The UN Detention Unit

January 9, 2006 8:55 AM

How is life for accused war criminals (see e.g. drag-down list at top) awaiting trial at the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia? Stimulating if they enjoy chess or model ships, according to this brief Slate dispatch. How well do such alleged monsters need to be accommodated?
posted by grobstein (39 comments total)

See the word "alleged."
posted by caddis at 9:11 AM on January 9, 2006

It's not just the Serbian warlords. Look at Saddam and Tariq Aziz -- I'd venture to say the U.S. is treating them better than the Guantanamo prisoners. It's interesting how Western civilization institutionalizes a socioeconomic caste system, preserving it even for its enemies. Enron's CEOs are on trial this month... somehow I don't think they'll be going to Huntsville, even if it's found they had been eating investor's babies.
posted by rolypolyman at 9:18 AM on January 9, 2006

They're in prison, even though they haven't been convicted of a crime - the presence of a TV doesn't change that. If convicted it'll still be a prison. Let's cut to the chase: Are you one of these lunatics that seem to believe prison should be about locking people in boxes for 23 hours a day with compulsory anal rape?
posted by biffa at 9:19 AM on January 9, 2006

rolypolyman has it.
posted by brundlefly at 9:23 AM on January 9, 2006

We're playing tag? [runs]
posted by srboisvert at 9:32 AM on January 9, 2006

Although at first it's intuitively difficult to justify such decent treatment of people who are accused of such crimes; given how high profile some of the cases are, and the potential repercussions of one of the accused committing suicide in prison (and the potential conspiracy theories that may follow), it's probably the only way to proceed. Unfortunately it does create, at least on the surface, what appears to be a reward for the famous criminal vs. the common man...
posted by Mave_80 at 9:32 AM on January 9, 2006

Seeing them hang or be incacerated for life would be nice, but what really matters is that they've been taken out of play.

Does Saddam really look like someone who's been having that great a time of things?
posted by Artw at 9:39 AM on January 9, 2006

To say that the merely accused should not be treated well is to tacitly admit that the trials are all just for show, that the outcome is preordained, and that we "good guys" are, deep down, not so very different from the accused.
posted by Western Infidels at 9:43 AM on January 9, 2006

Good point, Mave_80, but it still rubs me the wrong way. If I ever get arrested, I'll ask about the model ship building.

("Indicted War Criminal Volleyball" is my phrase of the day.)
posted by brundlefly at 9:45 AM on January 9, 2006

They'll be sure to put "But he was the better man" on your tombstone.
posted by HTuttle at 9:49 AM on January 9, 2006

. . . the image of deposed army generals working with the construction paper, plastic-tipped scissors, and pots of glue that were strewn around the Formica tabletops, or messing around with the clay that was somewhat lumpily stored on shelves to the side of the room.

I would pay money to see this. Those rooms are monitored, right? Somebody must have surveillance tapes they'd be willing to sell!
posted by schroedinger at 9:51 AM on January 9, 2006

caddis has it. These people are legally innocent until proven guilty. If we start by presuming guilt then it is nothing more than a show trial anyway. For the International Court to have any status at all, all legal niceties must be observed.

And comparisons to Guantamano Bay are irrelevent. Everything about Guantamano Bay is an abomination, one for which I really believe the USA government must be held accountable.
posted by salmacis at 9:56 AM on January 9, 2006

Would any of you want to switch places with these prisoners?

Come on guys! Chess! Ships in bottles! Free TV! Arts and crafts!

Surely somebody here who's complaining would like to live the taxpayer-funded good life, right?

Don't be shy! Step right up!
posted by PlusDistance at 9:59 AM on January 9, 2006

Come on, folks. Of course the accused should not be treated as though already convicted, but that's not an indefinite reason for good treatment -- we can treat them fairly without treating them as nicely as we are. Giving these guys amenities takes them away from other, potentially more deserving people, so it should be considered carefully. The degree of certainty of guilt should be a deciding factor*. Hypothetically, if we could say an accused prisoner was guilty of multiple-murder with 99.9% certainty, then it would probably make sense to start punishing them right away, trial or no. In real life, we can't be that sure (so we need fair trials), but we can still make some middle-ground judgments. If it's fairly likely that these guys did something bad (and, thanks to the ICTY prosecutors' fastidiousness, it is) then it's acceptable to divert some of their arts & crafts allowance and give it to indigent kids (e.g.) instead.

*Suicide prevention is another good, independent reason, but padded cells serve this purpose at least as well as model ships, etc. Merely preventing despondency is not as important.
posted by grobstein at 10:01 AM on January 9, 2006

HTuttle, how exactly does treating somebody in jail humanely, or at least more humanely than the behaviour that landed them in jail lead to your death?
posted by substrate at 10:03 AM on January 9, 2006

Giving these guys amenities takes them away from other, potentially more deserving people

I very seriously doubt that this is true. If we take Sadaam's popsicle sticks away, I'm more than confident that they won't be immediately diverted to Juvi.

I really wish all prisoners lived a more dignified life. The fact of incarceration should be punishment enough. But taking away Slobodon's paste will not alleviate the egregious suffereing in Sing Sing or work any progress toward a middle ground.

Is the comparatively decent treatment of certain types of prisoners unfair (and usually invidious in application)? I think so. But I find the whole "no inmate volleyball" line of argument to be a canard.
posted by kosem at 10:20 AM on January 9, 2006

Apparently special care has been taken to ensure quite remarkable levels of well-being in this prison according to this Dutch article ( hardly readable Babelfish translation here ).
Examples that are mentioned include: the possibility for councelor en client to lunch together, special 'family rooms' to have sex in private with partner, etc.

This is only for people who stand trial and have not been found guilty.

Still the outrage is understandable.

The reason apparently is to make certain the fairness of the court is beyond reproach; so that when somebody is found guilty the sentence has the most chance of being acceptable even to, in the case of Saddam Hussein f.i., Baathists.
posted by jouke at 10:22 AM on January 9, 2006

Agree that instinctively, preventing despondency is not essential for high profile trials like this, but something that is important (perhaps the most important) is that the prosecuting body is seen to be as fair, reasonable, humane and morally righteous as possible. I.e. It is beyond reproach. Putting people in padded cells (or some other equivalent) may be seen by some as rather inhumane and may, in some cases, turn popular opinion against the prosecution if it appears that holding conditions of detainees are unreasonable. I'd also argue that padded cells may not completely prevent suicide attempts, since hunger strikes etc could still be possible (sure forced feeding could be used as a solution, but then you get back to fair, reasonable, humane conditions etc)...At that point, you're suddenly faced with that perhaps preventing despondency is essential.
Still got to admit though, just doesn't seem right that the detainees get these benefits. However, given the "innocent until proven guilty premise" and the pragmatic issues mentioned above, I still think this approach makes the most sense...
posted by Mave_80 at 10:27 AM on January 9, 2006

Thus Slobodan Milosevic according to reports a hemingway hemingway-liefhebber is.

By the way: that the babelfish sounds a bit like Joda is a direct result of Dutch word order in sentences. Probably lots of linguistists have analyzed this.
posted by jouke at 10:29 AM on January 9, 2006

babelfish translation
posted by jouke at 10:31 AM on January 9, 2006

See also: Spandau Prison, a facility in West Berlin that housed Nazi war criminals like Rudolph Hess until they died or were released. For many years, Hess was incarcerated there by himself.
posted by killdevil at 10:34 AM on January 9, 2006

Apart from the laptop computers, that doesn't really sound that much different from a normal prison in any civilized country. Certainly stuff like televisions, books, activities, sports and various classes are completely normal in any prison.
posted by fred_ashmore at 10:37 AM on January 9, 2006

Come on, folks. Of course the accused should not be treated as though already convicted, but that's not an indefinite reason for good treatment -- we can treat them fairly without treating them as nicely as we are. Giving these guys amenities takes them away from other, potentially more deserving people, so it should be considered carefully. The degree of certainty of guilt should be a deciding factor*. Hypothetically, if we could say an accused prisoner was guilty of multiple-murder with 99.9% certainty, then it would probably make sense to start punishing them right away, trial or no. In real life, we can't be that sure (so we need fair trials), but we can still make some middle-ground judgments. If it's fairly likely that these guys did something bad (and, thanks to the ICTY prosecutors' fastidiousness, it is) then it's acceptable to divert some of their arts & crafts allowance and give it to indigent kids (e.g.) instead.

this is, by far, the dumbest thing I've read on Metafilter this year.
posted by mr.marx at 10:44 AM on January 9, 2006

What about those who perpetrated war crimes on the other side of that conflict? They're walking around free.
Or do you believe there were only good guys on one side, and only bad guys on the other?
posted by rocket88 at 10:49 AM on January 9, 2006

The punishment for these people is life in jail, it is not life in jail with spikes in their asses. And the reason for their imprisonment is/should not revenge.

Turn the question around: How badly should such monsters be accommodated? Public humialiation twice a day? Maybe just a bit of torture every month?

The only option for us, "morally superior" people, is to treat these people as well as possible. So that they can't hurt themselves or each other. My guess is that most of the prisoners aren't having the time of their lives even if they have some very basic niceties.

I feel also that differences in European jailsystems, and the American one are a part of the amazement the journalist discribes. I remember seeing one American documentary where they showed Finnish jails where inmates where given massage as a part of their therapy...
posted by hoskala at 10:52 AM on January 9, 2006

Hoskala: these people are accused. So being in this prison is not punishment (yet).
There are differences between american and european jails. But these differences are not that big. This is exceptional within the Netherlands f.i. too.
posted by jouke at 10:59 AM on January 9, 2006

mr.marx : "this is, by far, the dumbest thing I've read on Metafilter this year."

It crossed my mind but the competition is so tough I refrain from passing any final judgement. And it is only January.

What are this middle-ground judgements you speak of, grobstein? The "Not so innocent until proved very guilt" have their model activies restricted and are not allowed any sex? And the "Not innocent at all but we are working on it" go to padded cells with just standard cable channels? Now, the "Really guilty, I don't know why we are wasting money on a trial" get a common prison, or the firing squad right away? And by the way, loved the "will someone think about the (indigent) children" bit. Quite moving.

Let us send them all to a good old American prison so they get properly anally-raped, as the civilized way to deal with any crime mandates.
posted by nkyad at 10:59 AM on January 9, 2006

hoskala : "Finnish jails where inmates where given massage as a part of their therapy."

I believe even the concept of jail time as therapy is inconceivable to most people anywhere in the world. We can only mock the American jails by comparison to Western Europe, indicating the US should really review its view on what are the real responsibilities of any country that considers itself civilized. But always remember that some Asian, African and Latin American jails are worst than any hell we can imagine.
posted by nkyad at 11:05 AM on January 9, 2006

I'm curious at the relativism.

On the one hand, they're only charged with a crime, and haven't yet been proven guilty of anything. The "imprisonment" is just as much to ensure that they don't cause harm to themselves before trial or have someone decide to take the trial into their own hands. Seems like a good idea to both demonstrate compassion and justice at that point.

On the other hand, I'm always appalled at the disparity in the treatment between socioeconomic classes in prison (heck, in court, as well.) I'm always amazed at how in stride we take the idea that folks like Ken Lay, who may have destroyed the future of thousands of workers, should be treated gently, while we cheer on law enforcement officials who slap poor prisoners into chain gangs because the officials are being "hard on crime."
posted by FormlessOne at 11:07 AM on January 9, 2006

What about those who perpetrated war crimes on the other side of that conflict? They're walking around free.

From the article I linked:
In the UNDU there are orthodox Serbians and Macedonians, catholic Kroats and islamic Bosnians and Kosovars. The suspects can cook by themselves and meals are eaten by ethnically mixed groups. For this reason it has been quipped that the UN- prison in Scheveningen is the only place where the Bosnian Peace Treaty of Dayton is carried out entirely.

Sounds like not many sides of the Yugoslav conflict are walking around in freedom.
posted by jouke at 11:12 AM on January 9, 2006

FormlessOne : "The 'imprisonment' is just as much to ensure that they don't cause harm to themselves before trial or have someone decide to take the trial into their own hands. Seems like a good idea to both demonstrate compassion and justice at that point."

Actually, as some of these people have evaded justice for years, sometimes with the help of their governments and fellow citizens, the most strong reason to restrict their movement is to ensure they will be there to stand trial this time around.
posted by nkyad at 11:21 AM on January 9, 2006

grobstein, I'd love to hear your answer to hoskala's question:

Clearly, you think these people should not be given certain priviledges, like I'd assume being able to read books. So, how far should it go? Should they get three meals every day? I sometimes only eat once a day - I'm certainly not being punished. So, it's one meal a day, yes? Is that still too much? Maybe they should have to hunt for their own food - since being handed prepared food is just as good as we get on the outside - right?

Okay, so they should have to hunt for their food outside. People did this for thousands of years, still do to this day - what's the big deal?

Shelter? They can build their own, right?

What exactly is your vision of the kind of treatment that the accused should be privy to?
posted by odinsdream at 11:21 AM on January 9, 2006

I've heard lots of reasonable arguments (especially here) that say the prisoners are being treated appropriately, and they may be right. What's weird is the flood of comments that suggest that, since I implied they're treated too well, I somehow think they should be subjected to the polar opposite treatment (mandatory anal rape has been brought up more than once). I don't think that; that's idiotic.

This is a reasonable question, and if I were a policy-maker on this question I'd answer it carefully and specifically. As is, though, this is only one of many questions I'm interested in, and I'll content myself with a more general answer: I think the correct level of accommodation lies somewhere to the less-cushy side of what's been provided. That's a huge range, and doesn't mean I'm advocating anything crazy or fascistic. The question can be turned around, too -- if I should furnish the "exact" level of comfort I think the prisoners should get, shouldn't Odinsdream et al. argue that the exact level of comfort actually provided (rather than a little more or less) is the right one? (Or, explain why these accused are more deserving than others who are treated less poshly -- Mave_80 starts to answer this question.)

Here's another way of looking at it -- the "merely accused" are being treated better, and allowed more state-provided privileges, than many who haven't been accused of anything. Why is it so crazy to wonder if they've got it (slightly) too good?

Sorry for the long post, but it's clear I needed to do a little self-defense. I think I've answered all relevant questions now (obviously not completely), so I'll shut up. PS I think FormlessOne is on to something.
posted by grobstein at 11:43 AM on January 9, 2006

grobstein: It's this simple, people do not go to prison to be punished, they go to prison as punishment. The loss of freedom is the punishment.

Was your point about the disparity between prisoners of different economic backgrounds? Fine, all prisoners should be treated with dignity - and the Dutch/Scandinavian model seems (to me) the best way to go about that. If it costs a little more then so be it, it's the cost of society being able to look itself in the mirror. If a telly and some model ships helps to promote a more pleasant jail atmosphere then fine.

Here's another way of looking at it -- the "merely accused" are being treated better, and allowed more state-provided privileges, than many who haven't been accused of anything. Why is it so crazy to wonder if they've got it (slightly) too good?

The 'merely accused' or innocent as so many of us liberals prefer to think of them until they get convicted.
Your use of 'privileges' is ludicrous - would a telly make it ok if you were locked up? Would it be a fair trade for your freedom?
With regard to those who haven't been accused of anything - are you looking for us to agree that many more people should get a better deal in life? Then yes, I'm sure I'm not the only one here to think they should. Does that mean these prisoners should be treated like animals as seems to be the goal in US prison policy?
posted by biffa at 12:18 PM on January 9, 2006

If it's fairly likely that these guys did something bad (and, thanks to the ICTY prosecutors' fastidiousness, it is) then it's acceptable to divert some of their arts & crafts allowance and give it to indigent kids (e.g.) instead.

You're either innocent until proved guilty, or you're not. There's no middle ground. What you're saying here is some people are more innocent until proved guilty than others, which is bullshit, and undermines the presumption of innocence for everyone.
posted by Jairus at 1:17 PM on January 9, 2006

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you - Nietzsche

I wish someone would nail that quote on the door of the White House. This country has all but fallen into the abyss.
posted by any major dude at 1:41 PM on January 9, 2006

Of course, there's always the view that giving them certain minor privileges now means that you have something to later take away, as "punishment".

People often miss this concept. The idea is not that prisons should be like holiday resorts, nor is it that prisons should be earthbound incarnations of Dante's Inferno. It's that prisons are places where the inmates should know, 24 hours a day 7 days a week for the period of their incarceration, that they are not in control - that things could, at the whim of an unseen "someone", be worse than they are now. The mental stress this creates can sometimes be the greatest torture of all.

(Some employers like to practice this too.)
posted by Pinback at 4:27 PM on January 9, 2006

Actually, I always thought that the idea of prisons originated with the concept that personal freedom, including freedom of movement, was considered the most valuable possession a person had.

It's part of the reasoning behind the differences between civil and criminal case treatment in court - money is easy to give up, but personal freedom is not. That's why it's so much easier to establish blame in a civil case than it is to determine guilt in a criminal case.

Our prison system has an interesting history - the original goal was detention until punishment, then the system moved towards detention until rehabilitation. Now, the detention itself seems to be the goal - we're less interested in rehabilitation, and we don't practice much in the way of corporal punishment any more (except in the case of the death penalty.)

It's not that folks are missing the concept - I don't think anyone really understands the concept any more. Detention without either punishment or rehabilitation isn't accomplishing the outcome for which the original prison system was intended. It's almost as if the prison system has lost its way, and that we remember that it involved putting people in places from which they weren't free to leave, and forgetting about the rest of it.
posted by FormlessOne at 3:26 PM on January 10, 2006

Detention without either punishment or rehabilitation isn't accomplishing the outcome for which the original prison system was intended.

Detention of any kind has never accomplished the outcome for which the prison system was intended.

Speaking simply, prison doesn't work.
posted by Jairus at 4:30 PM on January 10, 2006