Quote Originally Posted by econ21
Emphasis added to the "limited contact with prison staff only" part - I've never quite understood "solitary confinement". It seems a particularly cruel and unusual punishment, not unlike that inflicted by those nutters who kidnap other children or lock up their own (there were a couple of Austrian cases a while back). It's hard to imagine a more severe punishment short of inflicting chronic pain - we are such social creatures.

Then again, my lack of understanding may be because I've never been really seen the appeal of retributive punishment at all. Lock em up to keep them from causing harm or deterr others, but why impose further suffering when it will do no good?
Well, I guess the theory is to deter future criminals, not just to lock up the dangers to society.

You're right, though, in pointing out that this will have little effect with religious-based crimes.

Either shoot them now (impossible, iirc, as Britain doesn't have a death sentence) or just lock them up.

Ironically, I suspect terrorists may be among the kind of criminal most susceptible to reform and rehabilitation. Idealistic, often intelligent, young men they may well grow out of it or see the world has moved on. This thought is prompted by reading the weekend's Sunday Times exert about an ex-jihadi and hearing about the Brighton bomber appearing on a BBC programme with some of his victims.
It would be an interesting experiment to attempt to discover whether prolonged exposure to a 'non-radical' imam would change the views of convicted terrorists for the better.

As long as exposure to the original 'bad influence' is removed (ie. by chucking the perpetrators in jail) it might have a chance of success...