Colin Dayan, a humanities professor at Vanderbilt University who has studied solitary confinement in Arizona, said many prison administrations use isolation without regard to psychological damage to inmates.After his arrest, Yousef — who expected the death penalty — told FBI agents that he had intended "to topple one tower into the other, and cause a total of 250,000 civilian deaths."
"You no longer know what's real," she said. "You can't speak to anyone; you can't touch anyone: your senses no longer have any outlet. You have delusions and become psychotic. Your mind deteriorates."
February 17, 2013
Ramzi Yousef, convicted after the 1993 WTC bombing, sues for relief from solitary confinement.
He'll never get out of prison, but — after 15 years — should he get out of solitary confinement? But that's not the question asked in a lawsuit. To win the lawsuit, a court has to deprive government of the choice to treat him like that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
94 comments:
Prison is fertile recruiting ground for Islamist terrorists. Screw him. In the hole he goes.
If I have this correct: Part of his argument is that he's been on very good behavior since he's been there, and that should count?
"Despite his good behavior, Yousef says, he is being kept isolated because he is a convicted terrorist, something he can never change — and that, he argues, is a violation of his due process of law."
Except he's been in solitary all this time. So how could his behavior be good or bad?
Meh. He asked for it. I'd have killed him once he was convicted (hell he was proud of it!). And not by a cushy lethal injection, but with a military firing squad.
But that's me.
If he gets into the general population will he be the object of admiration, or will he wind up beaten to death or stabbed?
Let him rot.
Some German guys go to Northern Canada and spend the winter alone in cabins on lakes. I have met a few and they are sane and pleasant and did it for fun (and probably to impress girls back in Germany.) Anyway, I was impressed.
Returning to the Al Qaeda guy, I wonder what sort of conversations this freak wants to have, which are being thwarted by his being kept in solitary confinement?
I would guess this is all just his lawyers finding something to bitch about and keep their case getting a little publicity.
told FBI agents that he had intended "to topple one tower into the other, and cause a total of 250,000 civilian deaths."
This was in 1993 and yet, Clinton and Bush could not anticipate a 9/11 like attack. Oh, yeah, the Repubs were hunting down Clinton for his sexual escapades and he was busy defending himself from SEX related charges, priorities you know.. and because of that the compassionate conservative with no sex scandals gets elected and he couldn't believe he (the black sheep of the family) got elected enough that he was slow to recognize all the red flags and warnings about Sept. 11. Put this way, Obama does not sound so bad. Life goes on for most people.
Show mercy, infidels!
Rick Rescorla heeded the warning
He's lucky we let him live.
The crazies, like the Lefties before them, do everything they can to screw the system, let the system screw him right back.
Of course, the Jihadi In Chief and "My people" won't let that happen.
But we can dream.
Aren't those guard towers at the supermax prison a little close together?
To be an effective defense, shouldn't they be more... isolated along the perimeter?
Re: "You have delusions and become psychotic. Your mind deteriorates."
Sounds like this describes him before he went to prison.
He was delusional and psychotic before he went into solitary. Leave him there.
I would have him breaking large rocks into small rocks in the hot sun 15 hours a day, 7 days a week for the rest of his miserable life.
(or make him work in a pig slaughter house sweeping up organs from the floor.)
I suggest he be offered an alternative punishment: Vertical impalement.
In all good conscience, they could at least let him have a volleyball.
Hard labor doesn't work. It only makes prisoners healthy.
What you want is a 24/7 internet connection.
Who names thir baby girl "Colin"?
When the new Freedom Tower is completed, take him up and unceremoniously chuck him off the roof. His delusions and psychosis will clear right up.
Keep him in Solitary. Recruitment will give the rest of his miserable life purpose, which he does not deserve to have.
@Maguro I'm seeing (on line): "Colin Dayan (also known as Joan Dayan)"
Don't assume the parents gave that name to the baby.
Might be her middle name.
My middle name is a last name, which I could have adopted as my first name, leaving behind the boring name "Ann." I just didn't think of it in time. If I had it to do over, I'd be roaming around under the rubric "Adair Althouse."
Who names their baby girl Adair?
Wow. pm317 wins the New Godwin's Law trophy by bringing George W. Bush into it 5 posts in.
If you want to execute someone for a crime, do it, but isolation shouldn't be used as a sort of purgatory inbetween death and jail.
The quality of mercy and all.
Apparently not being able to hang the guilty bastard, I'd be happy throwing him into a cell and never letting him out. just slide food under the door once a day...
He wanted to kill 250,000, but wasn't lucky.
Life in solitary is a coward's death penalty.
NY doesn't have the death penalty, do they?
I say drone the bass tard.
He wanted to be a mega-mass killer and failed because he only killed a few people. He wanted to be a martyr by execution and we denied him that by putting him in an isolated cell with lots of time to think jihadi thoughts. Now he wants to negotiate the terms of his confinement because he's exhausted his interest in his own ideas.
So sorry, Yousef. You have forfeited the right to engage with your fellow humans.
This shows that situations are always relative. This guy would probably love to go to Gitmo. Yes, he would kill to get there.
" Put this way, Obama does not sound so bad. Life goes on for most people. "
Let's see how you feel after the Iranian nuke goes off in New York Harbor.
A retrospectoscope, like a sigmoidoscope is a tube with an asshole at each end.
Someone should investigate and explain to us where he gets the money to pay for defense lawyers.
Could it be our own taxpayer money funding his defense?
Ann Althouse said...
@Maguro I'm seeing (on line): "Colin Dayan (also known as Joan Dayan)"
Don't assume the parents gave that name to the baby.
Might be her middle name.
My middle name is a last name, which I could have adopted as my first name, leaving behind the boring name "Ann." I just didn't think of it in time. If I had it to do over, I'd be roaming around under the rubric "Adair Althouse."
Who names their baby girl Adair?
Who names their baby girl Scarlett?
Actually Adair sounds like a Bette Davis character in one of those old Warners soap operas she did where she was the bad sister and Henry Fonda or George Brent was the poor dumb schlub caught in her spell.
Adair Althouse - almost sounds like an OSS agent married to an SS Obersturmbannfuhrer working on Heydrich's staff in pre-war Berlin.
You could carry a long cigarette holder (for your e-cig) with a white fox stole about your shoulders saying stuff like, "Whatta dump" and "Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy ride".
He seems to think we should care whether he's stressed out or not.
Why should we?
Prolonged solitary confinement is torture. Either kill him or treat him as a human being.
In solitary confinement we see a stealthy form of torture the only possible value of which is expressed by saying "he asked for it".
In the outrage over water boarding the constant theme was what the practice said about the rest of us but the sanctimonious BO kept Bradly Manning in solitary for years for having pissed him off so badly and for no other reason.
Pretending that prolonged solitary confinement is not torture is even less defensible than tortured locutions like "enhanced interrogation". To expect the rulers to adopt honest modes of expression and open motives is fantasy, of course.
When the sensibilities of the people have been outraged and must be appeased simple justice is often insufficiently retributive. Honest and open treatment for this murderer would grant him a bullet in his brain without delay.
Could it be our own taxpayer money funding his defense?
Another one of those crummy American ideals: everyone's entitled to a defense.
I'd pump in polka music 24 hours a day.
This is why the death penalty is needed.
We should not still be listening to this asshole.
And like other Islamists, he is using the rules of the West to destroy it.
If he'd killed 1 cop, he'd be dead now.
"After his arrest, Yousef — who expected the death penalty — told FBI agents that he had intended "to topple one tower into the other, and cause a total of 250,000 civilian deaths."
He wanted the death penalty. We gave him something he didn't expect and that he finds distressing.
Every once and a while, usually by accident, we get something right.
Riffing a little more off Ann's observation about her middle name being a last name, so is mine, as are many, if not most, people's.
More to the point, it was common in the 19th century for people, particularly WASPs (and WASPirants), to refer to themselves and their family members by their middle, instead of their first, names:
Hiram Grant was called, "Ulysses"; William Sherman, "Tecumseh"; George Custer, "Armstrong".
My father, at first, and his much older brother were known by their middle names and Ann Coulter's father called her, "Hart", instead of Ann.
phx said...
Could it be our own taxpayer money funding his defense?
Another one of those crummy American ideals: everyone's entitled to a defense.
He had his and was found guilty and sentenced according to the law.
Tune in next week when the state of California wastes more taxpayer money on a charade of a parole hearing for Sirhan Sirhan.
Ann Althouse said...
@Maguro I'm seeing (on line): "Colin Dayan (also known as Joan Dayan)"
Don't assume the parents gave that name to the baby.
Might be her middle name.
My middle name is a last name, which I could have adopted as my first name, leaving behind the boring name "Ann." I just didn't think of it in time. If I had it to do over, I'd be roaming around under the rubric "Adair Althouse."
Who names their baby girl Adair?
My grandmothers given name was "Martella"
@CEO-MMP, I brought in Clinton too.. they are all the same Mfuckers including the current one. Neither party is above reproach and neither deserves a medal for doing the right thing. They all suck. Did you get that?!
Is it me, or is everybody snapping at each other?
Can't wait until Spring.
and what, pm317, did you actually say about Clinton? You blamed Bush and Republicans, but you while you did mention Clinton, it was int he context of "oh poor bubba he was busy defending himself from SEX"...
so yeah...if you wanted to say they all suck, say that then.
Nobody would name their kid Jingleheimer.
Agreed: lack of a timely death penalty is cruel, and not just to the murderer, but also his victims. Is there any liberal solution for which the unintended consequences are less bad than the problem? Have the left ever really solved a problem, even once?
And if we aren't going to kill him, how could we possibly "damage" him psychologically? Wouldn't any change be an improvement of someone who tried to kill a quarter million people. I say give him a lobotomy at least.
Jingleheimer wasn't his first name. John Jacob was.
Well its too damn bad he's having to wait on his 72 virgins.
@CEO-MMP.. Clinton was an idiot to get into that fucking mess with Lewinsky. He should have known better, so he could have been a better executive pursuing bin Laden and following clues from the 1993 WTC incident.
I'm with Florence King on this on: "You mean solitary confinement is supposed to be a punishment?
Solitary confinement without access to books -- now, that would be a punishment. But I should think that in prison, the absence of other prisoners would have its advantages. Not getting repeatedly raped, for starters.
Do we not have an unalienable right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment? What is fifteen years of isolation if not cruel and unusual?
This extended isolation business seems like a moral coward's way of giving a death sentence. If you think he deserves the death penalty, then sentence him to it. If not, then you keep in alive and incarcerated, and you treat him like a human being, which he is.
And before someone reiterates that he's an evil criminal, note that barring cruel and unusual punishment was made for evil criminals. Nice people who no one wants to do anything cruel and unusual to do not need that right.
"Could it be our own taxpayer money funding his defense?
Another one of those crummy American ideals: everyone's entitled to a defense."
Thanks for clearing that up. Most of us assumed he had his defense before he was convicted and locked up.
I see other people have been on the mystery of the female Colin. If its her middle name, that's also odd.
My mom grew up in rural WI, and even in her tiny school there were two girls in the same class named "Linda Hasse." So she had to break out the middle name and be "Linda Joan," while the other was "Linda [whatever]."
But I've not run across a woman going by an unambiguously masculine name often. And "Colin" is surely pretty rare as a surname that might be folded in as a middle name.
I like "Adair Althouse," actually. "A. Adair Althouse" would be even better. Triple A!
"Well its too damn bad he's having to wait on his 72 virgins."
That's why he's pissed. His fantasy 16 year olds are now over 30 years old and getting fat and cranky. Not to mention that other jihadis got there first and now he doesn't even get virgins. Plus, to make things worse, the virgins that are still there waiting aren't even women.
What a mess, says Yousef.
Siding with Freeman Hunt here. Very well said.
His victims don't have the opportunity to read a book, to eat a meal, to drink a glass of water. That's cruel and unusual.
I agree with Freeman that it would be preferably to simply execute this criminal, but that is not going to happen.
I do not consider the facts of his incareration to be either cruel or unusual.
Does anyone else wonder why Ann so often writes posts without expressing her own opinion? Not even an "indeed" or "heh"? Is that a law-prof thing? Put a question out there and let others wrestle over it? This question must have come up before, but I don't recall.
I'd take him out weekely and waterboard the motherfucker, then stuff him back in his hole. And relish the fear that he has when he hears that knock on the door.
sucks to be you. I'm sure Andy Sullivan's heart bleeds, though.
This is how you torture an islamist terrorist. This is the life a potential terrorist risks.
Locked in a room. all by yourself. with nothing but your ugly thoughts.
CEO-MMP, 10:42,
Nicely done, exposing the sophistic CYA rhetorical tactics the left is so prone to use.
And Freeman answers my question. We should care because not to care makes us into little terrorists ourselves. He is a human being.
That leaves the problem of his influence on the prison population.
The thing you've missed Gary Rosen is this, pm317 is NOT a liberal. I disagree with 99% of what she has to say.
Wyo Sis. I dont accept the premise that being alone for an extended period is cruel and unusual punishment. Given the choice of being hung or put in isolation for the rest of your life most would choose the latter. They would quickly tire of being alone and would long for company but that longing is only punishment, not cruel punishment and not unusuAl in the intended sense. Our own humanity will always lean toward mercy but we have been conditioned to believe that it is axiomaticaly cruel not to have what we want when we want it. Let him ask again in ten years.
The story isn't clear about who decided this murderous creep -- I mean this prisoner -- should be held in solitary confinement. If the sentencing judge did it, then you'd have a cruel and unusual punishment question. But if the warden did it, under his/her authority to maintain order within the prison, and assuming the warden followed the required procedures, then you'd have an abuse of discretion question.
Knowing what I think I know about jihadists in prison, the decision to hold this murderous creep -- I mean this prisoner; I keep doing that -- in solitary seems imminently reasonable.
But that means that reasonable measures should be taken to make solitary confinement less depressing for this murderous -- this prisoner. I suggest piping music into his cell 24/7, something light and frothy, and spiritually uplifting. Something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLB15kBvn_c
Yo, Ramsi. Meditation.
Put this way, Obama does not sound so bad.
pm -- really?
Or is it the 350+ drone attacks (IIRC) into Pakistan that make him not so bad?
Clinton dropped the ball on taking bin Laden when he was offered up. And of course he appointed Jamie "Build-that-wall-and-don't-talk-to-each-other" millionaire courtesy-of-Fannie&Freddie Gorelick. Nice.
The government should set Ramzi Yousef free for punishing him with solitary confinement, enough is enough. Maybe NPR, MSNBC, NYT or the education department of the University of Chicago could hire him. Nothing reforms like a good job.
"We should care because not to care makes us into little terrorists ourselves."
Nonsense. It makes us practical human beings able to recognize and deal with dangerous people who will kill us if given the opportunity. The danger here is not that we'll become "little terrorists", it's that we place our own peace of mind over the lives of innocent people.
@ pm317
"This was in 1993 and yet, Clinton and Bush could not anticipate a 9/11 like attack. Oh, yeah, the Repubs were hunting down Clinton for his sexual escapades and he was busy defending himself from SEX related charges, priorities you know"
The ignorance and stupidity: they are strong in you.
It sounds like Dayan is arguing for capital punishment, or perhaps she believes that people willing to commit premeditated murder are capable of rehabilitation. If the latter, then the criminal should be released in her care, and she should bear full liability for his actions and responsibility for his welfare. He should not be eligible to displace law-abiding members of society. People who do not commit or support acts of involuntary or fraudulent exploitation.
pm317:
Clinton and Bush Sr., were the proximate causes of 9/11. Clinton's responsibility rests with not concluding military oversight of Iraq. He was also responsible for poking and prodding people in Afghanistan, Sudan, and other places into action.
So, the proximate cause of 9/11 can be attributed to Clinton's policies. Perhaps he hoped that hiding the human rights violations, including murder, rape, and involuntary organ sales, committed by Kosovan Muslims would be sufficient to temper their ambitions. He was wrong.
As for the sexual affair, it was a problem in two ways. First, it was an act of adultery, which would normally be an issue between him and his wife. Second, it was an act of superior exploitation by the president of a subordinate in his charge, which is a violation of workplace laws. His major failing, however, was to lie about his affair under oath. That is what prompted impeachment. Perhaps that was excessive, but it at least merited a formal and public censure.
It is dissociation of risk which causes corruption. It is dreams of material, physical, and ego instant (or immediate) gratification which motivates its progress.
Solitary confinement is only torture to extroverts. To me it would be boring but if I had something to read, it would mostly be a stress free environment.
Maybe I'm the only person to think like this, but here's my reason for the little terrorist remark.
My first instinct is that what this guy wants is death. He comes from a culture of death. Death is not feared. They consider themselves dead from the moment they committ to terrorism. So, what, to him, would be worse than death? Worse than anything he can imagine?
Solitary confinement.
For me to wish the worst torture he can imagine on him makes me a little less humane. As a Christian, I should want his redemption.
I don't. I want him to suffer. Constantly. Forever, starting now. That takes me a little closer to his way of thinking and a little further from compassion.
Freeman Hunt said...
Do we not have an unalienable right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment? What is fifteen years of isolation if not cruel and unusual?
This extended isolation business seems like a moral coward's way of giving a death sentence. If you think he deserves the death penalty, then sentence him to it. If not, then you keep in alive and incarcerated, and you treat him like a human being, which he is.
And before someone reiterates that he's an evil criminal, note that barring cruel and unusual punishment was made for evil criminals. Nice people who no one wants to do anything cruel and unusual to do not need that right.
Thanks, Freeman, for the reasonable and moral response. Dealing with a "murderous creep" does not relieve us of our obligation to do the right thing.
It's a mistake to confuse punishment with torture. Torture is used to extract information. We as a society disapprove of that method of interrogation, so that in the criminal context we don't allow the police to work the suspect over with a rubber hose, and in the terrorist context those who support water boarding must deny that it is torture (they make a persuasive case, but that's not the topic under discussion).
Punishment is used on those who have been convicted of a crime. What the Constitution prohibits is "cruel and unusual" punishment. That's the standard to apply if you object to a particular sentence, not "torture".
If someone claims that a particular punishment (such as a life sentence in solitary) is cruel and unusual, it isn't a valid legal response to say, Well, we could have executed him/her, and this is not as bad as that. If accepted, such an argument would render the "cruel and unusual" limit on punishment nugatory for all potentially capital crimes.
Do you remember "The Man Without A Country"? The prisoner had supported Burr's treasonous actions against the United States and was sentenced never to see or hear of the United States again. A punishment that fit the crime, certainly. Was it cruel and unusual?
I hadn't seen Marie's comment when I wrote my last one.
If anyone was offended that I referred to this prisoner as a murderous creep, just because he killed a lot of people and was so sorry he didn't kill more, I apologize. Of course, I was being facetious.
And I do agree that we should "do the right thing", even to m*rderous cr**ps.
But let's remember that one purpose of punishment is to prevent the convicted person from doing harm again. And when we either execute him/her or incarcerate him/her for life without parole, that is because we don't EVER want that person to have a chance to try again.
In that context, doing the "right thing" includes not only the comfort and mental health of the convict, but the assurance that he/she will not have a chance to assist, encourage, promote, etc. others (not imprisoned for life) to carry on his/her work.
Wyoming Sis: I understand completely your Christian impulse but is it ours, as Christians, to afford more than our forgiveness and prayers to those whose evil is manifest? Is not our desire fundamentally to make ourselves feel better about ourselves, to wrap ourselves in a certain sanctimony that may not match the reality of this man's intentions? How, for example, would our Christian feelings be twisted if he were released into the general population of the prison and stabbed to deal brutally the first day in the yard? Or stab another? Or bring into his evil thinking dozens of others who would go on to kill? What price are we willing to pay for our own gooey ethics?
Yousef's uncle is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged Sept. 11 mastermind. He's a celebrity in the world of jihadis. The judge is correct in keeping him isolated.
He'd probably rape and behead that nice professor, Colin Dayan, who's so worried about whether he is being treated like a human being, if he had half a chance. Well, maybe he'd give her a chance to convert to Islam first, then rape and murder her.
After 15 years of solitary he hardly sounds psychotic, he sounds cunning and manipulative in his complaints. Apparently his hatred and devotion to jihad have kept his mind sharp.
Michael, you don't have to put him with normal criminals. You could put him with others who have life and no shot at parole. They can have We Love Jihad parties everyday until they die behind those prison walls.
Freeman Hunt,
Michael, you don't have to put him with normal criminals. You could put him with others who have life and no shot at parole. They can have We Love Jihad parties everyday until they die behind those prison walls.
OK, fair enough.
I still think that between solitary w/books and commingling with a bunch of men locked up for life for doing presumably nasty stuff, I'd be inclined to prefer the solitary.
Freeman. They all have lawyers with access to the world. Rmember the blind sheik's lawyer who passed deadly messages to his cohorts.
Or what if a "nothing to lose" lifer was a patriot happy to carry out the death sentence we would not?
Well, there are a lot of "what if's" out there. My particular reasoning is about my own impulses. Of course he should never have the opportunity to influence any other person. To that end I support the death penalty. He should have been executed. That he wasn't gives me a perverse satisfaction because lifetime solitary confinement is, to him, worse.
The perverse satisfaction part of me is the part I'm worried about and the part that Freeman reminded me about. It might be squishy, but it's those sorts of squishy problems that can get us off on tangents.
If you think he's too dangerous to live, you kill him. They didn't do that. There is no living death fallback position. If he's alive, he has certain unalienable rights.
Also, the fear of the guy seems a bit overblown. Is he magical? He's a guy who's been in prison for fifteen years and will be in prison for the rest of his life. What information is he supposed to have?
I don't like this current trend of out of sight out of mind justice.
Michael, people get killed in prison sometimes; that doesn't mean you can lock people up in solitary forever to protect them.
Gang up on pm day here on this thread, some without class. I am right smack in the middle and want to hold both parties feet to the fire. Let us try to be intellectually honest about these politicians whichever side they and you are on. The righties are not perfect and the lefties are on a path to ruin and taking the country with them after hoisting a nincompoop like Obama on us. Having commented here for some time now, I thought some of you regulars may have pegged me but apparently not. At least try to be civil next time around.
pm317, I think you're awesome. I'd buy you beer.
Freeman Hunt. The inalienable rights are life (he has it) liberty (he forfeited it) and the pursuit of happiness (he is free to pursue).
I agree that there is an ethical dilemma here but I am wrestling with whether it is really mine or not. It would certainly make me feel good to know that I think he should get what he asks for for some humanitarian reason, some Christian impulse that I act on. But is it for himor for me that I have that impulse? Is there not a discipline of thought, of character, that might require the harder choice, the "no?"
Godfather said:
In that context, doing the "right thing" includes not only the comfort and mental health of the convict, but the assurance that he/she will not have a chance to assist, encourage, promote, etc. others (not imprisoned for life) to carry on his/her work.
I agree with that. I wasn't particularly offended that you called him a murderous creep. I was reacting to the impulse seen in this thread and the Dorner thread to out do each other in excoriating the bad guy.
Yes, we know. He's a bad guy. That's why he's in prison. He was sentenced to life in prison, not life in solitary. That part of his sentence was imposed by the warden at the prison, not by the court. I'm not sure the warden should have the power to do that. Put someone in solitary to protect his life or to protect order in the prison...but as additional punishment? No.
If the warden can't protect the prisoner or keep order in the prison, then perhaps someone needs to look at the warden's job performance.
Marie says that she thinks this guy is being held in solitary, on the orders of the warden, as additional punishment for his crimes. If that were true, I would object to it as ultra vires; wardens don't have the authority to change the sentence of the court, whether they think it's too lenient or too strict.
But there's no evidence in the news story that this prisoner is being held in solitary as additional punishment, as opposed to for the security and good order of the prison.
If any of the commenters who feel sorry for this guy's treatment have evidence that the treatment is ultra vires, they should tell us what that evidence is. Until convinced of that, I see no reason to think this prisoner is being treated unfairly.
But is it for himor for me that I have that impulse? Is there not a discipline of thought, of character, that might require the harder choice, the "no?"
I don't think the harder choice is the no in this case. I think that's the easy choice. It's popular, no one cares about the guy, and out of soght out of mind.
The roght choice in the beginning would have been to execute him, but that time has passed. You live with the choices you make, and they chose to lock him up. Being a criminal does not deprive one of the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. That's a right specifically for criminals.
I respect Freeman Hunt's principles.
After his arrest, Yousef — who expected the death penalty — told FBI agents that he had intended "to topple one tower into the other, and cause a total of 250,000 civilian deaths."
This is why 9/11 was basically a failure.
They imagined the two towers crashing down on the rest of the financial district, wiping out other buildings.
They imagined—at minimum—at least 40-50k dead.
They did not plan on the buildings collapsing vertically.
Colin Dayan is a literature professor who purports to study the criminal justice system. She has written some highly imaginative meditations on incarceration.
She is not an expert on anything other than her own imagination, Caribbean literature, and exploiting anti-Americanism in order to advance her career in academia.
Post a Comment