It is unquestionably more harsh than planting a garden with one's friends. But I'll do you the courtesy of pretending that argument was in good faith, and point out instead that solitary confinement is in a completely different spirit than any punishment proposed in the text of the constitution. I don't know which jury member decided it ought to be on the table, or why none of the others objected, but it was improper. It ought to be challenged.
I am not calling for any sort of blood. I am not necessarily calling for more punishment. I am raising a grievance against the biased way it seems to me punishment has been meted out, and the illegal actions of our elected representatives over the past - however long it's been. It feels like an age. Naturally the circumstances imposed upon us by the scientists are inhumane. It's not unreasonable to take that into account when weighing the guilt or innocence of any one offender. But those inhumane circumstances must be given equal weight when you're deciding the fate of someone you've grown up with, or someone whom you detest. And I fervently believe that that has not been the case.