Human Rights Coalition "Abolish Solitary" Platform:
Sources and Citations
(questions? email bretgrote@yahoo.com)
Human beings are social creatures, and we need regular contact with other humans
in order to maintain our health, well-being and sanity.
Craig Haney and Mona Lynch, Regulating Prisons of the Future: A Psychological
Analysis of Supermax and Solitary Confinement, 23 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 477,
503-06 (1997).
503-04—social contact and the maintenance of “self”: Classic theory and
research in social psychology have underscored the importance of social contact
for the creation and maintenance of “self.” Indeed, two of the very first social
psychologists--Charles Cooley and George Herbert Mead--premised their theories
of selfhood entirely upon social interaction. Cooley's evocative term--“looking
glass self”--suggested that we look to others and in them see identity-forming
reflections of ourselves. [FN120] Mead also emphasized the importance of direct
feedback from others in establishing a sense of self, writing that “[w]e appear as
selves in our conduct insofar as we ourselves take the attitude that others take
toward us . . . .” [FN121] More recently, Leon Festinger's pivotal theory of social
comparison processes posited an essential human “drive” for social evaluation
that pushes people to belong to groups and associate with *504 others. [FN122]
Researchers have documented the importance of social comparison to concepts
about the self, [FN123] perceptions of relative deprivation, [FN124] and feelings
of equity or fairness. [FN125] In a related series of experimental studies, one
social psychologist documented the increased need to affiliate with others in order
to interpret emotional states, especially in the face of ambiguous and anxietyarousing situations. [FN126] Subsequent research on this issue added catharsis,
interpersonal support, and self-esteem as components of the strong need to be
with others--all needs that go unfulfilled when persons are isolated or alone.
505-06—isolation as core feature of “brainwashing” and coercive
interrogation techniques: Finally, the importance of social contact in grounding
human identity and contributing to mental health is indirectly underscored by the
frequency with which isolation is used to create or intensify human malleability.
Techniques of coercive interrogation or so-called “brainwashing” virtually always
include extreme forms of social isolation. As two students of these techniques
wrote:
Man is a social animal; he does not live alone. From birth to death he lives in the
company of his fellow men. When he is totally isolated, he is removed from all of
the interpersonal relations which are so important to him, and taken out of the
social role which sustains him. His internal as well as his external life is disrupted.
*506 Exposed for the first time to total isolation . . . he develops a predictable
group of symptoms, which might almost be called a “disease syndrome.” [FN132]
Among the symptoms identified as part of this syndrome were bewilderment,
anxiety, frustration, dejection, boredom, rumination, and depression. In addition,
the authors observed that “[s]ome prisoners may become delirious and have visual
hallucinations.”
Depriving a person of nearly all contact with others can cause irreversible
psychological damage in as little as 2 weeks.
Craig Haney and Mona Lynch, Regulating Prisons of the Future: A Psychological
Analysis of Supermax and Solitary Confinement, 23 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 477,
530 (1997).
530—every study longer than ten days shows negative psychological effects:
There is not a single study of solitary confinement wherein non-voluntary
confinement that lasted for longer than 10 days failed to result in negative
psychological effects.
Stuart Grassian, Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement, 22 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y
325, 331 (2006).
331—even a few days of solitary: Indeed, even a few days of solitary
confinement will predictably shift the electroencephalogram (EEG) pattern
toward an abnormal pattern characteristic of stupor and delirium.
Peter Scharff Smith, The Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prison Inmates: A Brief
History and Review of the Literature, 34 Crime & Just. 441, 503-04 (2006).
503-04—risk increases daily: “The overall conclusion must therefore be that,
though reactions vary between individuals, negative (sometimes severe) health
effects can occur after only a few days of solitary confinement. The health risk
rises for each additional day in solitary confinement.”
Interim Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment U.N. Doc. A/66/268 (August
5, 2011) (Defining solitary confinement in ¶ 26 as “the physical and social isolation of
individuals who are confined to their cells for 22 to 24 hours a day.”).
¶ 26—definition of prolonged solitary (15 days): For the purposes of this report,
the Special Rapporteur defines solitary confinement as the physical and social
isolation of individuals who are confined to their cells for 22 to 24 hours a day. Of
particular concern to the Special Rapporteur is prolonged solitary confinement,
which he defines as any period of solitary confinement in excess of 15 days. He is
aware of the arbitrary nature of the effort to establish a moment in time which an
already harmful regime becomes prolonged and therefore unacceptably painful. He
concludes that 15 days is the limit between “solitary confinement” and “prolonged
solitary confinement” because at that point, according to the literature surveyed,
some of the harmful psychological effects of isolation can become irreversible.
¶ 55—stupor and delirium: Research shows that deprived of a sufficient level of
social stimulation, individuals soon become incapable of maintaining an adequate
state of alertness and attention to their environment. Indeed, even a few days of
solitary confinement will shift an individual’s brain activity towards an abnormal
pattern characteristic of stupor and delirium. Advancements in new technologies
have made it possible to achieve indirect supervision and keep individuals under
close surveillance with almost no human interaction. The European Court of
Human Rights has recognized that “complete sensory isolation, coupled with total
social isolation, can destroy the personality and constitutes a form of inhuman
treatment which cannot be justified by the requirements of security or any other
reason”.
¶ 62—health risks rise each day: Negative health effects can occur after only a
few days in solitary confinement, and the health risks rise with each additional day
spent in such conditions. Experts who have examined the impact of solitary
confinement have found three common elements that are inherently present in
solitary confinement – social isolation, minimal environmental stimulation and
“minimal opportunity for social interaction”. . . .
There is no research to support prison administrators' claims that solitary
confinement serves any rehabilitative purpose; on the contrary, multiple studies
confirm that solitary confinement is emotionally, physically and psychologically
destructive and greatly reduces a prisoner's chances at successful reintegration into
society.
Craig Haney and Mona Lynch, Regulating Prisons of the Future: A Psychological
Analysis of Supermax and Solitary Confinement, 23 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 477,
534-35 (1997).
534-35—no evidence that solitary decreases violence: That is, there are no
credible or convincing data of which we are aware to suggest that such
confinement produces any widespread beneficial effects. In essence, this was the
conclusion of an official Canadian study group on “dissociation” that filed a
report with the Commissioner of Penitentiaries in the mid-1970s: “Although we
recognize the limitations on social sciences in effective change in inmates, we
must still acknowledge the lack of substantive rehabilitative or therapeutic value
in the concept of segregation.” [FN280] Moreover, since most prisoners
eventually will be released from prison, “segregation as it presently exists is not
practical. It further enhances the inmate's antisocial attitudes and, in general,
constitutes a self-fulfilling prophecy.” [FN281] Another study concluded that the
use of solitary was not even effective as a deterrent. Disciplinary incidence rates
were not affected among the punished *535 nor among the general population by
the length or number of visits to the “hole.”
536—evidence of alternatives: In contrast to the absence of documentation that
supermax or solitary confinement “works,” in general or for any particular type of
inmate, there is some direct evidence to suggest that other approaches to handling
violent prisoners are effective in both reducing levels of institutional aggression
and decreasing recidivism among such prisoners upon release.
Chad S. Briggs, Jody L. Sundt, Thomas C. Castellano, The Effect of Supermaximum
Security Prisons on Aggregate Levels of Institutional Violence, 41 Criminology 1341,
1346 (2003). (Researcher’s note: This study is inherently flawed as it fails to account
for levels of staff-on-prisoner violence. In addition, it relies on official prison data.
Even with those qualifiers, it fails to demonstrate that supermax confinement
reduces violence.)
1341—summary of findings: No support was found for the hypothesis that
supermaxes reduce levels of inmate-on-inmate violence. Mixed support was found
for the hypothesis that supermax increases staff safety: the implementation of a
supermax had no effect on levels of inmate-on-staff assaults in Minnesota,
temporarily increased staff injuries in Arizona, and reduced assaults against staff in
Illinois.
1367—summary of findings: The findings presented here reveal that the opening
of a supermax had no effect on eight of the measures of institutional violence
examined across three states. In one of the time series examined, however, the
implementation of a supermax was associated with a temporary increase in assaults
against staff. Finally, the opening of a supermax was associated with a decrease in
assaults against staff in one of the time series examined. Thus, no support was
found for the hypothesis that the implementation of a supermax prison reduces
aggregate levels of inmate-on-inmate assaults. Mixed support was found for our
second hypothesis: The opening of SMU I in Arizona and OPH in Minnesota were
not associated with changes in the incidence of violence directed toward staff; the
findings associated with the opening of SMU II suggest that this facility may have
been temporarily harmful within the Arizona DOC; and the opening of Tamms in
Illinois was associated with a significant, against staff.
1370—evidence does not justify use of supermax: Although some question
whether the supermax prison can ever be an acceptable response to prison violence,
King (1999:182) argues that, in the least, "where prison regimes are so depriving as
those offered in most supermax facilities, the onus is upon those imposing the
regimes to demonstrate that this is justified." This justification might come in two
fundamental forms. First, we might ask whether supermax reduces prison violence,
and second, whether alternative methods of control exist. Although the findings
obtained here must be buttressed with analyses from other states-and more
contextually informed analyses of trend data from the three states studied hereinthis study presents strong preliminary evidence that supermaximum prisons cannot
be justified as a means of increasing inmate safety. Our findings with regard to
officer safety are more equivocal, but the necessary onus of evidence in support of
the use of supermax certainly has not been met here.
Felony and Violent Recidivism Among Supermax Prison Inmates in Washington, Lovell
& Johnson (This study shows that supermax prisoners in Washington were more
likely to recidivate, though it does not demonstrate the reason why this is (i.e.
whether that is because supermax prisoners are more prone to violating the law or
because conditions of isolation in a supermax increase the risk of unsuccessful reintegration. What the study can be cited for is support that supermax does not help
reduce the recidivism rate, which it would if solitary confinement were an effective
deterrent to future criminal behavior.)
1. A finding that IMU assignment predicted lower recidivism would suggest that
IMU confinement is an effective treatment. Our findings do not support this
hypothesis.
2. A finding that IMU assignment does not predict recidivism would suggest either
(1) that IMU-provoking behavior and the IMU experience are both neutral; or (2)
that the behavior predicts recidivism as a main effect, but this effect is neutralized
by the IMU experience. Neither of these hypotheses is supported.
3. We found, with qualifications, that IMU assignment predicts higher recidivism.
We may conclude that IMU confinement does not appear to help control
recidivism, which advances knowledge beyond its present null state. But we do not
know whether the predictive effect is due to the IMU experience or to some
psychological process that leads prison staff to see the offender as threatening and
which, after release, leads to further criminal aggression.
Jamie Fellner, Human Rights Watch OUT OF SIGHT: SUPER-MAXIMUM SECURITY
CONFINEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES § I—An Overview (2000).
1—emotionally, physically, and psychologically destructive: At best, prisoners'
days are marked by idleness, tedium, and tension. But for many, the absence of
normal social interaction, of reasonable mental stimulus, of exposure to the natural
world, of almost everything that makes life human and bearable, is emotionally,
physically, and psychologically destructive.
4—no data proving deterrent effect: There are, however, other ways to
encourage good conduct than to raise the specter of supermax confinement and, to
date, there is no data proving such a deterrent effect.
Jennifer R. Wynn and Alisa Szatrowski, Hidden Prisons: Twenty-Three-Hour Lockdown
in New York State Correctional Facilities, 24 Pace L. Rev. 497, 514 (2004)
514—no research in support of control units positive effects: While a large
body of literature attests to the damaging psychological effects of long-term
isolation, there is no empirical research that shows the opposite: that long-term
punitive segregation produces positive changes in behavior. That nearly threequarters of the inmates at Southport had prior stays in disciplinary lockdown
clearly undermines the notion that lockdown effectively deters future ruleviolating behavior.
In isolation, the mentally ill become more unstable, while healthy prisoners begin to
exhibit mental illness after only a short time.
Peter Scharff Smith, The Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prison Inmates: A Brief
History and Review of the Literature, 34 Crime & Just. 441, 503-04 (2006).
504—causing harm to all: Solitary confinement harms prisoners who were not
mentally ill on admission to prison and worsens the mental health of those who
were.
Leena Kurki and Norval Morris, The Purposes, Practices, and Problems of Supermax
Prisons, 28 Crime & Just. 385, 409 (2001)
409—mentally ill in supermax prisons: Quite apart from whether administrative
rules exclude mentally ill prisoners from supermaxes, many such prisoners are
held in Tamms, Pelican Bay, Red Onion, and Indiana's and Texas's supermaxes.
The chief of medical services estimated that 208 prisoners at Pelican Bay in 1990
were either psychotic or psychotic in partial remission (Madrid v. Gomez at
1215). Stuart Grassian found that seventeen out of fifty inmates he interviewed in
the special housing unit were acutely psychotic and not receiving appropriate
treatment (Madrid v. Gomez at 1223). The staff of Indiana's special housing unit
acknowledged that half to two-thirds of inmates were mentally ill (Human Rights
Watch 1997, p. 34). Crisis symptoms of mental illnesses are obvious to everyone:
severe self-mutilation, hallucinations, paranoia, panic attacks and anxiety, and
impulsive violence (Kupers 1999). Yet descriptions about Tamms, Pelican Bay,
Red Onion, and Indiana's and Texas's supermaxes similarly point out that the
mental health staff in these supermaxes seemed to be preoccupied with sorting out
those inmates they believed were manipulative malingerers who faked their
symptoms. All sources describe inmates who suffer serious hallucinations, act
absurdly, and are far beyond ordinary human behavior.
Jennifer R. Wynn and Alisa Szatrowski, Hidden Prisons: Twenty-Three-Hour Lockdown
in New York State Correctional Facilities, 24 Pace L. Rev. 497, 514 (2004)
511—desperation on every site visit: The most disturbing aspect of our site
visits was encountering so many prisoners in twenty-three-lockdown who were
actively psychotic, manic, paranoid or delusional. [FN63] On nearly every site
visit, it was not uncommon to encounter individuals in various states of
desperation: men weeping in their cells, men who had smeared feces on their
bodies or lit their cells on fire, inmates who cut themselves in a form of selfdirected violence known as “self-mutilation.” Some inmates expressed
persecutory thoughts--“The COs are poisoning my food”--or believed that the
prison psychologist was “drugging” them.
Approximately 50% of prison suicides occur in solitary confinement.
Cruel and unusual treatment of WikiLeaks suspect, By Terry A. Kupers, Special to CNN
- http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-16/opinion/kupers.bradley.manning.prison_1_solitaryconfinement-prisoners-mental-illness?_s=PM:OPINION
“One of the most stunning statistics in criminology today is that, on average, 50%
of U.S. prisoner suicides happen among the 2% to 8% of prisoners who are in
solitary confinement, also known as segregation.”
The Colorado Study vs. the Reality of Supermax Confinement, Stuart Grassian, M.D.,
J.D., and Terry Kupers M.D, M.S.P., Correctional Mental Health Report, Volume 13 No.
1, May/June 2011
“One of the most stunning and inescapable statistical facts regarding long-term
segregation is that on average, 50% of completed suicides by inmates occur
among the 2-8% of prisoners who are housed in isolated confinement. This fact
can mean only two things: either it demonstrates that segregation is
psychologically toxic, or else it demonstrates that the more troubled inmates who
need psychiatric help are instead placed in a psychiatrically punitive environment.
Of course, it is both: the more psychologically troubled inmates have less control
over their behavior, and the system’s response to their unacceptable behaviors is
to punish them with isolation.”
Cruel Isolation: Amnesty International’s Concerns About Conditions in Arizona
Maximum Security Prisons, April 2012
11—higher suicide rate in the hole: “At least 43 suicides are listed as having
taken place in Arizona’s adult prisons in the five and a half years from October
2005 to April 2011, with several more cases to June 2011 still under investigation.
Of 37 cases where Amnesty International obtained information on the units where
the suicides took place, 22 (60%) took place in Maximum custody isolation
facilities: SMU1/11 (14 suicides); Florence Central Unit (4); and Lumley Unit (4),
which is the special management unit of the women’s prison at Perryville.
SMU1/11, which houses 4% of the total state prison population, accounted for
more than a third of the 37 suicides.”
Jennifer R. Wynn and Alisa Szatrowski, Hidden Prisons: Twenty-Three-Hour Lockdown
in New York State Correctional Facilities, 24 Pace L. Rev. 497, 514 (2004)
516—suicide statistics: More than half of prison suicides in New York take place
in twenty-three-hour lockdown units, although less than 10% of the inmate
population is housed in them. [FN78] “Perhaps no factor has been more tragically
associated with jail and prison suicides than the consistent finding of
isolated/segregated housing,” wrote psychologist Ronald Bonner in the Journal of
the American Association of Suicidology. [FN79] Of the 258 inmates in our
sample, 44% reported that they had attempted suicide at least once while in prison
and 20% had prior admissions to the psychiatric hospital for inmates. These
figures are more reflective of a mental hospital than a prison.
Solitary confinement targets prisoners of color most severely, reinforcing oppressive
and unconscionable patterns of racism.
This is known because 1) people of color are incarcerated at far greater levels than
their percentage of the general population; and 2) through consistent reports
received by HRC about the demographics in the solitary units in PA. This data is
also kept under wraps. If the DOC wants to contest it they can release the data and
allow access to the units for verification.
Mark S. Hamm, Therese Coupez, Frances E. Hoze & Corey Weinstein, The Myth of
Humane Imprisonment: A Critical Analysis of Severe Discipline in U.S. Maximum
Security Prisons, 1945-1990, in PRISON VIOLENCE IN AMERICA 190 (Michael C.
Braswell, Reid H. Montgomery, Jr., Lucien X. Lombardo, eds. 1994)
190—deeply entrenched: “The pattern of guard brutality noted here is consistent
with the vast and varied body of post-war literature demonstrating that “guard use
of physical coercion [is] highly structured and deeply entrenched in the guard
subculture”. The unusually harsh treatment of jailhouse lawyers, blacks, and
mentally ill offenders has been confirmed time and again in the literature. And our
discovery that maximum security prisons are exceedingly cruel places will
surprise no on.”
Jamie Fellner, Human Rights Watch, RED ONION STATE PRISON: SUPERMAXIMUM SECURITY CONFINEMENT IN VIRGINIA (1999).
Pervasive racism: Unfortunately, white and black inmates alike at Red Onion
describe an atmosphere of pervasive and blatant racism. Inmates claim that officers
routinely use such terms as “boy” and “nigger”. One white inmate told HRW that
an officer said to him, with reference to a black inmate with a reputation for sexual
misbehavior, “What do you expect from a fucking nigger?” Another white inmate
wrote to HRW that he had talked with an officer escorting him about a shooting. He
described the officer as “so excited about being able to shoot ‘niggers...’[H]e
couldn’t wait to shoot some of them black bastards.”
It is extensively used to retaliate against those who file lawsuits or speak out against
violations of their human and constitutional rights.
See HRC/Fed Up! reports: Institutionalized Cruelty, Resistance and Retaliation,
Unity and Courage for discussions of retaliation.
Mark S. Hamm, Therese Coupez, Frances E. Hoze & Corey Weinstein, The Myth of
Humane Imprisonment: A Critical Analysis of Severe Discipline in U.S. Maximum
Security Prisons, 1945-1990, in PRISON VIOLENCE IN AMERICA 190 (Michael C.
Braswell, Reid H. Montgomery, Jr., Lucien X. Lombardo, eds. 1994)
187—jailhouse lawyers targeted: “Table 10.8 shows that the primary victim of
severe discipline is not a black man or woman, as might be suspected. The
primary victim is not Hispanic, and certainly is not a gang member nor a political
prisoner. The primary victim is not a homosexual or one suffering from AIDS.
Rather, Table 10.8 reveals that the primary victim of severe discipline is a
jailhouse lawyer.”
188—why jailhouse lawyers are targeted: “We received hundreds of comments
from prisoners explaining why jailhouse lawyers are differentially treated. These
responses typically began with the assertion that prison officials “ignore
grievances” and the “inmate appeal system is a farce” because of unfair hearings
and arbitrary discipline systems” base on “no true trial” or a “biased hearing.”
They proceeded to the idea that there were “inconsistent and ever-changing rules”
that were “vague” and “applied based on guards opinion of you.” And so, these
respondents arrived at the conclusion that there was “selective discipline with
racial prejudice” and that “jailhouse lawyers can help you out of a jam.” . . .
Because of this, these respondents observed that guards had a standard practice of
“singling out jailhouse lawyers for discipline” in retaliation for challenging the
status quo.”
190—deeply entrenched: “The pattern of guard brutality noted here is consistent
with the vast and varied body of post-war literature demonstrating that “guard use
of physical coercion [is] highly structured and deeply entrenched in the guard
subculture”. The unusually harsh treatment of jailhouse lawyers, blacks, and
mentally ill offenders has been confirmed time and again in the literature. And our
discovery that maximum security prisons are exceedingly cruel places will
surprise no on.”
“One of the Dirty Secrets of American Corrections”: Retaliation, Surplus Power, and
Whistleblowing Inmates, 42 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 611, 613 (2009).
611—normative response to grievance-filing: Retaliation is deeply engrained in
the correctional office subculture; it may well be in the normative response when
an inmate files a grievance, a statutory precondition for filing a civil rights action.
613—not rogue actors: Correctional officers who retaliate against inmates
cannot be regarded as rogue actors. They act within the norm. Vincent Nathan's
groundbreaking survey of Ohio inmates found that 70.1% of inmates who brought
grievances indicated that they had suffered retaliation thereafter; moreover, 87%
of all respondents *614 and nearly 92% of the inmates using the grievance
process agreed with the statement, “I believe staff will retaliate or get back at me
if I use the grievance process.” [FN18] Among staff supervisors, only 21%
believed that retaliation never happened, with one warden characterizing it as
“commonplace” when inmates resort to the grievance process. [FN19] In turn, a
New York State study found that more than half of the inmates filing grievances
reported subsequent retaliation.
644—PLRA encourages retaliation: Through its exhaustion requirement, the
Act has favorably influenced the cost-benefit ratio of correctional officer
retaliation by enhancing the benefit. First, the filing of a grievance identifies
targets who may seek judicial relief for officer misconduct. Second, retaliation
against the targets acquires a functional quality, to wit, the prospect of deterring
the target from filing suit and deterring other inmates from filing grievances.
Third, by forbidding damages for mental or emotional suffering absent a causallyrelated physical injury, [FN264] the Act effectively immunizes retaliatory
measures from compensatory damage awards if they stop short of physical injury.
645—prisoners as whistleblowers: Inmates who file grievances about matters of
public importance become the penal counterpart of civilian, governmental
whistleblowers. The two groups share several characteristics. Like
whistleblowers, inmates experiencing retaliation sometimes possess information
that has not been disseminated publicly; like whistleblowers, inmates acquire this
information because of their institutional membership; and inmates and
whistleblowers alike function as intermediaries by providing information to a
third party, be it a government watchdog agency, a court, or, because of the
exhaustion requirement of the PLRA, a grievance officer. [FN268] Furthermore,
both whistleblowers and inmates face retaliation because they reside in
institutions that do not readily tolerate dissent.
Ninety days in solitary can easily turn into 10 years or more.
Another fact known from HRC’s own work with prisoners who are placed in
solitary confinement and quickly accrue disciplinary time amounting to several
months or even a couple of years, which sets off a cycle of protest, abuse,
retaliation, and so on. Again, if the DOC wants to contest this, all they have to do
is release records of who is in solitary, how often that person has been there, and
for how long.
Guards in these units regularly abuse male and female prisoners physically,
psychologically, and sexually, and deny them basic needs such as meals, shower,
water, and visits.
See HRC/Fed Up! reports: Institutionalized Cruelty, Resistance and Retaliation,
Unity and Courage for discussions of retaliation. Also see virtually any edition of
the PA Prison Report.
Craig Haney and Mona Lynch, Regulating Prisons of the Future: A Psychological
Analysis of Supermax and Solitary Confinement, 23 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 477,
531 (1997).
531—an integral part of the experience: Commentators who have sought to
attribute these harmful consequences not to isolation per se but to mistreatment by
guards and to the loss of educational, vocational, and recreational activities by
prisoners [FN269] seem to ignore the extent to which these practices regularly
occur in solitary confinement. Greater exposure to staff mistreatment and the loss
of meaningful programming cannot be characterized as unfortunate but merely
occasional incidents to solitary confinement; they are too often an integral part of
the experience.
Leena Kurki and Norval Morris, The Purposes, Practices, and Problems of Supermax
Prisons, 28 Crime & Just. 385, 408-09 (2001)
408-09—a culture that supports abuse of power: Observations of relations
between the staff and inmates vary from “considerable hostility” in Tamms and
“unusually hostile” in Red Onion (Human Rights Watch 1999, p. 20) to an
“affirmative management strategy to permit the use of excessive force” in Pelican
Bay (Madrid v. Gomez at 1199). All the characteristics of supermaxes are more
likely than not to create a culture that supports abuse of power. Inmates are
labeled as the worst of worst and are isolated from other inmates. The staff have
practically unlimited power to control inmates' access to food, possessions, and
movement. Any humane relationships between staff and inmates are rare in
circumstances where interaction is limited to the most dangerous situations—
extracting inmates from cells or escorting shackled and handcuffed inmates to
showers, exercise yards, visiting areas, or medical care (Ward 1995). Supermaxes
are far removed from the usual sights, sounds, standards, and restrictions of
everyday prison life and far removed from the perception of the outside *409
world. The physical and intellectual isolation “helps create a palpable distance
from ordinary compunctions, inhibitions, and community norms”—for both the
staff and prisoners (Madrid v. Gomez at 1160).
409—supermax more likely to produce violent staff: No one knows how
common abuses of power or the use of excessive force are in supermax prisons.
However, many agree that supermax regimes are more likely than other prison
regimes to produce abusive and violent behaviors by the staff. Pelican Bay in the
early 1990s must have been among the worst examples with a deliberate pattern
of violence and excessive force, but unspeakable incidents are also described in
Ruiz v. Johnson on Texas administrative segregation units and in Human Rights
Watch (1997, 1999) reports on Red Onion and Indiana's supermaxes.
Jamie Fellner, Human Rights Watch OUT OF SIGHT: SUPER-MAXIMUM SECURITY
CONFINEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES § I—An Overview (2000).
4—abuse flourishes: There is a heightened risk in supermax facilities that
correctional officers will use abusive levels of force. They work in an environment
in which the usual prison "us vs. them" mentality is exaggerated by the minimal
staff-inmate interaction, the primacy of security over all other considerations, and
the fact that the inmates have been demonized as "the worst of the worst." Perhaps
not surprisingly, correctional officers in some supermax facilities have repeatedly
crossed the line between the legitimate use of force and abuse. They have used
force -- including cell extractions and the discharge of electronic stun devices, stun
guns, chemical sprays, shotguns with rubber pellets and even guns loaded with
lethal munitions -- unnecessarily, dangerously, and even maliciously.
Jamie Fellner, Human Rights Watch, RED ONION STATE PRISON: SUPERMAXIMUM SECURITY CONFINEMENT IN VIRGINIA (1999).
Guard on inmate violence: As one inmate wrote to Human Rights Watch,
“Frankly, in many ways, it is safer to be in the segregation unit than in the so-called
general population. Inmate on inmate violence virtually does not exist [at Red
Onion]. Inmate on guard violence virtually does not exist here. Guard on inmate
violence is high.”
Unusually hostile: Conditions in super-maximum security prisons tend to foster
unusually hostile relations between prisoners and guards. The simple fact that
prisoners have been labeled the “worst of the worst” and are subject to extreme
controls and have minimal and highly structured interaction with staff encourages
correctional officers to view them in a dehumanizing way and to treat them more
harshly.
Reliance on threat and use of force: To date, nobody has been killed at Red
Onion. But Red Onion is a facility that appears to be managed by reliance on the
continual threat and actual use of physical force, including firearms, electronic stun
devices, chemical sprays and restraints. From the information available to us, it
seems that physical force is used unnecessarily and excessively at Red Onion.
Inmates claim that they are shot at, shocked with electronic stun devices, beaten,
and strapped down for trivial nonviolent actions, e.g., moving slowly on the yard,
yelling in the cells, refusing to return a paper cup.
Restraints and strip cells: Inmates also claim Red Onion staff abuse restraint
equipment and strip cells, using them maliciously as punishment even though such
use is prohibited. Four- and five-point65 restraints immobilize an inmate on a bed.
They should only be used in extreme circumstances—when an inmate left
unrestrained poses a serious risk of injury to himself or to others and when other
types of restraints are ineffective—and for no more time than is absolutely
necessary.66 Inmates assert, however, that staff at Red Onion place men in
restraints as retaliation for misbehavior, e.g. throwing juice on an officer.
“[E]veryone here knows it’s for punishment.” They also assert that inmates are kept
in restraints for arbitrary time periods—eight hours, seventy-two hours—regardless
of the inmates’ condition or the need for such control. Inmates have similarly
complained that strip cells containing no furnishings, bedding or equipment are
used as punishment. The degrading nature of unnecessary strip cell confinement is
heightened by officers’ refusal to provide toilet paper when needed.
Jennifer R. Wynn and Alisa Szatrowski, Hidden Prisons: Twenty-Three-Hour Lockdown
in New York State Correctional Facilities, 24 Pace L. Rev. 497, 514 (2004)
525—breeding grounds for sadistic behavior: Because of the isolated nature of
lockdown facilities, there is great potential for misuse of authority and abuse of
inmates and staff. Without careful measures to mitigate against these factors,
lockdown units can become breeding grounds for sadistic behavior, fatal neglect
and callous indifference to human suffering.
At least 80,000 prisoners today are held in solitary confinement in the U.S., at least
2,500 of them in Pennsylvania state prisons.
Jean Casella and James Ridgeway, How Many Prisoners Are in Solitary Confinement in
the United States? February 1, 2012, accessed at
http://solitarywatch.com/2012/02/01/how-many-prisoners-are-in-solitary-confinement-inthe-united-states/).
“A census of state and federal prisoners is conducted every five years by the
federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. The most recent census for which data are
available is 2005. It found 81,622 inmates were being held in “restricted
housing.” This number was recently cited by the Vera Institute of Justice‘s
Segregation Reduction Project. The 80,000 figure has also been used by National
Geographic and The New Yorker, among others.”
PA Figure is found in the recent PA DOC Monthly Population Reports when the numbers
in the RHU and SSNU are totaled. It is unclear if the RHU figures include those in SMUs
and death row, which are also characterized as RHUs.
Most have little or no access to mental health care, and are forced to live in
conditions that increase the likelihood of self-harm, suicide, and violence towards
others.
HRC is aware of the general lack of meaningful mental health care through our
extensive investigations and documentations. This is a point raised consistently in the
relevant scholarship and can be inferred from some of the above points on mental health,
such as the suicide rates.
Jennifer R. Wynn and Alisa Szatrowski, Hidden Prisons: Twenty-Three-Hour Lockdown
in New York State Correctional Facilities, 24 Pace L. Rev. 497, 514 (2004)
517-18—punishment for self-mutilation: Department figures show that
incidents of self-harm rose by 49% between 1995 and 2000. [FN92] Of the
inmates in our sample, *518 36% said they engaged in self-mutilation while in
prison. Unthinkable to outside observers, DOCS issues misbehavior reports to
inmates who attempt to kill or harm themselves, purportedly to discourage
malingering. The act of “inflicting self-harm” is an official violation of DOCS
policy. [FN93] To punish individuals in such desperate straits can only be
described as cruel and misguided.
518-19—staff confession: When we returned to Southport in May 2002,
correction officers asked to meet with us privately off facility grounds for fear of
reprisal from the superintendent. They reported that, *519 “the biggest problem is
that a quarter of the inmates are mentally ill and shouldn't be here.” [FN96] Two
psychologists share a caseload of 130 inmates. All of the officers said that they
knew of inmates who manifested obvious signs of mental illness but who were
not on the OMH caseload. [FN97] They also stated: “The administration heard
you were coming and moved the worst inmates out.”
This danger ripples outward when prisoners who have been kept in solitary are
released into general population, often resulting in violent altercations that are used
as a justification to continually cycle them back into solitary.
Leena Kurki and Norval Morris, The Purposes, Practices, and Problems of Supermax
Prisons, 28 Crime & Just. 385, 404 (2001)
404—cycle of repression: There is a more insidious aspect of the processes that
put the mentally ill in jails, prisons, and supermax prisons. More than the
community at large, the criminal justice system and those who serve it rely on
deterrence as a system to control human behavior. A substantial proportion of
those who suffer from mental illness, or who are marginally retarded, or who
tremble on the brink of those conditions tend to respond unfavorably and with
increasing resistance to punitive controls. The supposed equilibrium of
misbehavior and deterrent punishment is thus ratcheted up step by step so that the
inadequate and troubled personality may be jailed for a minor offense and by
virtue of an increasing process of deterrent punishment, increased resistance,
increased deterrent punishment, yet further increased resistance, the result is a
stepping up through the graduated severity of different prisons to the ultimate
location in a Tamms.
Jennifer R. Wynn and Alisa Szatrowski, Hidden Prisons: Twenty-Three-Hour Lockdown
in New York State Correctional Facilities, 24 Pace L. Rev. 497, 514 (2004)
512-23—revolving door of dysfunction: Inmates who are transferred to CNYPC
from disciplinary confinement are often returned to lockdown rather than to
general population to serve out the remainder of their disciplinary sentence. In a
cycle an outside psychiatrist described as a “misery-go-round,” the inmate
typically deteriorates again, is returned to CNYPC, stabilized temporarily, sent
back to the SHU, and the grim cycle continues. [FN68] Psychiatrist Stuart
Grassian, one of the country's leading experts on the psychological effects of
solitary confinement, was appointed by the court in *513 Eng v. Goord to
monitor conditions in the Attica SHU. He commented on the ongoing nature of
this problem after a site visit in 1999:
[T]he “revolving door” of decompensation in SHU leading to brief respite and
then return to the toxic SHU environment, continues basically unabated. Mentally
ill inmates continue to be housed in SHU even after they have recurrently become
floridly ill and out of control in that setting. OMH's failure to intervene in this
reality--its failure to state that there are individuals incapable of tolerating Attica
SHU--pulls OMH staff away from professional integrity, and towards a hostile,
cynical attitude towards those inmates.
People max out their sentences in solitary confinement, and then without any resocialization therapy are dumped back into society, harmed and unable to cope,
resulting in increased violence and instability in our communities.
*PA recidivism rates
Felony and Violent Recidivism Among Supermax Prison Inmates in Washington, Lovell
& Johnson (This study shows that supermax prisoners in Washington were more
likely to recidivate, though it does not demonstrate the reason why this is (i.e.
whether that is because supermax prisoners are more prone to violating the law or
because conditions of isolation in a supermax increase the risk of unsuccessful reintegration. What the study can be cited for is support that supermax does not help
reduce the recidivism rate, which it would if solitary confinement were an effective
deterrent to future criminal behavior.)
1. A finding that IMU assignment predicted lower recidivism would suggest that
IMU confinement is an effective treatment. Our findings do not support this
hypothesis.
2. A finding that IMU assignment does not predict recidivism would suggest either
(1) that IMU-provoking behavior and the IMU experience are both neutral; or (2)
that the behavior predicts recidivism as a main effect, but this effect is neutralized
by the IMU experience. Neither of these hypotheses is supported.
3. We found, with qualifications, that IMU assignment predicts higher recidivism.
We may conclude that IMU confinement does not appear to help control
recidivism, which advances knowledge beyond its present null state. But we do not
know whether the predictive effect is due to the IMU experience or to some
psychological process that leads prison staff to see the offender as threatening and
which, after release, leads to further criminal aggression.
The practice of solitary confinement is widespread, is significantly more expensive
than regular prison housing . . .
See fact sheet compiled by Solitary Watch:
http://solitarywatch.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/fact-sheet-the-high-cost-of-solitaryconfinement.pdf
Although there is no PA-specific data that HRC is aware of, the pattern reflected in the
fact sheet makes clear that the costs are significantly higher.
The rampant use of solitary confinement and the construction of Supermax prisons
are recent in history . . .
Leena Kurki and Norval Morris, The Purposes, Practices, and Problems of Supermax
Prisons, 28 Crime & Just. 385 (2001)
385—tracking the rise: In 1984 there was only one prison in the United States
that would now be called a “supermax”—the federal penitentiary at Marion,
Illinois, after the October 1983 lockdown. In 1999, by various counts and various
definitions, between thirty and thirty-four states had supermax prisons or units,
with more building apace (National Institute of Corrections 1997; King 1999).
. . . other states have already taken steps to reduce its use.
*Maine, Colorado, Mississippi