Talk:Supermax prison

message: This page is pretty badly written, conveys little factual information and is US-centric.
--WibblyLeMoende 02:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: AFAIK Souza-Baranowski is in fact a supermax; I do know it's the most secure facility in Massachusetts, the James Geoghan fiasco notwithstanding. There's actually two prisons in Shirley -- Souza-Baranowski is the more secure, while I believe MCI Shirley is considered a medium-security prison. Haikupoet 04:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is over a year old with no defense for inclusion of SBCC on the supermax list.  According to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Corrections (see www.mass.gov/doc) Souza-Baranowski is a level six (highest in the Commonwealth) maximum security facility.  It is indeed located within MCI-Shirley, and is considered to be a seperate facility.  It likely does not conform to the standards of federal supermax prisons, and at any rate, since the Commonwealth doesn't have a "supermax" designation, it doesn't seem appropriate to keep on this list.  I have removed it. 146.243.4.157 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Souza-Baranowski in MA

message: Shouldnt this be a diversity page ? There is at least a Rock Band called "Supermax" which played from 1977 at least until 2002.
Official Supermax Homepage 195.71.97.193 10:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want a page on the rock band Supermax, start one Lurker 11:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted an edit by an IP-address user on the following basis: it's not at all clear (to me anyway) what is meant by registering the brand, and in any case there are (per Google) several other organisations using the name Supermax, so the mere existence of the band as a user of the name is not particularly significant <EM>in the context of the article on prisons</EM>. However, as Lurker says above, if anyone wants to start an article on Supermax (band) that would be great and of course we could disambiguate. Barnabypage 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diversity 

message: I went ahead and removed a paragraph from the introduction.  First, it was incredibly POV and needed to be reworked massively.  Second, another paragraph gave essentially all of the same information that was in the paragraph I deleted (the second-to-last paragraph of the intro) and it's much better.  This information can be in the article, but it needs to be NPOV. --Deville (Talk) 03:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme POV edits 

message: In comments, I meant to add that my edit of 05:28, 5 May 2006 also restored a paragraph that was deleted by User Greif528; cf. diff.  Sorry about the error.  thx, Jim Butler 05:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits on May 5 2006 

message: Can we please stop referring to Moussaoui as "the 20th hijacker"? It is now widely known that he was not here as part of the 9/11 operation, although he was certainly here to train for another, still undiscovered/undisclosed operation. The 20th hijacker was turned away at Orlando Int'l Airport in August, 2001 by a US Customs agent while Mohammed Atta waited in the terminal area for him to arrive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.42.208.182 (talk • contribs) .
:While true, it does remain a functional short-hand on how to describe him. I will add to the description to clarify. - RoyBoy 800 05:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion Point June 8 2006 

message: There is a problem with this article. Either Muhammad needs to be removed, or the Sussex I State Prison in Virginia needs to be added. That is where death row is in Virginia, and it is also where the inmate locator for the Virginia prison system indicates he is. 
I am not certain whether or not Sussex I is a supermax facility, so I'm not making the edit myself. Erechtheus 06:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rethought what I was saying and decided the better policy would be to remove Muhammad. If someone knows Sussex I to be a supermax facility, they can add both the prison and Muhammad back to the article. Erechtheus 06:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This press release by the Virginia Department of Corrections makes it pretty clear Sussex I is not a supermax facility. Erechtheus 23:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Allen Muhammad 

message: While I do hate spam, I gotta say I don't think this guy fits in with the others. Can anyone confirm he's in a supermax? --mitrebox 04:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can offer this. Erechtheus 23:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christopher "Rizler" William Smith "Minnesota spam king"  

message: "Supermax and Special Housing United (SHU) prisons are somewhat controversial in some quarters, as some claim..."?
(how?,which?, and who?)
Crocodilicus 03:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rephrase 

message: I think some sections of this page should be moved to Prisons in the United States and the article renamed to "Maximum security prisons", as "Supermax" is an incorrect nomenclature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TempestSA (talk • contribs) 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supermax? Isn't that a US term? 

message: Right after the paragraph about the inhumane confines of supermax facilities, we say that ADMAX is "a Supermax prison intended to fulfill such a role."
This makes it sound like ADMAX was built with torture in mind. This surely is not the case. The writer probably meant it was built to assuage human rights concerns. I don't know about ADMAX's origins, so I'm not going to correct it. MatthewBurton (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a temporary fix until we can find definitive information on its role. I removed the "intended to fulfill such a role" stuff. Not a complete resolution of the problem, but it's better than it was. MatthewBurton (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ADMAX purpose and human rights 

message: SHU (Special Housing Units) is another term for solitary confinement.  It isn't a supermax prison.  SHU should redirect to the Solitary confinement page, not this supermax page.  What do others think?--Davidwiz (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: SHU

message: If anyone is interested, I have proposed a new Wikiproject concerning prisons here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Prisons 

message: Why aren't all prisons supermax facilities? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.238.133 (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of prison is generally not to bury anyone who ends up there in a lonely concrete box for the rest of their life, although you'd be forgiven for thinking so given the level of public debate about crime. Most prison sentences are not for life, of course, so there is a clear imperative to rehabilitate inmates. The Supermax environment is not exactly tailored to turn those who have fallen into crime into upstanding citizens ready to rejoin society, to put it mildly. Also, it's incredibly expensive to keep someone in Supermax conditions, and security overkill for most prisoners. Old Man of Storr (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future 

message: Supermax is really US-specific terminology. Most of the substantive content of this article talks about prisons in the USA that operate along Supermax lines, rather than giving an international overview. In many Wikipedia articles this is a problem, but in this case it's justified. While there are parallels in other countries which run prisons with 'above-maximum-security' security they do not necessarily correspond well to the Supermax concept. As a result the list of facilities around the world is a mess. I'm not in a position to comment on all of the countries listed but the UK list is full of straightforward maximum-security prisons like Strangeways. These are not Supermax - the point of Supermax is surely that it goes the extra mile beyond what is conventionally regarded as maximum security. The only possible parallels are the 'prisons-within-a-prison' like the special isolation unit Charles Bronson is confined in. These are distinguishable from conventional maximum security (category A) but are still not the same as Supermax. This article should probably lose the international list except where prisons have been directly based on the US Supermax concept. There could then be a separate article on special confinement facilities for the most dangerous prisoners (a good title is needed), which would discuss Supermax as one national example and cover the other countries' approaches currently lumped in with Supermax in this article's list. Old Man of Storr (talk) 03:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It still seems to be problematic in this regard - accounts of high security in the UK (including the now historical "condemned cells") generally focus on heavy supervision and in some cases frequent cell moves to thwart communication etc, with some specific structures in dealing with cases such as Bronson and Maudsley. This generally relates to sections of larger prisons that include a higher number of relatively low-risk inmates, not a special site as with US supermax. I'd favour going over to more of an explanation of approaches rather than listing the various HMPs as equivalents. One obvious problem with getting sources is that official information is limited rather than give potential escapees too much idea what they'd be up against.Billwilson5060 (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: US-specific term, confusion with maximum security elsewhere

message: I have removed this section and its contents.  What is the point? - the supermax facilities in Canada are listed and it should stop at that.--User:Brenont (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Complete list of ''[[Correctional Service of Canada]] (CSC) institutions'' 

message: I was under the impression that both Black Dolphin and White Swan prisons are in the European part of Russia? Why are they included in the "Asia" section?202.171.163.7 (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian max-security prisons 

message: The link in Polk Correctional Institution in North Carolina links to a state prison on Florida not the federal prison in North Carolina.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Javerthugo (talk • contribs) 02:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong link