ARGUMENT

1. Introduction

Ms. Kim has been placed in an impossible “Hobson’s Choice” between two terrifying conditions of imprisonment. On the one hand, she may “choose” to live in general population in a men’s facility where she would be in serious danger. On the other, she may “choose” to stay in solitary confinement and suffer the torture of prolonged indefinite isolation and its attendant harms. Neither option comports with minimum standards of human rights.

There is no doubt that as a teenager, Ms. Kim committed a very serious crime. Nonetheless, that Ms. Kim is deprived of her liberty does not mean she is deprived of the right to be treated with dignity. She should not have to choose between the heightened risk of assault in general population in a men’s prison or spending her life in solitary confinement.

For Ms. Kim to show that her treatment in DOC violates article I, section 14, this Court must assess whether the conditions of confinement “create an objectively significant risk of serious harm or otherwise deprive them of the basic necessities of human dignity” and then must determine if “those conditions can be justified only when they are reasonably necessary to accomplish legitimate penological goals.” In re Pers. Restraint of Williams, 198 Wn.2d 342, 368, 496 P.3d 289 (2021).

The Seattle NLG urges this Court to consult international law when deciding whether Ms. Kim has met her burden of proof.

Such a review leads to the conclusion that the State of Washington should protect Ms. Kim from conditions which threaten her personal safety and take special care with regards to her conditions of confinement due to her status as a member of a vulnerable population. Neither her transfer to a men’s prison nor the option to be permanently housed in solitary confinement fulfill the State’s obligations.

ARGUMENT

Introduction

Ms. Kim faces a difficult choice between two severe forms of imprisonment. One option is to live among the general population in a men's prison, where there is a serious risk of harm. The other option is to remain in solitary confinement, enduring long-term isolation and its damaging effects. Neither of these choices meets basic human rights standards.

Ms. Kim committed a serious crime as a teenager. However, being imprisoned does not mean she loses the right to be treated with dignity. She should not have to choose between a high risk of assault in a men's prison or a life spent in solitary confinement.

To demonstrate that her treatment violates Article I, Section 14, a court must determine if the prison conditions "create an objectively significant risk of serious harm or otherwise deprive them of the basic necessities of human dignity." The court must then decide if "those conditions can be justified only when they are reasonably necessary to accomplish legitimate penological goals." This standard comes from In re Pers. Restraint of Williams, 198 Wn.2d 342, 368, 496 P.3d 289 (2021).

The Seattle NLG advises this Court to consider international law when deciding if Ms. Kim has met the burden of proof.

Such a review suggests that the State of Washington should protect Ms. Kim from conditions that threaten her personal safety. Special consideration should be given to her confinement conditions because she is a member of a vulnerable group. Moving her to a men's prison or offering permanent solitary confinement does not meet the State's responsibilities.

Summary

Ms. Kim faces a difficult situation in prison, forced to choose between two unacceptable living conditions. One option is to live in the general population of a men's prison, where she would be at risk of harm. The other option is to remain in solitary confinement indefinitely, which causes significant psychological distress. Both options fail to meet basic human rights standards.

Even though Ms. Kim committed a serious crime as a teenager, she still deserves to be treated with dignity while incarcerated. She should not have to choose between potential assault in a men's prison or continuous solitary confinement.

To determine if Ms. Kim's treatment violates legal standards, a court must evaluate if the conditions pose a significant risk of harm or deny basic human dignity. If so, the court must then decide if these conditions are truly necessary for legitimate prison objectives. International law can also offer guidance in this decision.

Considering these factors, Washington State should ensure Ms. Kim's safety and provide appropriate living conditions, especially given her status as a vulnerable person. Neither moving her to a men's prison nor keeping her in permanent solitary confinement meets the state's responsibilities.

Argument

Introduction

Ms. Kim faces an impossible choice between two harsh forms of imprisonment. One option involves living in the general population of a men's facility, where she would be at serious risk. The other option is to remain in solitary confinement, enduring long-term isolation and its related suffering. Neither of these choices meets basic human rights standards.

Even though Ms. Kim committed a serious crime as a teenager, losing her freedom does not mean she loses her right to be treated with dignity. She should not have to choose between a higher risk of assault in a men's prison or living her life in solitary confinement.

To prove that her treatment violates state law, the court must decide if the prison conditions create a significant risk of serious harm or deny basic human dignity. The court must then determine if these conditions are truly necessary for legitimate prison goals.

The Seattle NLG asks the court to consider international law when deciding if Ms. Kim has met her burden of proof.

Looking at international law suggests that Washington State should protect Ms. Kim from conditions that threaten her safety. The state should also take special care with her living conditions because she is part of a vulnerable group. Neither moving her to a men's prison nor keeping her in solitary confinement permanently fulfills the state's duties.

Summary

Ms. Kim is in a very difficult situation in prison. She has to pick between two bad choices. One choice is to live with men in a prison, which could be very dangerous for her. The other choice is to stay alone in a small room for a long time, which can also hurt her. Both choices are not fair and go against basic human rights.

When Ms. Kim was young, she did something wrong. Even so, she should still be treated with respect. She should not have to choose between being in danger in a men's prison or being alone forever.

The court needs to decide if Ms. Kim's current prison situation is truly harmful or takes away her basic human respect. If it is, the court must then decide if these conditions are truly needed for a good reason. The Seattle NLG wants the court to also look at international rules when making this decision.

Looking at these rules shows that Washington State should keep Ms. Kim safe. The state should also be extra careful because Ms. Kim is a vulnerable person. Moving her to a men's prison or keeping her alone in a room forever does not meet the state's duty to her.