Solitary confinement is the practice of separating a single prisoner from the rest of the inmate population, usually in a cramped and depressing setting. Depending on the seriousness of the offense committed by the prisoner or the potential risk they pose to themselves or others, the practice may extend for days, weeks, months, or even years. Due to worries about the practice’s effects on convicts’ physical and mental health, it has attracted more attention in recent years.
The practice of isolating inmates has a long history and was initially used to reform prisoners in the early 19th century. At first, it was thought that isolating inmates would inspire them to consider their deeds and repent, decreasing recidivism. Solitary confinement was initially utilized as a kind of punishment for rebellious criminals. Still, as time passed on, it was more employed to punish weak criminals or to remove them from the rest of the jail population. Due to growing worries about prison violence in the late 20th century, there was a resurgence of interest in the practice, especially in the United States.
This essay aims to evaluate the use of solitary confinement, particularly in the United States, from two angles: that of the inmate’s rights under the Constitution and Supreme Court case law and that of prison administrators and the need to control disruptive inmate conduct. The essay will also look at the effects of solitary confinement on prisoners and consider alternatives. The discussion of the current condition of solitary confinement and future improvements that might be put into place to alleviate the concerns highlighted by the practice will serve as the paper’s conclusion.
The Rights of Inmates under the Constitution and Supreme Court Case Law
Cruel and unusual punishment is forbidden by the United States Constitution’s Eighth Amendment. According to how the amendment has been construed in relation to solitary confinement, isolation must be both necessary and proportionate to the offense the offender has committed. According to the Supreme Court, lengthy solitary confinement may be considered cruel and unusual punishment, significantly if it seriously harms the prisoner’s bodily or mental health. Equal protection under the law and due process are guaranteed by the United States Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment has been read in the context of solitary confinement to suggest that inmates must receive sufficient procedural protections before being placed in isolation. This involves being informed of the reasons for the placement, having a chance to be heard, and having the sequence periodically reviewed to ensure it is still required and appropriate.
Further direction on the use of solitary confinement in prisons has been offered by Supreme Court case law. The Supreme Court ruled in Estelle v. Gamble in 1976 that willful disregard for a prisoner’s urgent medical requirements falls within the Eighth Amendment’s definition of cruel and unusual punishment (Justia Law, Estelle V. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).). The Supreme Court ruled in Sandin v. Conner in 1995 that inmates do not have a constitutional right to be free from “administrative segregation” unless it places an “atypical and serious hardship” on them (Justia Law, Sandin V. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).). In Davis v. Ayala, the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that lengthy solitary confinement may qualify as cruel and unusual punishment, particularly if it seriously harms the prisoner’s bodily or mental health (Justia Law, “Davis V. Ayala, 576 U.S. (2015).”). These examples show that, while solitary confinement is not inherently unlawful, it must be used sparingly and in a reasonable amount and that prisoners must get sufficient procedural safeguards and medical treatment while in isolation.
The NYTimes OpEd article: The Living Death of Solitary Confinement
Solitary confinement is cruel and vicious and should be outlawed. According to studies cited in the article, prolonged isolation can have a negative psychological impact, leading to sadness, anxiety, hallucinations, and suicidal thoughts (Guenther). The paper contends that the practice is detrimental to the objectives of rehabilitation and recidivism reduction and draws attention to the disproportionate use of solitary confinement on vulnerable populations, such as those with mental illness or disabilities. According to the author, solitary confinement is torture that infringes upon fundamental human rights and is ineffective at controlling disruptive conduct in jails (Guenther). In order to reduce recidivism and advance public safety, the author contends that alternatives to solitary confinement—such as greater access to mental health care, education, and job training—are more beneficial. Using solitary confinement is not only harsh and immoral, but it also serves the opposite purpose of rehabilitation and recidivism reduction. Long-term isolation has been linked to severe psychological effects, including despair, anxiety, and hallucinations, according to research (Guenther). This is especially true for vulnerable groups who are disproportionately kept in solitary confinement, such as those who have a mental illness or disability.
The article also mentions the example of Kalief Browder, a minor who spent two years in solitary confinement without being tried. After being released, Browder finally committed himself, underscoring the severe harm that can result from extended detention. The article concludes by citing research demonstrating the superior effectiveness of alternatives to solitary confinement, such as expanded access to mental health care, education, and job training, in reducing recidivism and enhancing public safety (Guenther). This implies that solitary confinement may be not only cruel but also unsuccessful in attaining the objectives of the criminal justice system.
On the one hand, the NYTimes OpEd piece makes a compelling case against the use of solitary confinement by referencing studies and data that show its significant psychological effects and disproportionate use on vulnerable populations. Increased access to mental health care, education, and job training, among other alternatives to solitary confinement, according to the author, maybe more beneficial in lowering recidivism and enhancing public safety. The managerial perspective contends, however, that isolation is required to control disturbances caused by defiant offenders. They can maintain that some offenders are too dangerous or disruptive to live in a group setting and that solitary confinement is required to safeguard guards and other prisoners. I think there are vital points on both sides of the debate over using solitary confinement. When determining what information and research should be taken into account when deciding on alone confinement policies and procedures, this is crucial.
The Managerial Perspective on Solitary Confinement
Solitary confinement is viewed from a managerial viewpoint, which emphasizes the need for the practice as a tool for controlling disruptive conduct in prisons. The perspective contends that maintaining order and discipline in a prison setting requires isolation from the outside world. Solitary confinement is a vital tool, according to proponents of the managerial perspective, to control disruptive behavior in prisons. According to them, some inmates pose a threat to the facility’s security and safety, and isolating them from the general public is the only effective way to deal with this conduct.
Supporters of the managerial approach cite examples of solitary confinement’s success in controlling violent or disruptive conduct in prisons as proof of their case. They contend that despite the practice’s shortcomings, it is a vital tool for addressing safety issues in the prison setting. The managerial perspective’s proponents also claim that safeguards, including a review procedure and the engagement of mental health professionals, are in place to ensure that the practice is utilized responsibly. According to critics of the managerial perspective, solitary confinement is frequently overdone and ineffective at addressing the underlying reasons for disruptive conduct (Guenther). Critics contend that the technique can seriously affect one’s psychological state and, in certain instances, may even intensify troublesome behavior.
“Solitary Confinement: Investigative Reports” Video
A 45-minute documentary titled “Solitary Confinement: Investigative Reports” explores the practice of solitary confinement in American prisons. The documentary includes interviews with professionals in the disciplines of law, psychiatry, and corrections, as well as current and past prisoners who have been held in solitary confinement (Kurtis). Evidence of the negative impacts of solitary confinement on prisoners, including significant psychological distress and bodily injury, is shown in the video (Kurtis). The overuse of solitary confinement in American prisons is also explored in the documentary, with a focus on vulnerable groups, including those with mental illnesses or physical disabilities. The video also emphasizes the use of solitary confinement alternatives, including restorative justice initiatives and improved access to mental health treatments (Kurtis). The experts in the video contend that these alternatives are more successful than the use of solitary confinement in encouraging rehabilitation and lowering recidivism.
The idea that solitary confinement in jails is damaging and frequently ineffective in attaining the objectives of the criminal justice system is supported by the facts presented in the video. The video highlights the psychological damage that solitary confinement can do by giving an insider’s view of what it was like for prisoners who had to endure it (Kurtis). The video also shows evidence of the overuse of solitary confinement in American prisons, particularly with regard to vulnerable groups (Kurtis). The use of solitary confinement as a management tool rather than a last option to address safety issues raises questions in light of this.
The Effects of Solitary Confinement on Inmates
Solitary confinement can have severe physical impacts on convicts. Inmates who are isolated frequently have little access to exercise, which can result in weakening muscles, decreased endurance, and a variety of other physical health problems. They might also have poor nutrition as a result of insufficient food alternatives or restricted access to meals. Perhaps the most well-known and alarming side consequences of solitary confinement are psychological ones. Prolonged isolation has been linked to severe mental health problems, such as anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and hallucinations, according to research. As a result of their incarceration, prisoners can experience PTSD or other severe mental health issues (Reiter et al.). Inmates who have gone through solitary confinement frequently also experience social consequences. Due to social exclusion, stigmatization, and the psychological trauma of their detention, many prisoners report difficulty reintegrating into social settings after their release. Some people might also start to distrust other people or start acting aggressively and violently more often.
There are a dozen of new pieces of information that support the consequences of solitary confinement on prisoners. For instance, isolated confinement sufferers were more likely to report chronic pain, migraines, and other physical health difficulties (Tayer et al.). Inmates who were forced into solitary confinement had more excellent rates of sadness and anxiety even years after their release (Reiter et al.). The findings raise serious concerns about the moral propriety of using solitary confinement in the criminal justice system since it suggests that the impacts of this practice on prisoners can be severe and persistent.
Alternatives to Solitary Confinement
Interventions that try to deal with inmates’ problematic conduct without using isolation are alternatives to solitary confinement. Restorative justice, treatment plans, and other strategies that support recovery and reintegration are some examples of such options. The goal of restorative justice is to make amends for the harm that criminal activity has caused by engaging in the process of negotiation, mediation, and reparation. This strategy has been demonstrated to lower recidivism rates and increase public safety because it emphasizes the significance of accountability and teamwork between offenders, victims, and the community. Treatment programs can also be useful alternatives to solitary confinement, particularly for offenders with mental health concerns or substance use disorders. It has been demonstrated that programs that give participants access to mental health treatments, education, job training, and other forms of support help detainees behave more responsibly and facilitate a smooth transition back into society.
Studies from various fields suggest that these approaches may be beneficial in fostering rehabilitation and lowering problematic behavior, adding to the mounting evidence in favor of alternatives to solitary confinement. For instance, a 2018 Vera Institute of Justice report discovered that restorative justice practices could lower recidivism rates by as much as 60% (Vera Institute of Justice). Other studies have also demonstrated educational, and career training programs contribute to successful re-entry by lowering recidivism. Overall, the evidence points to the potential effectiveness of alternatives to solitary confinement in encouraging rehabilitation and reducing problematic conduct among prisoners.
The Future of Solitary Confinement
Despite a growing understanding of the harm it may do to convicts, solitary confinement is still frequently used in many correctional facilities in the United States. Solitary confinement is still often employed as a primary form of punishment and management in many facilities, despite measures that certain governments have put in place to cut down on its use. To decrease the usage of solitary confinement and lessen its negative impacts, several proposed reforms have been put forth. One solution is to reserve solitary confinement for the most challenging situations, such as those involving violent offenders who endanger others. Another choice is implementing alternatives to solitary confinement, such as restorative justice initiatives or expanded access to mental health and rehabilitation services. Additionally, some proponents have asked for more accountability and transparency in using solitary confinement and regular assessments and monitoring of the circumstances under which offenders are housed.
If changes are made, it is feasible that fewer prisoners will be kept in solitary confinement, which would enhance their living conditions and lessen the harm from extended isolation. Implementing such measures, meanwhile, would be difficult due to opposition from the correctional personnel and worries about public safety. If improvements are not made or if there is a lack of political will to address the issue, it is also likely that the use of solitary confinement will continue at its current levels despite proof of its adverse effects. Solitary confinement’s destiny ultimately depends on the choices and deeds made by legislators, incarceration staff, and the general public.
Conclusion
This paper examined the topic of solitary confinement from several angles. The NYTimes OpEd article, which provided data on the detrimental effects of extended isolation, as well as the rights of prisoners under the Constitution and Supreme Court case law, were discussed. It was also looked at from a managerial standpoint if solitary confinement was necessary. Additionally, the documentary “Solitary Confinement: Investigative Reports” offered more proof of the drawbacks of solitary confinement. It investigated how solitary confinement affected prisoners physically, psychologically, and socially. Using restorative justice and therapeutic plans as alternatives to solitary confinement was also considered. The future of solitary confinement was finally examined, along with possible changes and outcomes.
I feel that the use of solitary confinement should be avoided whenever possible. The research indicates that restorative justice and treatment programs, as opposed to solitary incarceration, may be more beneficial in enhancing public safety and lowering recidivism. Future ramifications include the need to reconsider using solitary confinement as incarceration. According to the findings in this paper, solitary confinement has more negative consequences on prisoners than positive ones. Therefore, more compassionate and effective alternatives to solitary confinement should be considered by legislators. These solutions include restorative justice, treatment plans, improved access to mental health treatments, education, and job training. The ultimate objective should be to have a criminal justice system that emphasizes rehabilitation and public safety more than revenge and punishment.
Works Cited
Guenther, Lisa. “The Living Death of Solitary Confinement.” Opinionator, Web.
Justia Law. “Estelle V. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976).” Justia Law, 2023, Web.
- “Sandin V. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).” Justia Law, 2023, Web.
- “Davis V. Ayala, 576 U.S. (2015).” Justia Law, 2023, Web.
Kurtis, Bill. “Solitary Confinement.” Investigative Reports, Solitary Confinement | Alexander Street, Part of Clarivate, 2000, Web.
Tayer, Liat, et al. “The Long-Term Effects of Solitary Confinement From the Perspective of Inmates.” The Prison Journal, vol. 101, no. 6, SAGE Publishing, 2021, pp. 652–74. Web.
Vera Institute of Justice. “Human Dignity and Prison Design.” Vera Institute of Justice, 2019, Web.
Reiter, Keramet, et al. “Psychological Distress in Solitary Confinement: Symptoms, Severity, and Prevalence in the United States, 2017–2018.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 110, no. 1, American Public Health Association, 2020, pp. 56–62. Web.