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.

I would prefer, of course, that it wasn’t solitary.

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.

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.

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.

Please educate yourself: https://www.jailhouselaw.org/your-rights-prison

Prisoners do not have all their constitutional rights. If your argument is that they should, then that’s a different discussion.

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.

Slave workers

Punishment

That’s implicitly authoritarian.

Many other countries try reparation and resocialization

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.

It’s precisely the desire for the rule of law that make it so unsettling right now.

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)?

I am not relitigating his conviction here. I am assessing the relative threat were he to succeed and be pardoned. Simple.

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.

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.)

Padded room too, just in case.

Isn’t that the reason you need permission in the first place?

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.”

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.

He did this constantly leading up to the trial, at some point you lose the benefit of the doubt

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.

Yes prisons generally are like that.

Solitary confinement is torture, plain and simple. I'm not a fan of SBF, but no one should have to endure it, even just for 24 hours.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/02/united-state...

I cannot find a single reputable source that states solitary confinement for a total of 24 hours is torture.

"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.

Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same manner as any other citizen.

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.)

1: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/greedy-associates/tucker-...

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Mc...

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.

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.

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.

I'll take your word for it, how's that.

Are you by any chance familiar with prison?

That's a whole new sentence.

There's no logical progression from:

"Billionaires like him should serve the same time in the same manner as any other citizen."

to

"only billionaires can get contraband in prison"

Rethink the modalities in the two comments and try again.

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.

For average folks, sure.

Like, the well behaved could be served pork chops and peas instead of slop and mush.

That's why it's used as a punishment.

I think it might actually be. It can break people.

"Traditional" is irrelevant; psychological torture is just as much torture as physical torture is.

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.

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.