You’re right. But in this case SBF engaged in an external interview, without permission, over a link normally reserved for access to attorneys.
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.
The safety and needs of a prisoner are not the only concerns. The safety and needs of the victims and public are also a concern. Moreover, if there was a breach of security (which is at least close to the definition of what happened), temporarily securing the prisoner in a separate location to assess what happened and how it happened doesn’t immediately strike me as unreasonable.
I would prefer, of course, that it wasn’t solitary.
> The safety and needs of a prisoner are not the only concerns.
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.
If, for example, someone convicted of sexual assault decides to give an interview without permission, and proceeds to reiterate the details of the crime, that would undoubtedly harm the victim of their crimes. That is what I meant by the safety and needs of a prisoner not being the only concerns.
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.
Cynicism is about people with agency. Saying you're not a cynic about the actions of an organization/institution with no agency/sentience is completely nonsensical.
Edit: I've been rate limited; to the person below:
> So, to be clear, I do not believe all prison guards and staff
Do you believe his confinement was decided by one guard (selflessly)? Do I need to explain to you how organizations with rules/processes/guidelines function?
Edit 2:
> Absent that evidence, your assumption of malice is unfounded, even if in general the prison system is corrupt and/or awful
Besides the clear contradiction here (at least from a Bayesian perspective), I think you are either unaware that (or do not understand why) "innocent until proven guilty" of individuals is explicitly codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not the "Universal Declaration of Corporate Rights").
Edit 3:
> Prisoners convicted of a crime in a court of law no longer have the presumption of innocence for that crime, by definition. Moreover, they lose many other rights, due to the fact that they are prisoners, and not general civilians.
You are accusing him of a new crime. Prisoners are still afforded their constitutional rights.
> I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but I implore you to read what I’m saying and not what you think I’m saying.
I have already made my point at the beginning of this thread: you are doing an inordinant amount of free intellectual labor justifying the actions of an authoritarian institution.
1. a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.
So, to be clear, I do not believe all prison guards and staff are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. Others do believe that.
this is an outdated definition of cynicism; i think in many modern cases cynicsm is about the written ideals or formal rules being incongruous with the unwritten "rules of the game" in a way that isnt necessarily (but often is) about self interest.
Changing the definition of the word doesn’t make you right. What I meant is extremely clear, and this sort of pedantry is irrelevant and doesn’t move the conversation forward.
> Do you believe his confinement was decided by one guard (selflessly)? Do I need to explain to you how organizations with rules/processes/guidelines function?
That is not what I said, and it not the most charitable interpretation of what I said either.
Of course these choices aren’t made by a single guard. But there is no evidence that in this case it was not done for reasons that were reasonable. If it comes out that it was done purely as punishment, and not to assess what the fuck had just happened, I’d agree with you.
Absent that evidence, your assumption of malice is unfounded, even if in general the prison system is corrupt and/or awful.
You can separate the forest from the trees; in fact, you must.
Sometimes, the justice system incarcerates innocent people and abuses prisoners. That’s fucking awful, and we need to fix it.
But also, sometimes, the justice system works properly and locks up actual criminals who have committed actual crimes. SBF is one such case. There is no evidence he has been abused, unlike other criminals who had been abused.
If you want to make this an argument about whether incarceration is beneficial at all, or if we should focus on better rehabilitation, I’d almost certainly agree with you, but that’s not the discussion we’re having, and it isn’t the system we have.
[edit]
> I think you are either unaware that (or do not understand why) "innocent until proven guilty" of individuals is explicitly codified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (not the "Universal Declaration of Corporate Rights").
Please. I’m very aware of this. Your extremely confident belief that you are right is clouding your ability to actually see what I’m saying.
SBF is, in fact, a convicted criminal. He was considered innocent until he was, ahem, proven guilty in a court of law, by a jury of his peers. They deliberated for less than an hour, I assume because the evidence was apparently very clear.
Prisoners convicted of a crime in a court of law no longer have the presumption of innocence for that crime, by definition. Moreover, they lose many other rights, due to the fact that they are prisoners, and not general civilians.
I have no idea what point you’re trying to make, but I implore you to read what I’m saying and not what you think I’m saying.
I’m done with this conversation, mostly because the rate limiting is annoying. Have a lovely weekend.
I am doing no such thing. I have no idea if he committed a crime. I am not litigating anything. He did an interview without getting permission, breaking the rules of his confinement. That’s obvious, since the interview aired. I don’t need to litigate it, and I’m not attempting to.
> Prisoners are still afforded their constitutional rights.
No, they aren’t; this is plainly untrue. They are afforded some of their constitutional rights, but not all of them.
While prisoners do not enjoy full constitutional rights, they do receive 8th Amendment protection from cruel and unusual punishment. For example, the Supreme Court ruled that California jails must abide by the court-mandated population limits to prevent overpopulation, and thus affording inmates a minimum standard of living in Brown v. Plata.
There are some other rights, like due process, protection under the 14th amendment from discrimination and unequal treatment based solely on their race, sex, or creed, etc.
Lastly, incarcerated individuals are guaranteed the right to religion and free speech as long as their status as prisoners does not interfere with these protected rights.
I was impressed with the El Salvador prisons. All of the prisoners are given incentive to shorten their sentences by working in various production operations, like sewing clothing, farming food, etc... they have classes to teach them various skills, but they also work a lot of hours to contribute back to society. For those who believe prison should be unattractive, it definitely still is. For those who believe inmates should be rehabilitated, they are learning to contribute to society while gaining valuable skills. Seems like a win win to me.
Generally speaking, punishment has three purposes, namely, retribution, rehabilitation, and deterrence. Not all three must be realized in each case for a punishment to be valid, but all three are nonetheless in play.
We do a poor job in this respect. We seem incapable of integrating all three. So you have people who get irrationally squeamish about retribution, demonstrating a total lack of understanding and appreciation of the severity of crimes and of the nature and demands of justice. False compassion abounds. Some people cannot distinguish between chattel slavery and debt slavery (where in the latter case, this would mean penal labor, something that can have the benefit of both providing value to the society wronged to whom the perp is indebted and in punishing the perp). You have people who express hatred for the guilty under the pretense of justice, caring nothing for their rehabilitation. You have those who claim that the prospect of punishment doesn't deter crime, which is patently absurd.
The justice system should most definitely punish criminals prudently in proportion with the crime, but it should also provide means of correcting the person and leading them away from a criminal life. Learning skills could be a part, even if not exhaustive, of such a rehabilitation, whether they ever leave prison or not.
Deeply deeply deeply ironic comment given how many laws the same executive (the one responsible for the penitentiaries) has broken in the last month and a half.
Actually, not as much as you think. That the rule of law isn’t being followed is a real problem and is why so many citizens of the US find what’s happening right now immensely concerning and troubling.
It’s precisely the desire for the rule of law that make it so unsettling right now.
> Ask any attorney: the relationship with the state is adversarial; the state is not your friend in matters of jurisprudence, it is your adversary. What kind of person gives the benefit of the doubt to their adversary? No rational person for sure. Conclusion: you either are the state (represent the state) or you're irrational.
Huh? If a someone commits unspeakable crimes against a loved one of yours and the state is mounting a case against that person, you'd view it as an adversary?
1. A disgraced crypto bro trying to throw a hail mary to get out of prison
2. An authoritarian state growing by leaps and bounds daily
Again as a rational person, which of these two is more serious and therefore warranting action (even at the level of constructing good faith interpretations)?
Yeah, I thought the reason he was in jail was because he aired ads and sponsored arenas trying to convince folks to put money into his seemingly legitimate platform that he was actually using as his personal bank account.
I think a system where billionaire scammers get away with their crimes is more of a threat to me than a system where prisoners are treated poorly. Over the course of my life, I expect I'll have to do business with dozens or hundreds of companies run by billionaires who might scam me, whereas I don't expect I'll ever go to prison.
Also like, why should prisoners need to ask permission before they give interviews? That seems like a super easy way to create an abusive situation?
Also, yeah, anyone thinking 24 hours in solitary is no big deal -- spend a weekend trying it for yourself. Look up the conditions, and mimic it to the best of your ability and see how it goes.
While I think prolonged solitary confinement is genuinely harsh punishment, i'm ambivalent about banning it, because there really are prisoners who will take advantage of any weakness in communications control to wreak serious havoc in the outside world, and they can be incredibly ingenious about it unless totally locked down.
Also, as someone who has spent more than 24 hours in solitary confinement, I can say that doing it for a full day is pretty mild. You contemplate, use the toilet as needed, eat what's given to you, sleep and the time passes pretty quickly unless you're also being abused in some other way such as temperature extremes or having your clothes removed (I've had to deal with both and they make even brief solitary much worse)
Doing it for long stretches is a different story of course, but a day or two without "special" and basically abusive measures as mentioned above is very mild unless you have one very pathological aversion to any solitude. Claustrophobia could be a factor too but since prison is a confined place either way, it never fully stops applying (though Solitary cells are more claustrophobic than prison living outside of full lockdown.)
Mine was a really brief stay in there, but no, no TV pencil, books or anything except the austere space, a blanket and a couple very simple preheated meals a day.
“Solitary confinement may only be imposed in exceptional circumstances, and "prolonged" solitary confinement of more than 15 consecutive days is regarded as a form of torture.”
"5 seconds of water bordering isn't torture, but 30 seconds is."
"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.
This seems extremely authoritarian. Obviously prisoners lose many rights due to their conviction, but I see no reason that freedom of speech or of the press should be among them. Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor or otherwise in furtherance of some crime, I think a prisoner should be able to speak with whoever he wishes.
> Unless he is communicating with a former co-conspiritor or otherwise in furtherance of some crime.
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.”
At the risk of being accused of a slippery slope, you could use similar logic to control speech of others too.
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.
I think think you are correct here to a point. If you want to say SBF has lost the benefit of the doubt and is never allowed to engage in business related to crypto or to communicate with the former management of FTX I think that's reasonable. I also think it's reasonable to say that as a convicted criminal in prison the level of suspicion is so high that all your communication with anyone (except lawyers) can be monitored without additional due process. But going from that to "you can't communicate with anyone at all unless we say so" is a step too far.
Seeking a pardon is legal and actions in furtherance of that end are also legal as long as those actions themselves are not crimes. You are allowed to try to "get away it" in the context of legal process. Legally, seeking a pardon is no different than filing an appeal.
> Seeking a pardon is legal and actions in furtherance of that end are also legal as long as those actions themselves are not crimes.
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.
I broadly agree with this but it raises a bigger question -- how do you punish someone who is already in a process of punishment?
That's an especially important question when someone is going through a very long punishment process, like what does another life sentence mean to someone who has a life sentence? You can't execute someone twice, right?
If someone breaks a very important rule in prison there needs to be some way to put an immediate stop to that behaviour and to disincentivize them from doing it again and in a situation like this is seems like solitary confinement is the most effective way to do that.
Surely prisoners still have some privileges that could be taken away as a punishment (going outdoors, books, tv, computers, phone, visits, classes/work...
Have you ever experienced prison yourself or through someone close? Prisons don't put people on a level playing field at all. It is significantly more comfortable to be rich in prison than poor in prison.
A simple middle ground would be confinement to your cell with a book or two, but still in the presence of people. You'd take your meals there, not in the cafeteria. You wouldn't get to hang out with people or go outside. The jail equivalent of a time out. Not fun, probably boring, but not literal psychological torture.
Perhaps not in (for example) the Nordic model. But in some primitive countries, methods to mentally and emotionally torture prisoners seem to have become some sort of art form.
If SBF was able to get a smuggled phone, as the article speculates, to do an unauthorized interview, then he is clearly using his connections to sidestep aspects of his incarceration. Putting him in solitary is an appropriate way to cut him off from engaging in further such corruption, and it should be repeated for any further violations. The only problem here is that it took this long for them to identify that he had the ability to do things like this.
Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same manner as any other citizen.
you don't have to be particularly well connected in prison to get access to a phone. Just knowing who to talk to and being able to give them something they want. phones are right up there with drugs and tobacco being smuggled into prisons.
Tucker Carlson went to court to argue that no reasonable person would believe what he says on the air. [1] Yet American conservatives hang on his every word.
So it doesn't much matter whether the interview was fabricated, edited, or otherwise fraudulent. It was aired to lay the groundwork for a pardon. Look for SBF to receive a pardon from Trump in the future (cf. Ross Ulbricht.)
Tucker Carlson is specifically cited as maintaining that he spoke the truth on page 5. Rather it's Fox News that argues that Tucker Carlson was stating an opinion with hyperbole for effect:
"Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect...
This “general tenor” of the show should then inform a viewer
that he is not “stating actual facts” about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in “exaggeration” and “non-literal commentary.”"
At any rate, the case is a lot more complex than just one guy claiming no one believes anything he says. Using it to justify the possibility that the interview by Tucker Carlson was not with the actual Sam Bankman-Fried by with a potential imposter or AI is absolute bonkers.
Help me out here. What part of "Fox News first argues that, viewed in context, Mr. Carlson cannot be understood to have been stating facts, but instead that he was delivering an opinion using hyperbole for effect" is a "talking point?"
What was Carlson actually stating, and what was the context? Obviously some people took it seriously, or it wouldn't have ended up in court.
> Obviously some people took it seriously, or it wouldn't have ended up in court.
Wait, you actually think he was sued by people who took his statements seriously (aka fans)? The people taking it seriously were likely misconstruing rhetoric in a literal sense. This happens quite a bit. Sometimes the rhetoric is out of line, sometimes not. One could argue that his meaning is clearly understood by fans, like a big inside joke, and that the ridiculous claims are just another form of entertainment.
That said, if you watch Tucker now you'll see that he's much more serious than when he was on Fox News. I don't think applying the results from that case in any way to his independent journalism makes sense.
You're missing out. He gets some VERY interesting interviews and asks the hard questions. I think he went kinda easy on SBF but that is probably because he didn't want to have SBF cut the interview short.
Have you ever sat in a small room, by yourself, with nothing to do, for 24 hours? It's no picnic.
But regardless, what length of time do you think is needed before it could be termed torture? And whatever your answer is, I hope you'd agree that opinions might differ on what that length of time is.
I absolutely agree the length of time and opinions might differ.
He's in prison, it's not supposed to be a picnic. It's also not supposed to be torture. But 24 hours, strikes me as an adult "time-out". He'll be asleep for 8 or more hours of that - more because he's bored, what else is he going to do.
What would you suggest to solve the problem solitary is aiming to solve? Chesterton's Fence was built for a reason. Solitary isn't torturous in the traditional sense of the word. It is consistent with the idea of prison--it's just a worse version of prison. It acts to disincentivize rule breaking within the system. What other ways can we attack this problem with high enough confidence that removing the proverbial "fence" will not result in a total disaster.
The story here is that a criminal that stole billions is staging a prison escape through an openly corrupt political administration and their subservient media apparatus.
Prisons should need a strong medical/safety justification for putting prisoners into isolation, which is torturous for many people.