Why We Should Get Rid of Solitary Confinement

This past Friday, the New York state assembly picked up enough votes to pass the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term (HALT) Solitary Bill. As is alluded by the bill name, the bill addresses the issue of solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is a type of imprisonment in which a prisoner lives in a single cell and has little to no outside contact, as well as additional security measures and strict contraband measures. According to Yale Law School, a minimum of 61,000 prisoners are in solitary confinement at any given time. Proponents claim it is a valid security measure, whereas opponents claim that it is a harmful measure with few to no desirable effects. Which version is correct?

First, a bit on the history of solitary confinement. Solitary confinement was used in the 1700s by the Quakers (of all people) to encourage repentance and rehabilitation. This practice caught on in the colonial era, and was abandoned in the early 20th century because it was deemed unethical and lacking efficacy. The "tough on crime" mentality combined with the opinion "nothing regarding rehabilitation works" allowed for solitary confinement to make a comeback.

Does solitary confinement help with prison violence rates? The main argument used in favor of solitary confinement is for safer security in prison, both for the prisoners and for the prison staff. A 2016 report from the National Institute for Justice (Frost and Monteiro, 2016) concluded that "there is little evidence that administrative segregation has had effects on overall levels of violence within individual institutions or across correctional systems (p. 3; also see Labrecque, 2015; Briggs et al., 2006)." The NIJ report continued by saying that "it is virtually impossible to find empirical evidence supporting its utility or efficacy (p. 4)." As a matter of fact, there is some evidence suggesting that solitary confinement increases recidivism and violence (Gordon, 2014).

Does solitary confinement cause harm? While there is some skepticism on the harm of solitary confinement (Morgan et al., 2016), the short answer to this question is a resounding "yes" (Frost and Monteiro, 2016, p. 3; also see Morgan, 2017). Solitary confinement causes heightened anxiety, irrational anger, greater confusion, and greater sensitivity to external stimuli as a result of sensory deprivation (e.g., Shalev, 2008; Smith, 2006; Grassian, 2006; Haney 2003). Suicide rates are much higher among those in solitary confinement (Kaba et al., 2014; Patterson and Hughes, 2008; Way et al., 2005). Those who are mentally ill or members of the LGBT community are more susceptible to greater harm while in solitary confinement.

Conclusion: Canada's top court ruled last month that solitary confinement over 15 days is cruel and unusual because based on the evidence, it is. Not only does solitary confinement cause harm without the intended benefits, but it costs about an extra $20,000 per prisoner per year as regular imprisonment. I hope that countries continue to limit or even eliminate solitary confinement, much like we should remove any other relics institutionalized during the "Tough on Crime" era of the 1980s.

For more on alternatives to solitary confinement, visit the websites for the Vera Institute, American Civil Rights Union, and the American Bar Association.