Privacy in the brig?

[Sisko_is_my_captain]

Have any of the novels addressed the fishbowl effect in the brig? I've often wondered how (or if) the prisoner got any privacy to use the head or change his prison garb. Wouldn't sticking someone into a transparent box, where one is stared at for days on end with no break, be a form of cruel and unusual punishment?

 

[Christopher]

How is that any different from a barred prison cell today?

 

[Sisko_is_my_captain]

There seems to be somewhat more privacy in a modern US prison, at least as far as I know. The brig is more akin to Hannibal Lecter's cell in Silence of the Lambs, but worse, from a privacy standpoint, because a brig officer appears to be standing directly in front of the brig cell, able to see in at all times. Modern prison cells at least don't have an officer looking in all the time, and windows don't usually make up the entire front wall. Barred walls, like you see in jails, aren't the norm for long-term holding (as far as I know).

 

[DimesDan]

I guess they could darken the forcefield on the brig if it were possible.

I never understood from an in universe reason why the Brig's were like they were. It has always seemed a tad strange that it was three walls and a bloody big window. Shouldn't they really have a room, with a door and the computer monitoring the room or a security guard sat at a desk monitoring the room, ala Babylon Five.

Although saying that, having three walls and then bars across the forth doesn't make much sense either.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I've never understood why Trek brigs use forcefields when they're proven to fail at every oppertunity. Forcefield plus bars or plus doors would make a lot more sense... but it would eliminate the lazy-writing "prisoner escapes during power faliure" story.

 

[Christopher]

I've never understood why Trek brigs use forcefields when they're proven to fail at every oppertunity.

Same reason they use tractor beams instead of tethers and ray guns instead of projectile weapons -- to code the technology as "futuristic," regardless of whether it makes practical sense. It's a holdover from the SF pulps of the 1940s-50s, which were pretty much the source of most of Star Trek's tropes and concepts.

 

[Smellincoffee]

The simplistic brig sets were also probably influenced by the need for economy -- they're not used that often. I think DS9's sets were used more often than any other series.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I've never understood why Trek brigs use forcefields when they're proven to fail at every oppertunity.

Same reason they use tractor beams instead of tethers and ray guns instead of projectile weapons -- to code the technology as "futuristic," regardless of whether it makes practical sense. It's a holdover from the SF pulps of the 1940s-50s, which were pretty much the source of most of Star Trek's tropes and concepts.

Yes, forcefields can fail, but bars and walls can be vaporized or otherwise shot away.

 

[chelly]

Or depending on the alien they can be easily pulled apart. I think Worf or Spock could easily pull apart the bars. Or am I making them stronger then they really are. (is that a tv trope?)

 

[TiberiusMaximus]

I guess they could darken the forcefield on the brig if it were possible.

Well, since Trek holograms are 'photons and forcefields', the technology for creating forcefields is easily interfaced with the technology for creating holograms, which can be opaque. So I think it would be possible and probably used. Never seen on-screen, but then again we never see anyone go into a bathroom on Trek either...at least not to my knowledge.

 

[chelly]

You know my first thought after reading this thread was "where is the toilet in the brig". Do they let the prisoners out and let them go to a bathroom that is down the hall.

 

[David cgc]

In The Final Frontier, Kirk used a toilet that was normally retracted into the wall of the brig as a bench.

 

[PsychoPere]

^ Speaking of which, anyone know why there was signage on that wall stating not to use if in Spacedock?

 

[David cgc]

It was a joke. Toilets on trains have a similar sign saying not to flush them while at the station, as they don't have a sewage tank, and just drop whatever is there straight on the track.

 

[PsychoPere]

Ah, got ya. I didn't think there could possibly be a "real" reason for it, but I've never been on a train so that little joke has always gone right over my head.

 

[SicOne]

^ I'm a locomotive engineer. On modern freight trains, the toilet is like a chemical toilet, and they vacuum-suck them empty and then refill with blue toilet chemical, like on aircraft. One day I saw the vacuum tube rupture, spraying the poor guy operating the sh!t-sucker. It was quite spectacular.

 

[Sisko_is_my_captain]

If they wanted to get real fancy, they'd just beam prisoners into a hollowed-out solid duranium box with:
+Network of external sensors that monitor the prisoner without any pesky power sources needing to be inside the box.
+Chemical light
+Bunk
+Sonic shower (if you're feeling generous)
+Limited replicator (or rations pack) (again, if you're feeling generous)
+Chemical toilet (with no outlet from the prison box)
+Rebreather-type chemical gas processing system (also with no outlet) that converted their waste gases into their breathing gases.

Power loss? Ha! No problem for at least a few days until the chemical toilet, light, or air rebreather needs replenishment. Doesn't even phase the box.

Physically line the box with kelbanite or a similar transporter blocking mineral after the prisoner goes in. Shape-shifting alien? No holes to ooze through. Borg drone? Skip the toilet, shower, and maybe the food. It's the perfect prison.

Prisoner giving you trouble? Just withhold the new gas exchange cartridge. That pesky scratching noise coming from inside the box will eventually go away.

 

[Timo]

I don't see the need for a physical prison when Trek seems to have life-suspension technologies in abundance. One could apparently just shove the person in a fancy box that turns off his lights for an indefinite length of time, without having to worry about bedsores or the like.

This would take away the torture aspect of imprisonment, because the person wouldn't feel anything (including confinement or the passage of time) when in stasis. But if torture were the point, I'm sure UFP technology could provide a wide range of options that would cause maximum distress with minimal physical consequences.

However, it doesn't seem as if the UFP believes in any sort of prison. People aren't kept locked in a cell for punishment: they are kept there for short periods of time because letting them move about freely would pose a risk. Long term imprisonment is extremely rarely mentioned; instead, it seems people are held against their will only for a standard length of time (six months) to facilitate psychological or medical treatment that removes their criminal urges. And even this holding seems to take place in rather benign conditions, if the New Zealand penal colony is any indication; only hopelessly violent cases would end up on Elba II.

(To be sure, Eddington was in long-term rehab in "Blaze of Glory", and Sisko found him in a holding cell. But that might have been just where he was being held just prior to his transfer to Sisko, rather than where he had spent the past months.)

For brief holding of a high-risk person, I don't see why privacy should be an issue. The whole point of holding that person is to constantly monitor what he's doing, after all, and to stop him from doing what he shouldn't. An aquarium-type holding cell would appear ideal for that purpose.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I
This would take away the torture aspect of imprisonment, because the person wouldn't feel anything (including confinement or the passage of time) when in stasis.

That's the whole POINT of prisons. Prisoners are supposed to feel the passage of time. That's not torture, that's normal punishment.

 

[Cybersnark]

If they wanted to get real fancy, they'd just beam prisoners into a hollowed-out solid duranium box

And maybe bury it under Stonehenge, with a time-lock. . .