The Need for Minor Changes in the Solitary Confinement System

All across the world, prisons enforce an extreme “correctional rehabilitation” method called solitary confinement. There is a limited amount of research supporting the rehabilitative effects of this type of confinement; however, countless studies display the damaging influence this form of imprisonment has on the prisoner’s physical and mental state. Consequently, many activists and politicians argue that the federal should completely outlaw the practice of solitary confinement, pointing to the violations of the 8th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution and the international standards set by the Committee Against Torture. Unfortunately, in this situation, states continue to use their reserved powers to prevent any significant change in solitary confinement, with only a limited amount of states providing justice for these prisoners. Along with this, the supreme court has not yet ruled this confinement as unconstitutional, falling a few votes short on several cases addressing the issue. Since the federal government maintains its support for this form of torture, only a hand full of states enforce helpful regulations on its use, so I suggest that politicians argue for more minor changes within the solitary confinement system. While the complete abolition of solitary confinement is the end goal, politicians should additionally advocate for smaller changes such as activities for the inmates, monitored outdoor time, formal sentencing, and other modifications that will tone down the severity of the punishment. Arguing for smaller shifts from the dormancy and complete isolation the inmates endure may seem more reasonable to those in power and could help lessen the chance of mental illness, suicide, and other types of self-harm.

Solitary confinement is defined as separating an inmate from the general area of the prison to discipline them for wrongdoing. They are taken to a separate cell in the basement that is “around 7 or 8 feet by 10 feet,” where they reside for “22.5 to 24 hours per day” (Wykstra). The inmates mostly stay for a few weeks; however, there are several documented instances where the prisoners were kept in confinement for years. Thus, they spend long periods without personal items, sunlight, or vocal or physical contact with other people. Firstly, Vitamin D is an essential micronutrient for human physical well-being and plays a vital role in mitigating the symptoms of depression. Allotting “just 10–15 minutes” of outdoor time “could confer significant health benefits” for the prisoners, yet most prisons choose to keep the inmates indoors for the entirety of their confinement (Mead 166).

Secondly, restricting them to an empty box for weeks on end may cause those confined to “quickly become withdrawn, hypersensitive to sights and sounds, paranoid, and more prone to violence and hallucinations” (Scientific American). These effects usually linger past the time of their sentencing, leaving them unsettled with having social interactions and confused about how to function on a daily basis. For example, “Even though people in solitary confinement comprise only 6% to 8% of the total prison population, they account for approximately half of those who die by suicide” (Initiative). This is similar to the suicidal repercussions resulting from time in the military since they both result in trauma which controls their body chemistry and everyday behavior. Nonetheless, the prison system insists on safeguarding this system to ensure that the pecking order of the prison does not get disrupted.

This outdated system maintains its place in the united states partially because it allows the guards and officials to maintain the upper hand. There is no sentencing trial for solitary confinement, so the wardens may send whom they please for an unregulated amount of time. Typically prisoners are sent to confinement for anywhere from a few weeks to several months. However, at Pelican Bay State Prison in California, “more than 500 of the prisoners… have been in isolation units for over a decade” (Scientific American). That is 500 inmates in a concrete cell the size of a small bathroom for 22–24 hours a day with either no light source or permanent brightness and no items besides a bed and sometimes a stool. The cruel and unusual aspects of solitary confinement seem unending, from the deprivation of vitamin D to the lack of human interaction. Further, prohibiting human interaction is a severe punishment that leads to lasting mental illness in a formerly neurotypical inmate.

Craig Haney, a professor who studies the practice of psychological principles among civil rights issues, “has documented several cases of individuals with no prior history of mental illness who nonetheless developed paranoid psychosis requiring medical treatment after prolonged solitary confinement” (Scientific American). His research provides further evidence of the likelihood of burgeoning and worsening mental health due to solitary confinement. Along with this, Haney’s study gives grounds to the beneficial effects that minor altercations on the solitary confinement system can have. This includes small intervals of interactions with other inmates, short phone calls with family, and moderating the constant yelling coming from the other confinement cells that repeatedly horrifies the inmates.

Prison systems across the United States have vague guidelines on when solitary confinement should and should not be used. This allows the guards to put people in confinement for any minor indiscretion. Existing regulations affirm that Solitary Confinement is meant for significant misdemeanors committed by the inmates; however, “many are placed in solitary for nonviolent offenses, and some are not even criminals, having been arrested on immigration charges” (David 68). Others are thrown into isolation cells “for their own protection” because they are “homosexual or transgender or have been raped by other inmates” (David 69). While this may seem like a practical use of solitary confinement, due to the mental repercussions that follow, it does not seem like a legit form of protection. Additionally, confining inmates under these circumstances can lead to the stereotyping of inmates by the guards and officials, so it is clear that there need to be stricter rules for sentencing the inmates.

Two main distinctions within the Constitution should theoretically intercept the use of solitary confinement and unfair sentencing. More specifically, the 8th article of the bill of rights explicitly prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment, and the 14th article assures that every citizen shall not be reprimanded without “due process of the law” (14th Amendment). Solitary confinement clearly disobeys article 14 since it adds punishment without the presence of a judge or any representation after the prisoner has already been sentenced in the trial. Along with this, it goes against international standards set by the Committee Against Torture that state that Solitary confinement should be eliminated. So far, however, both federal and state politicians have successfully argued against the dissolution of solitary.

California has some restrictions on its use, but Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill attempting to abolish solitary confinement. Supporters of the bill predicted that it would even save the state money since they would not need to spend that much on extra facilities and guards; however, California’s governor refused to let the prisoners see the light of day. Another attempt to bring down solitary confinement was established through Wilson v. Seiter. Unfortunately, this case reinforced the verdicts from Francis v. Resweber and Estelle v. Gamble, concluding through a 5–4 vote that since there was no direct “infliction of pain,” solitary confinement is not cruel and unusual (Oyez). The leading opinion came from “Justice Scalia, who famously observed: solitary confinement is certainly cruel but not unusual and is therefore not unconstitutional” (Oyez). Unfortunately, each instance of solitary confinement has a slim chance of initiating rehabilitative effects. So, despite Scalia’s remarks, it seems like an unusual punishment method for prisoners who will have to interact with the outside world at some point. Additionally, even though the standard for unusual is a moving target as the country progresses, it is safe to say that in the country’s current political climate, most citizens would describe the deprivation of sunlight and physical intervention as an unusual punishment.

Since there are several blockades in the way of total eradication, politicians must argue for overtly reasonable changes for the time being. According to “the latest available census,” there are around “80,000 people are held in solitary confinement in U.S. prisons” (Scientific American), so it is essential to try every avenue to help prevent “hallucinations, panic attacks, paranoia, claustrophobia, and psychosis” (Edwig 112). Nowadays, there are many resources online for free mental assistance, and while it is not the best quality of support, it would offer something for the inmates to hang on to at no extra cost to the prison. The suicide rates, as mentioned earlier, could certainly be helped with the assistance of online mental health support. Sites like “CIMHS,” “7 cups,” and “Therapy Aid Coalition” allow anyone with telephone service or internet access to be connected to a mental health provider (Iavarone). Just 30 minutes a week of something like this will allow the mental health professionals to offer the prisoners tools such as mindfulness, body tapping, and journaling to help them cope with their confinement and make it safely to the end of their sentencing. This would also ease the sensory deprivation that the prisoners experience since they would be exposed to the sound of the therapist’s voice.

These small changes must offer a grounding experience to solitary confinement inmates to counteract the psychological effects. Researcher David Polizzi claims that “if our experience of space is ontologically configured by the position of things, the absence of such possibility can greatly disrupt the ontological grounding for embodied subjectivity” (72 Polizzi). Therefore, providing more objects in the confinement cell may help the prisoners regain their sense of self in relation to the rest of the world. Allowing personal photos, a journal, a yoga mat, and some decorations would make this possible with little difference from how the current system operates. Per the wishes of the current prison system, the confined prisoners would still be separated from the other prisoners. However, they would be apportioned a bit of normalcy from these extra objects, which will help to keep them centered until their time is up.

In addition, having a small quantity of yard time to increase the inmate’s vitamin D absorption would be a reasonable request since they already have methods of safely transporting the prisoners in and out of solitary confinement. Since “each unit had been sealed with a solid steel door blocking natural light, airflow, and a view to the outside” (Guenther 144), it is evident that they are severely lacking outdoor time. As mentioned above, research suggests that “just 10–15 minutes” of sunlight a day may significantly affect people’s mental and physical health (Mead 166). ​With the supporting studies and the lack of effort that this adjustment would take, it should be somewhat easier to convince the prisons to consider this change. Hopefully, these small changes will lead to future ratifications of the solitary confinement system until it is entirely indistinguishable from its current state. As a result, the prisoners forced to spend their time in solitary confinement will not be as likely to develop a severe mental illness or engage in suicidal actions. Additionally, if solitary confinement remains, it will hopefully have the rehabilitative benefits that the prison system seems to avoid.

As mentioned above, the manner in which people are sentenced to solitary confinement goes against the 14th amendment. While supporters of the abolition of confinement do not usually target this specific aspect of confinement, it is imperative that politicians directly ask for stricter regulations on the prison’s sentencing policies. This is also a straightforward request since it allows the prison system to maintain its power without sentencing those who in no way deserve it. That is not to say that anyone deserves the punishment of solitary confinement; however, since countless inmates have been put into confinement solely due to the biases of the correctional officers, it is safe to say that the solitary confinement system needs additional regulations on sentencing. This would include the presence of a judge, sufficient representation, and shorter sentences to protect the prisoners’ fundamental rights.

Some argue that staying in solitude from other people can help them start over and make new mental connections. Apparently, “people are more motivated by a loss than a gain,” says a solitary confinement supporter (Gangi). However, the supporters never seem to mention the possible psychological effects but instead focus on how the “correctional staff can maintain their sense of authority” while failing to mention the adverse effect that this overwhelming sense of authority could have (Gangi). Sharon Shalev, a doctor who researches the adverse effects of solitary confinement, states that “some of the very survival skills adopted in reaction to the pains of isolation, such as withdrawal and going mute, render the individual dysfunctional upon release” (Shalev 31). So along with being inwardly damaged by their time in solitary confinement, prisoners also experience issues with outwardly displaying what is going on in their heads. This goes to say that people are not “motivated by a loss,” in the ways that solitary confinement supporters believe.

Despite several attempts to eradicate the use of solitary confinement, both the federal government and the state legislators allow prisons across the country to uphold its use. This directly goes against the public mission of the prison system since rather than offering rehabilitative effects on the prisoners, solitary confinement traumatizes the inmates, and they often require rehabilitative support to get over the harmful effects of this tortuous imprisonment. Suppose politicians and political activists call for gradual change. In that case, the inmates who are currently suffering will be offered some alleviation from the traumatic effects giving them a greater chance of safely making it through their time in solitary confinement.