Over the objections of its three liberal justices, the Supreme Court on Monday denied a petition from a prisoner confined for years without the chance to exercise outside his cell.

  • @Makeitstop
    link
    556 months ago

    They were denying him basic living conditions common to large zoo animals. If you are so profoundly mentally ill that you can’t be allowed to spend time in a slightly larger enclosure, it seems highly unlikely that you are mentally competent enough to be convicted in the first place.

    The justification for this is also pathetically flimsy and should be easily rejected with just a moments thought.

    Exercise has been deemed a necessity which cannot be denied to prisoners. He was kept in solitary without being allowed out for 3 years, but it’s OK because it was many small punishments served back to back without relief, not one big punishment. So, if we can deny necessities for extended periods of time, that means we can also withhold food or water for years at a time, as long we’re doing it by stacking punishments and not just starving someone to death over a single incident.

    • @Nudding
      link
      66 months ago

      I don’t understand why everyone is so surprised lol. America still practises slavery for fucks sake.

    • TWeaK
      link
      fedilink
      English
      36 months ago

      If you are so profoundly mentally ill that you can’t be allowed to spend time in a slightly larger enclosure, it seems highly unlikely that you are mentally competent enough to be convicted in the first place.

      I disagree there, by all accounts his mental health deteriorated in prison, not before. I mean, I’m sure he was a bit fucked up before, but solitary is what had him smearing shit all over himself and his cell.

      • @Makeitstop
        link
        6
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        The description in the article seems to indicate that he was seriously mentally ill to begin with, and only got worse with solitary confinement. I don’t have enough information to say whether he was actually mentally competent to stand trial. My point was just that if his case is so extreme that they can’t manage to get him out of his cell on a regular basis, then I have to question the mental state that got him in there in the first place. And on the other hand, if they can provide the basic necessity that he has as a right to, then there isn’t any excuse to withhold it. Find another punishment.

        That said, on reflection, I suppose I was oversimplifying a bit. Someone can be violent, aggressive, and stubborn to the point of being self-destructive and still have the mental capacity to understand the world around them, the nature of their decisions, the consequences they have, and the difference between right and wrong.