Solitary Confinement: Forced isolation-issues and concerns
One of the more disquieting trends prevailing in the American correctional system is the rising instances of drawn out and at times fixed practices of cruel solitary isolation in “supermax” prisons to detain prisoners that the government deem as extremely dangerous. Majority of these prisoners are detained for extended periods in solitary confinement facilities. In a number of states and in the Federal correctional system, there are a number of inmates that have been literally sent to harsh solitary confinement for all of their sentences in prison. For example, a set of prisoners in the Ohio correctional system have been designated as “long termers,” prisoners who are not and will never be allowed to be detained outside of the 23-hour detention system (Lobel, 2008, p. 114-115).
Individuals sent to isolation confinement are restricted to a cell for a period of 22 to 24 hours a day. Through their time in this type of detention, the inmates are deprived of any substantial or worthwhile human interaction or therapy. Inmates sent to the facilities are held for months, years and even decades during their “stay” in prison. These facilities go by a number of names-the “Box,” “Bing,” or the SHU; regardless of the name, these facilities develop inhuman environments that result in the infliction of deep and perpetual physical, mental, and social damage both to individuals who are mentally steady and for those who have antecedent mental health issues (Correctional Association of New York, 2013, p. 1).
In the challenge of the Center for Constitutional Rights against solitary confinement, the Center filed suit against California on the state’s policy of prolonged use of solitary confinement at the notorious Pelican Bay correctional facility. The Supreme Court, in Wilkinson v. Austin, collectively ruled in favor of CCR that “prison officials cannot confine prisoners in long-term solitary confinement in a super maximum prison without first giving them the opportunity to challenge their placement.” In the statement of the group, being placed in these situations can be considered as “cruel and unusual punishment” in clear transgression of the Eighth Amendment. In addition, the international community views solitary confinement as equivalent to acts of torture (Center for Constitutional Rights, n.d., p. 1).
Nevertheless, the Federal judicial system has not definitively ruled on the question on whether the detention of an inmate perpetually or for extended periods of time in a “supermax” prison can be considered as “cruel and unusual punishment.” Though there is a substantial amount of literature that solitary confinement inflicts negative mental and physical effects, the Federal judiciary though there are a number of exemptions that state that the practice of solitary confinement is in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
In Madrid v. Gomez, the court ruled that though the SHU in Pelican Bay can inflict some degree of mental damage on a number of the inmates in the facilityit is unlikely that the level of mental damage “exceeds the kind of generalized psychological pain that courts have found compatible with Eighth Amendment standards.” Even though the courts have held that being placed in solitary confinement can develop the possibility of inflicting grievous mental harm to inmates, the possible harm did not attain the level of a risk that was of a “sufficiently serious magnitude” to determine a “per se” infringement of the Eighth Amendment for inmates that have been sent to solitary confinement units (Lobel, 2008, pp. 119-120).
The use of solitary confinement procedures in prisons have been ruled against in cases such as LaChance v. Commissioner where the Massachusetts Supreme Court restated the principle that the use of isolation units is a cruel punishment that must be steadied with strong legal safeguards. A Superior Court judge ruled partially in favor of the respondent, stating that the policy infringed on Mr. LaChance’s due process rights under the state and US Constitution (ACLU, 2012, p. 1).
In order to arrest the potential threat that these isolation chambers pose to inmates in the correctional system, there is an increasing number of jurisdictions that have asked for assistance via independent analysts to deal with the issue of the overutilization of isolation units. Among the proposed alternatives to solitary confinement include the establishment of “missioned housing” where targeted services can be accorded for prisoners with psychological illnesses, personality and developmental disorders, or those threatened with sexual assault, anger management training, implementing a policy for incentivizing positive actions in prison, and engaging inmates to foster “pro-social” behavior.
However, one of the prime means to do away with the negative imagery attached to isolation detention is to shift the antithetical standards found in isolation and align those with the standards that is in society. Corrections officials must teach inmates to become productive members of society, and not only inmates that will not pose a threat to or disrupt the normal operations of the prison. Wardens must be able to incorporate pro-social principles in their correctional methods. This is to ensure that former inmates that will be eventually be released back into the community (Justice Fellowship, n.d., p. 1).
Prisoners that are sent to solitary confinement, which is a relatively miniscule part of the overall prison population in a facility, must be given more, not denied, supplementary medical and therapeutic assistance, programs, and benefits to help in dealing with the underlying roots for their deviant behavior (Correctional Association of New York, 2013, p. 1).
References
American Civil Liberties Union (2012). “Massachusetts high court rules against prolonged solitary confinement without due process.” Retrieved 14 October 2014 from <https://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/massachusetts-high-court-rules-against-prolonged-solitary-confinement-without-due
Center for Constitutional Rights (n.d.). “Torture: the use of solitary confinement in U.S. prisons.” Retrieved 14 October 2014 from <http://ccrjustice.org/solitary-factsheet
Correctional Association of New York (2013). “New York groups unite in call for alternatives to solitary confinement in prisons and jails.” Retrieved 14 October 2014 from <http://www.correctionalassociation.org/press/new-york-groups-unite-in-call-for-alternatives-to-solitary-confinement-in-prisons-and-jails
Justice Fellowship. (n.d.). “Solitary confinement: isolation and administrative segregation.” Retrieved 14 October 2014 from <http://www.justicefellowship.org/solitary-confinement
Lobel, J. (2008). Prolonged solitary confinement and the Constitution.” Journal of Constitutional Law Volume 11 issue 1 pp. 115-138
