a right - its a privilege which must be earned.

I'll show no sympathy for him. he deprived several people of their own lives... why then should he be set up in some pent house prison pad for the rest of his time on earth?





this whole problem could go away in a split second in front of a firing squad.

[Sailor Steve]

I agree, he certainly deserved solitary. But twenty-eight years with no real human contact? I don't know all the facts, or if he's even telling the truth, but it should be pretty easy to verify one way or the other, and it certainly needs to be looked at.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

. why then should he be set up in some pent house prison pad for the rest of his time on earth?

Why are you trying to make your argument by referencing an unrealistic extreme that was not offered by the prisoner. That is a clumsy way of debating.

At no time in his document nor in this discussion has anyone mentioned that this prisoner should be moved to a "penthouse prison pad".

All he is asking is that he be treated the same as other prisoners who have killed in prison.

The rational for solitary confinement should be to act as a behaviour modification punishment

If you do this, you get solitary
If you don't do this, you get out of solitary.

Keeping someone in solitary for years and not giving any standards to get out of solitary removes any behavior modification rational. This prisoner has asked many times "what do I need to do?" A fair and reasonable question.

As for keeping other prisoners and guards safe, there are several levels (depending on the facility) for segregation and isolation, none of them requires solitary confinement. This guy is not the only prisoner who has killed in prison. If the others who have killed more than three people are not kept in solitary confinement for 20+ years, why is this prisoner singled out?

This is why I want to hear the BoP's side before making a forming a final opinion.

Assuming that what this prisoner wrote (and that will come put at the hearing), I don't understand why segregation would not be sufficient? It almost sounds like this is a case of revenge - the BoP is getting back at him. Which is not how a prison system is supposed to work. Emotions should have no part in running a prison system.

I am glad he is getting a hearing, I am just fearful that because it is within the BoP that he may not get a fair hearing. To prevent conflicts of interest, these types of hearings should be held by the judicial branch and not the executive branch.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Seth8530

I believe that any person within this country has the rights of free speech, right to vote, they should be protected from cruel and unusual punishment ( that right was designed for prisoners i do believe), right to a speedy trial, the right to bear arms while in prison doesnt make sense ^_^.. but yeah.. i think he should be treated as a human.. and any prisoner once released should regain any rights lost as a result of their incarceration.

I disagree, just because you've done your time, doesn't mean you've paid all your dues. Many prisioners go out on parole for years to follow them.
Ending jail time doesn't equate to you're through with the system, it's just part of the punishment.

Child sexual abusers often can't live near schools or get near children after prision and will be on list often for life.

Ending prision is just a step, it doesn't end the stages of justice. Even then many go right back to jail for the same crime. Makes me sick when murderers and rapist are set free and kill or rape again in days....

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

[edit] The right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms are permanently denied any convicted felon, and for life. I disagree with those, as I believe that a man who has served his time has indeed "paid his debt to society". That said, we're not talking about that situation, but about people currently serving their time.

In Virginia, convicted felons can petition the governor to have their voting rights reinstated. But it takes a bit of justification to get this done.

It is probably a good solution to a difficult problem.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Armistead

I disagree, just because you've done your time, doesn't mean you've paid all your dues. Many prisioners go out on parole for years to follow them.
Ending jail time doesn't equate to you're through with the system, it's just part of the punishment.

True, but there is also a difference between parole (which is guarded early release) and actually having served your time.

Child sexual abusers often can't live near schools or get near children after prision and will be on list often for life.

And every case needs to be judged individually. Child-moleststation is a particular sickness that needs to be monitored. On the other hand if such a person brutalized and murdered your child, and you retaliated, you would then become a felon. After serving 20 years should your rights not be restored? Be aware that I'm not arguing for or against that case, merely asking the questions. The fact is I don't have an answer, but I do wonder about these things.

Ending prision is just a step, it doesn't end the stages of justice. Even then many go right back to jail for the same crime. Makes me sick when murderers and rapist are set free and kill or rape again in days....

I agree. On the other hand there are felons who serve their time and then go on to useful and productive lives. I don't see many, but it is possible.

[Seth8530]

one thing that i think we all need to consider is that.. Its not that hard to kill someone.. I mean, how many of yall have been in a fight before? In the heat of the moment how hard would it be to let things get out of hand.. and before you know it he is dead? It was wrong.. you shouldn't of killed him... but it doesn't mean you wont ever do anything useful with your life ever... people can change.