Every time a prisoner wins a Human Rights case, there is always a clamour of people queuing up to see who can be the most amazed /outraged within the AB community.
And usually, I chime in with the same point – so will happily do so again.
In a civilised society, punishments are decided and implemented by law.
In this case the punishment deemed suitable is loss of liberty – and that is what the punishment is supposed to be.
Regardless of the crime for which any prisoner is incarcerated, it is the loss of liberty that is the punishment – that does not mean that prison authorities get to add on their own individual extra portions – that is against the system of justice that keeps society civilised.
We don’t add in flogging, electrocution, exposure to (other) psychopaths, or any of the endless list of things that the outraged think should happen to the prisoner in question, because that takes us down the road of mayhem and loss of control of our society.
That is why – in this case – the use of solitary confinement has been correctly judged as a cruel and unusual punishment, and the prisoner has won his case.
If people want to put into practice the harsh levels of punishment, the lack of which outrages them so much, then they need to move to somewhere in the world that is less civilised than Europe, and enjoy the systems employed there – but that of course means living under the repression of the governments that exercise such brutality – and the risk of it being visited on them without recourse to justice.
Civilisation comes at a price, and one of those prices is equal treatment of prisoners regardless of their crimes – imprisonment is the punishment, and the only punishment, anything else leads to cases of abuse of human rights being proven, and it will always be so.