this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
245 points (99.2% liked)

politics

25717 readers
2902 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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.