The Science of Solitary Confinement 326
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Joseph Stromberg writes in Smithsonian Magazine that while the practice of solitary confinement is being discontinued in most countries, it's become increasingly routine within the American prison system. It is estimated that between 80,000 and 81,000 prisoners are in some form of solitary confinement nationwide. Once employed largely as a short-term punishment, it's now regularly used as way of disciplining prisoners indefinitely, isolating them during ongoing investigations, coercing them into cooperating with interrogations and even separating them from perceived threats within the prison population at their request.
Most prisoners in solitary confinement spend at least 23 hours per day restricted to cells of 80 square feet, not much larger than a king-size bed, devoid of stimuli (some are allowed in a yard or indoor area for an hour or less daily), and are denied physical contact on visits from friends and family ... A majority of those surveyed experienced symptoms such as dizziness, heart palpitations, chronic depression, while 41 percent reported hallucinations, and 27 percent had suicidal thoughts...
But the real problem is that solitary confinement is ineffective as a rehabilitation technique and indelibly harmful to the mental health of those detained achieving the opposite of the supposed goal of rehabilitating them for re-entry into society. Rick Raemisch, the new director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, voluntarily spent twenty hours in solitary confinement in one of his prisons and wrote an op-ed about his experience in The New York Times. 'If we can't eliminate solitary confinement, at least we can strive to greatly reduce its use,' wrote Raemisch."
Most prisoners in solitary confinement spend at least 23 hours per day restricted to cells of 80 square feet, not much larger than a king-size bed, devoid of stimuli (some are allowed in a yard or indoor area for an hour or less daily), and are denied physical contact on visits from friends and family ... A majority of those surveyed experienced symptoms such as dizziness, heart palpitations, chronic depression, while 41 percent reported hallucinations, and 27 percent had suicidal thoughts...
But the real problem is that solitary confinement is ineffective as a rehabilitation technique and indelibly harmful to the mental health of those detained achieving the opposite of the supposed goal of rehabilitating them for re-entry into society. Rick Raemisch, the new director of the Colorado Department of Corrections, voluntarily spent twenty hours in solitary confinement in one of his prisons and wrote an op-ed about his experience in The New York Times. 'If we can't eliminate solitary confinement, at least we can strive to greatly reduce its use,' wrote Raemisch."
Re:isn't it used on violent prisoners? (Score:5, Interesting)
Some of them are violent prisoners, certainly, but a large portion are not. It's frequently used as punishment for nonviolent criminals, and also for 'protection' of inmates who are likely to be harmed by other inmates.
It's also, as the article points out, essentially torture. Do we want that even for violent offenders? I don't. I also don't want to take the risk of torturing somebody who was wrongfully convicted. As far as 'never being normal' -- well, even populations of violent offenders can have low recidivism rates.
Prisons Poorly Managed (Score:2, Interesting)
The health of a prisoner is the responsibility of the state. Allowing damage, including mental illness, to an inmate should be criminal. The use of solitary confinement is not acceptable. Denial of the basics such as free to read books, access to media and films, poor food quality are all modes of torture and are not part of a prison sentence.
Yes, inmates are often bad people. But the catch is that prison workers, cops, the people that accuse, the people in the justice system and the typical tax payer are alos usually really bad people.
We're not about rehabilitation (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Corrections" (Score:5, Interesting)
You should stop. Just stop. Clearly you don't know anything about the topic at hand and you are making a fool of yourself.
Reforming them s always better. Even if they don't get out of prison, having them be a calm member is safer and healthier.
There are people in for life that have nothing to do with safety.
Why you think being in for life means they'll do anything for kicks is baffling. Maybe you're the type of person who attacks people for kicks?
What you are talking about is a tiny percentage of those currently being held in solitary.
If someone is always attacking people, they have mental issues and should be treated as such.
"In fact, often the threat of solitary is the ONLY thing that keeps some prisoners from doing this."
Fact? what fact? you're ass?
Re:Why is revenge still a role of justice? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually it does.
W can look at the US's own history for this.
Through the 70s, prisons were corrective. they where nicer, people were treated humanly, and they had program so when the person got out, they had opportunities.
Recidivism rate were low.
Then Reagan era republicans started pushing hard for privatization of prisons.
Which lead to those company pushing for longer sentences and the BS 3 strike laws. They are also the reason for the myth of 'Advocate Judges'
Re:isn't it used on violent prisoners? (Score:5, Interesting)
those who have attacked others or have shown to have colluded in harming people outside the prison system?
a lot of these people are bad people and deserve what they get and will never be normal
That statement evaluates to 'true' (one way of getting assigned to a supermax, or tossed in the hole, is shivving a few guards or doing something suggestive of a little of the old ultraviolence); but it's one of those 'true' statements that verges on a falsehood by omission: You aren't going to get a ticket to Florence ADX or anything without showing some character; but in 'mixed' prisons that have a general population and some isolation cells people can, and do, end up doing long solitary stints more or less at the power and merely pleasure of correctional staff. If the wrong person is in the wrong mood, there really isn't a 'floor' below which your infraction can't earn you a trip to solitary, nor, once inside, is there any real bother with 'process' similar.
Like getting sent to the principal's office, only with harrowingly high odds of psychiatric morbidity(including behaviors punishable by.....you guessed it More Solitary!, like self mutilation, a laundry list of alarming neuropsychological effects, extremely high suicide rates(despite conditions designed to make this quite difficult). Happy times.
I'm not generally accused of being a bleeding heart; but I'd be perfectly willing to argue that anyone willing to inflict prolonged solitary confinement, rather than actually-competent execution(unfortunately, this excludes most of the methods we use on humans, for some insane reason) is guilty of naivete at best, and overt sadism at worst.
It's... generally a bad sign... when a procedure is considered nasty enough that you aren't allowed to do it to lab rodents without specific justification and an IRB signoff on your protocol and that aspect specifically...
Ain't that bad in small doses... (Score:5, Interesting)
I just did five years in Federal prison and did two stretches in the SHU (basically solitary), totaling about two months. First time was for drawing on a paper food service hat. Second time was for being a smartass to the prison shrink.
Me, I didn't mind it so much. Peace and quiet (though occasionally you get a screamer on the range). Got some reading done. Meditated.
But you only get to make one call every thirty days. No coffee, no commissary. The cops keep the place cold like a meat locker. Lights never go off.
It's not for violent criminals. You get sucker punched or stomped and you go to the SHU for 30 days for an "investigation". You file a grievence against a staff member and you go in for a 90-day "investigation". You get the flu or scabies and you're in there for two weeks: quarantine.
The really violent people end up on a USP or AD-Max in Florence, CO.
I didn't mind the SHU because I enjoy a bit of solitude now and then. But in California, there are guys who've spent decades in the hole. That totally fucks you up.
-k.
Re:Why is revenge still a role of justice? (Score:2, Interesting)
The role of imprisonment in the justice system carries several desired outcomes. First, it acts as a deterrent to criminals by making it clear that there is a consequence to their actions. Second, it serves as punishment of a criminal. Third, it serves as a protection for society from an individual criminal by directly preventing repeat offenses. Fourth, it serves as an opportunity to rehabilitate a criminal and turn them into a potentially productive member of society. A fifth role that most people don't particularly desire is it provide profits to the imprisonment industry. I claim that in much of the United States far too much attention is paid to the second role, and far too little to the fourth. The second role has no societal benefit; it is essentially a luxury. The fourth role provides real value and should be one of the most important aspects of the prison system.
Socially accepted uses of a prison: (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Remove a danger to society
2. Acting as a deterrent
3. As a punitive measure (strongly related to item #2)
4. To provide rehabilitation
To date, analysis[1] has shown that never in the verifiable recorded history of crime and punishment, has any prison, anywhere, ever had a non-negligible impact on recidivism rates. Some pre-established percentage of people continue to commit crimes after a jail sentence, regardless of changes to enable rehabilitation. Education, trade skills, access to medicine & counselors, 'nice' quarters, access to games and exercise, work release programs, etc - no appreciable impact.
Even punishments like public shaming (very big in medieval times) have no impact on the average number of individuals willing to commit the crime again. Even torture (short of permanent harm) has no real lasting impact, though it does often result in the individuals using more effort to reduce the risks of getting caught.
In short, prisons do not rehabilitate prisoners, and they never have.[2] [3]
Pretending they they do, or can and then making screeching noises when they fail - or worse, throwing money at them so they can try yet another fad get-lawful-quick program is just irrational. Blaming the system for not working as one expects only shows the value of those expectations.
Here's the takeaway: The only things prisons are good for is removing a danger from society and providing a punitive threat as a deterrent - and even that last one has only limited impact.
For those interested in constructive comments, the fix is obvious and simple; spend that money on fixing those parts of society that give rise to crime. Focus on education, focus on a two-parent household, focus on employable skills, and so on.
[1] - oy. Google it, read some books, and take a few criminal justice classes. Personally, I'd start with this book, http://www.amazon.com/CRIMINAL... [amazon.com] because it's a fascinating read, but your mileage may vary.
[2] - though there's nothing to say they couldn't eventually. Maybe cryogenically freeze them and subliminally imprint upon them the desire to knit when they're stressed? Could work.
[3] - Technically, life in prison works, in that they don't commit any more crimes, but the important point to note is that rehabilitation programs STILL have no impact on this rate. So it doesn't count either.
Re:isn't it used on violent prisoners? (Score:4, Interesting)
By definition it does. You can either put them in a huge room by themselves or a small room by themselves, but some people will use any human contact AT ALL to try to become violent.
Can you come up with a plan not involving solitary confinement where a prisoner is physically unable to throw feces at you as you deliver their food?
There are some prisoners who are put in solitary because they literally use every opportunity they can to throw their own feces at people. Some say that is because they are in solitary and were driven to do this, but for others they were put in solitary BECAUSE they do this. The sad practicalities of prison make it very difficult to isolate these types of individuals without putting them in solitary.
Re:Socially accepted uses of a prison: (Score:4, Interesting)
[1] I googled it. The first few links showed the opposite.
e.g. here [dropoutprevention.org]
[2] Wow, I'm glad you told me about this google thing...you should really try it:
Boston Reentry Initiative [crimesolutions.gov]
I almost agree with you here, but I disagree that (as per most problems) the fix is either obvious or simple. Many problems require a variety of fixes to be tried, evaluated, and modified in order to come up with the most effective set of solutions.
Should we focus on education: Yes
Two-parent household: In some circumstances. What about the case of an alcoholic, abusive spouse? Single mothers? Dad who just takes off? Widows/widowers?
Employable skills: Yes. I strongly believe that universities should be subsidized for degree programs that are determined to be "employable" and no subsidies or loans allowed for degree programs that are not. We have enough art history majors right now, thank you very much.
That being said, I see no reason to also simultaneously not work on reforming, re-educating and reintegrating prisoners back into society as productive members. Many prisoners are the result of society dropping the ball on the items above, and are just helping to create the next generation of criminals.
As with most things, it's not an either-or solution. Do both.
Re: isn't it used on violent prisoners? (Score:4, Interesting)
But there's a whole other discussion here on the culture, environment and profound lack of mental healthcare that breeds the violence that breeds this type of violence. Unfortunately, it's a discussion America doesn't seem willing to have.
Re:isn't it used on violent prisoners? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not quite. We have known cases of people being exonerated after taking a plea bargain when exculpatory evidence comes out. It is inherently difficult to figure out exactly how many innocent people are jailed, but we can put a floor on it and the floor is above 0.
Random example I found in two minutes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]. After being released, he secretly recorded a confession from his "victim".
They've done studies like this one (http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/06/13/6603/plea-bargainings-innocence-problem/) which show, when accused of a "crime" they didn't commit and offered a choice between a bad option and an investigation that could lead to a potentially-worse option, around half the people took the bargain. Obviously, the case here isn't the same as "5 years in jail and a life of minimum wage jobs vs. flip a coin, heads gets you life in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, tails gets you a shot at a sports career".
Re: Ain't that bad in small doses... (Score:5, Interesting)
The administrative remedy process was seemingly designed by Franz Kafka to be an exercise in bureaucratic futility.
You have 15 days to file a BP-8, which you must get from your counselor. If he only visits the SHU every three weeks, you're SOL. If you do manage to file, it goes to your case manager and unit manager, who will veto it. Then you have a limited amount of time to file a BP-9, which theoretically goes to the warden. In practice, it stops at an assistant warden's desk. Denied. So you try to file a BP-10 to the regional office. You need to attach all supporting documents, including the original incident report. Good luck getting those from your counselor or case mangler. If you do manage to file it, it will come back in 4 months with a dot-matrix printed page of boilerplate reasons why your grievance is denied. Last but not least is the BP-11, which goes to BOP Headquarters in DC. By this time you're either dead or on the bus to the halfway house.
Only when the process is completed can you petition a court for action under 18 USC 1983.
It's like a bad high school production of Terry Gilliam's "Brazil".
-k.