Abstract
The issue of solitary confinement and its adverse effects on prisoners is receiving increasing attention among researchers. The current paper considers the features of solitary confinement in terms of its health effects and efficacy. Studying these aspects is necessary since the measure’s inefficiency with its negative health consequences will indicate the urgent need to reform practice. The current study finds strong evidence that the practice of solitary confinement does not lead to the necessary outcomes, and its benefits are limited. Moreover, research supports evidence of negative impact on inmates’ physical and mental health. Therefore, the paper also considers alternatives that may be applied instead of solitary confinement or improve some aspects.
Introduction
The correctional system contains individuals who have committed crimes, isolating them from society and working for rehabilitation. A large number of criminals in prisons makes it difficult for employees to maintain order and control the situation since conflicts often occur among prisoners, and other problems and reasons for unrest arise. In such cases, prison officials can also use additional measures to ensure control over criminals. One such measure is solitary confinement (SC), which is currently widely debated, considering the consequences for prisoners. SC implies significant restrictions for prisoners and extreme living conditions, which leads to negative health consequences.
Mears et al. (2021) note that the opinion of researchers diverges – many find confirmation of the negative consequences of SC, while others see insufficient effects and note the weakness of methodology in research on this issue. Despite the inconsistencies in the evidence, combatting the harmful effects of solitary confinement by reformatory action is required as it can reduce adverse effects suffered by incarcerated individuals.
Solitary Confinement Definition
During imprisonment, the prison administration may use additional forms of detention for prisoners, particularly solitary confinement (SC). Correctional facilities usually have specific policies regarding SC, and there is no single precise definition for it (Luigi et al., 2020a). Moreover, various forms of SC fall under this concept, for example, administrative or disciplinary segregation, supermax, and protective custody (Luigi et al., 2020a; Wildeman & Andersen, 2020). Nevertheless, the concept of SC usually includes measures to place prisoners in rooms with a greater degree of closure, restrictions, and security measures for a period of up to 22-23 hours a day (Luigi et al., 2020a). In some cases, an extended term of imprisonment in SC is applied, which involves the detention of a prisoner for 22 hours a day for several months (Mears et al., 2021). SC measures are often used, and its units constantly contain a certain number of prisoners.
The SC applies only to some prisoners in correctional institutions, but their amount is quite significant. According to Luigi et al. (2020a), 7% of inmates in the United States are permanently under any form of SC. Jahn et al. (2022) believe that 20% of prisoners face SC annually, and for 10% of them, periods of stay can count for 30 days per year or more. The reasons for imprisonment in the SC are protection for or against the prisoner, the threat to the institutional property, or waiting for a court decision or the results of an investigation (Labrecque et al., 2021a). Therefore, behavior in prison conditions should determine the need for SC, but inequality is present.
SC usually negatively affects many prisoners in correctional facilities, and this effect is not even for various groups. The study by Strong et al. (2020) reports noticeable racial and ethnic disparities in detention in the SC. The racial ratio of inmates in prisons does not match the ratio in the population, and the situation is exacerbated by differences in their placement (Strong et al., 2020). Specifically, the study found that Latinos are overrepresented in SCs. Considering that such detention is more severe than normal prison conditions, ethnic minorities endure great suffering.
The SC assumes significant restrictions even for prison conditions. In particular, inmates cannot contact other prisoners and facility staff and do not have the same privileges as usual, such as education, sports, recreation, and other services (Luigi et al., 2020a). Confinement also assumes a strict regulation of the time and process of serving food and limits visits, calls, and access to health services (Jahn et al., 2022). Such restrictions focus on sensory deprivation, physical inactivity, and social isolation (Brinkley-Rubinstein et al., 2019). The severity of the conditions often leads to significant adverse health effects.
Problem Significance
The debate about the impact of SC on human health, detention’s effectiveness, and necessity attracts the attention of researchers. Exploring the problem is crucial since there are arguments about the significant harm of the SC and its inefficiency as a part of the correctional system. Incarcerating prisoners in isolation may also be considered too cruel a measure that violates human rights. For example, according to Coppola (2019), the SC assumes the deprivation of a person’s fundamental needs – social interaction and environmental incentives, which makes such a measure too cruel at its core. Such deprivation leads to irreversible health effects, including brain damage (Coppola, 2019). Health implications include a variety of other disorders and symptoms, discussed in more detail below.
In addition to concerns about the inmates’ health, effectiveness, and cruelty of SC, it should be noted that the problem is of social importance. In particular, correctional systems aim to protect society and rehabilitate criminals for their return to their everyday lives. Therefore, prison measures must help achieve these goals and not interfere with them. If the correctional system does not cope with its task, then failure will mean wasting taxpayer funds while maintaining a threat to society (Luigi et al., 2020b). The return to crime after prison experience also places an additional burden on law enforcement systems, health professionals, and related services (Luigi et al., 2020b). Therefore, the SC may not only be dangerous to the health of prisoners but also have no practical consequences to justify the funds invested in it and not protect society.
Solitary Confinement Consequences for Health
The health problems arising from SC are pretty severe, but at the same time, these consequences have only recently received publicity. Moreover, researchers do not have an unambiguous opinion on the effects and their seriousness, supporting the debate on the SC’s harm to prisoners’ health (Mears et al., 2021). The influence may differ depending on the individual attributes of the prisoners and the characteristics of the SC conditions, which may partly explain the inconsistency in the studies (Labrecque et al., 2021a). Therefore, it is crucial to study what problems have already been discovered and look for ways to solve them.
The effect is severe for both the physical and psychological condition of prisoners. Considering the mental state, it should be noted that psychological symptoms appear even in those prisoners who have not previously had problems, and the condition of those who already have disorders worsens (Luigi et al., 2020a). Nevertheless, those who have problems receive additional distress, and their condition deteriorates significantly (Western et al., 2022). SC deprives prisoners of social contact, which is necessary for people, limits sensory perception, and leads to feelings of losing control of life (Tayer et al., 2021). Scientists in social neurology have found that a lack of social interaction and other stimuli can lead to brain damage, exacerbating dysfunctional behavior (Coppola, 2019). Therefore, implications of such restrictions manifest in a variety of psychological symptoms.
Researchers pay attention to specific psychological problems, which are all significant. For instance, according to Tayer et al. (2021), nervousness and sensory hypersensitivity develops, and inmates suffer from difficulties with memory, loss of identity, and confused thinking. Another particularly common consequence is stress disorders and increased anxiety. Other adverse implications include aggressiveness, depression, and suicidal tendencies (Luigi et al., 2020a; Lucas & Jones, 2019). Prisoners also report paranoid thoughts and decreased empathy for others, which can lead to difficulties in re-establishing social contacts (Tayer et al., 2021).
Wildeman and Andersen (2020) add that problems can include sleep disorders and that psychological symptoms can appear in the first few days of isolation and last for many years. The presence of a significant number of psychological health problems due to SC is a call for changes in practice. Although mental problems and their impact are already the rationales for the SC reformation, there are other adverse implications.
SC also affects the physical health of inmates, worsening their overall condition. Deterioration occurs for several reasons: circumstances of detention in the SC, policies related to the process, and chronic problems aggravated by strict confinement (Strong et al., 2020). In particular, conditions of imprisonment limit movements, food, the possibilities for hygienic procedures and include other restrictions. As a result, the risk of skin diseases like fungus is increasing, and weight fluctuations and dehydration appear (Strong et al., 2020). Moreover, in a study by Strong et al. (2020), prisoner participants surveyed often reported worsening chronic musculoskeletal pain due to difficulty in movement. As a cause of deterioration, the SC policy safety and compliance with isolation measures prevent prisoners from receiving medical care (Strong et al., 2020). Subsequently, their current conditions do not receive treatment, and critical situations such as seizures or heart attacks can lead to death.
Detention policies in the SC also lead to distrust of employees, including medical staff. Inmates report that seeking medical attention, they often face delays and feel completely isolated by the system (Jahn et al., 2022). Prisoners also face problems getting medication, which could be provided with delay or be lost. As a result, they develop a suspicion of malice, contributing to the distrust of medical staff and disappointment (Jahn et al., 2022). Such circumstances lead to the fact that prisoners may not seek help in an emergency, increasing the risk of death.
Mortality
Given the severity of health problems arising from being in the SC, it is crucial to consider the mortality risk. Luigi et al.’s (2020a) meta-analysis report a few studies with reliable evidence on mortality rates, but all indicate an association between mortality and SC. The causes of death are natural and unnatural, such as drug overdoses, murder, or suicide. A study by Brinkley-Rubinstein et al. (2019) expands the discussion, and its results demonstrate that time spent in the SC increases the likelihood of mortality after release. These conclusions correlate with the data in the study by Strong et al. (2020), highlighting the negative impact of strict isolation. Therefore, it is essential to examine the implications of SC and consider whether its goals are achieved with such cost.
The Perspective of the Prisoners
Studying prisoners’ perspectives and perceptions of SC helps better understand the roots of mental problems and the implications of isolation. Tayer et al. (2021) and Laws (2021) studied the contrasting views of prisoners – the first research draws attention to negative perceptions, while the second one studies those inmates who seek to get into the SC. In a survey by Tayer et al. (2021), prisoners most often noted the injustice of being placed in isolation and its punitive nature, even when such measures were aimed at protection. They believe such actions violate human rights, and their application is always insufficiently justified, which emphasizes injustice (Tayer et al., 2021). This perception leads to other negative emotions and a deterioration in mental condition.
Perceived injustice leads to a desire to confront prison workers. Inmates in several studies note that isolation often increases their anger and hatred and provokes a deep distrust of prison staff (Jahn et al., 2022; Tayer et al., 2021). Such emotions cause additional rage and outbreaks of aggression, which creates disorder in the prison system that the SC should help to avoid. Finally, strong negative emotions manifested as a result of isolation lead to psychological and behavioral problems and sometimes physical symptoms (Tayer et al., 2021). Therefore, prisoners are looking for ways to help themselves cope with the tension imposed by the SC.
The prisoners develop coping strategies to make the conditions of the SC more acceptable. Sensory deprivation and separation from society complicate the perception of life, and therefore prisoners are looking for ways to reduce the negative impact (Tayer et al., 2021). One of the strategies prisoners use is to follow a clear schedule and perform the same actions to maintain a sense of time (Tayer et al., 2021). Another way of alleviating circumstances is by referring to spirituality, which is characteristic of many prisoners (Tayer et al., 2021). This approach helped them preserve meaning and maintain a sense of identity and belonging. Another common strategy was constant exercise, which helped retain a sense of time (Tayer et al., 2021). It is worth noting that copying strategies are necessary to avoid negative consequences. Still, some inmates seek to get into the SC, and it is crucial to consider their motives, SC implications for them, and a necessity for coping.
While placement in isolation in the SC is usually perceived as a punishment, some prisoners take this measure voluntarily. The researchers state that the percentage of people placed in the SC of goodwill can be pretty significant, and their perception should be different from those who get there forcibly (Laws, 2021). For example, SC can be a break for those prisoners who find it difficult to cope with the pressure and unrest in standard units (Laws, 2021).
Such a motive is especially relevant for prisoners with problems staying in society, such as anxiety or phobias. Moreover, some prisoners sought privacy, as it helped them to develop discipline, not look back at others in their behavior, and to avoid temptations such as drugs (Laws, 2021). The desire to assess the situation, reflect, and appeal to faith was often the reason to go to SC (Laws, 2021). Considering this motive, it is worth noting that spirituality can be an influential part of prisoner rehabilitation – they often turn to faith for support and use it as a coping strategy.
Being among other criminals can be a threat to some prisoners. For this reason, another motive that pushes prisoners to the SC is fear. They may be aware of the danger of a potential attack on them, avoid exploitation or paying off debt, and not want to contact gangs (Laws, 2021). Prisoners give examples of the pressure bands exert on them by making them part of the group and demanding attacks on other prisoners (Laws, 2021). Analyzing this motive, it is worth noting that the SC as a deterrent should be aimed at dangerous criminals. When prisoners go to the SC voluntarily, it only protects fewer prisoners but cannot have a deterrent effect.
Solitary Confinement in the Prison System
The prison system developed and changed for a long time before coming to its current state. Mears et al. (2021) note that since the second half of the past century, the system in the United States has become more punitive – the number of prisoners has increased, as well as their time in prison and the severity of conditions. During the same period, the use of SC measures raised, including confinements more extended in time (Mears et al., 2021). In prisons, separate blocks have appeared for applying SC measures to prisoners who are challenging to manage – cruel people, which can undermine the usual functioning of prisons (Mears et al., 2021). In this way, prison staff sought to maintain control and order in the institution’s functioning and restrain prisoners.
While prison workers may be convinced of the SC’s deterrent effect, its theoretical underpinnings are contradictory. Deterrence theory is a critical fundament to such a measure and suggests that the benefits of crime will be less than the costs arising from SC, which will reduce motivation for crime (Lucas & Jones, 2019). However, such assumptions are based on the fact that inmates are ready to make rational choices, assessing the potential implications of their actions (Lucas & Jones, 2019). One may suggest that such a feature is the theory’s weakness when applied to criminals.
The prisoners’ responses to isolation in the SC and the choice of a line of behavior, which can lead to this measure, are diverse. For instance, considering the deterrent effect at the individual level, the researchers note that it can be contrasted with how some prisoners seek to get into the SC to create an image of cruel people (Laws, 2021). Reducing unrest is also possible if instigators, who provoke aggression, are placed into isolation. However, there is a possibility that others will take their place, which will also lead to continued misconduct (Mears et al., 2021). Moreover, considering the issue of obeying prison rules, the effect can also be contrasting. Some prisoners perceive the SC as punishment to avoid and submit to the rules, while others consider it unfair treatment and show even more disobedience. As a result, theoretical views offer diverse and complex for implementation requirements for the SC.
Given such contradictions in theoretical views, one can assume how difficult it is to create conditions for an effective SC. In particular, correctional officers need to create circumstances in which prisoners respect the rules and, at the same time, maintain the severity of the conditions (Mears et al., 2021). Moreover, prisoners should understand the fairness of employees’ actions, and only the worst of them should fall into the SC (Mears et al., 2021). Misunderstanding the measures applied, receiving the punishment of isolation, and perceived injustice can lead to disorders that the SC is designed to prevent. Given that theoretical views are demanding and ambiguous, studying evidence of SC effects on prisoners and correctional facilities is essential.
The Benefit of Solitary Confinement
SC should serve to maintain order, but it is essential to study how its effect is noticeable in practice. A survey of prison officers conducted in a study by Mears et al. (2021) demonstrated that the most significant impact may be security. SC, especially with extended time, involves the isolation of prisoners, which can be dangerous for other inmates and prison staff. The application to them of such strict restrictions and controlled conditions limits contact with those who can be harmed and is, therefore, necessary for the most violent criminals (Mears et al., 2021). Moreover, achieving security does not overshadow another goal, which can be applied to problem prisoners – punishment. For example, while Lucas and Jones (2019) find no evidence of a deterrent effect, they see just deserts and retribution as benefits of SC. The possibility of implementing the SC as a form of punishment can be considered from other perspectives.
The restrictions of the SC should be strict to make prisoners seek to avoid them. Such a feature gives reason to assume that prisoners will comply with the rules of the correctional institution in order not to get into the SC. For example, prison workers noted that knowing the seriousness of such a detention and that officers are ready to apply it and not use empty threats increases officers’ authority (Mears et al., 2021). Moreover, strict conditions make it easier for employees to control dangerous prisoners.
The opportunity to operate with fewer workers has become another benefit that officers are considering. Participants in Mears et al.’s (2021) survey noted that correctional facilities always have a staff shortage, and their efforts are dedicated to controlling dangerous criminals. Moreover, inmates tend to listen less to inexperienced employees and show disrespect to them. Understaffing and focusing on the most problematic inmates leads to officers being unable to perform their duties adequately, such as searching for contraband (Mears et al., 2021). Employees are also concerned that these problems prevent them from establishing relationships with prisoners, which would interfere with trust and cooperation (Mears et al., 2021). The SC solves these problems by enclosing the most problematic prisoners, facilitating control over them and collaboration with other prisoners. In this case, the SC maintains the effectiveness of the prison.
Solitary Confinement as A Problem in the Prison System
As a tool for maintaining order, SC raises some questions, which makes one doubt its effectiveness. Prison officers point out that the SC often becomes a reason for manipulating the institution’s rules (Mears et al., 2021). For example, when prisoners fall into isolation, they can look for ways to bring problems to employees, such as pretending to need medical attention or filing complaints against staff. Another way of manipulation is to violate the rules to get into the SC for various reasons (Mears et al., 2021). As a result, the restrictions imposed on prisoners in the SC often push them into manipulation and new riots. Moreover, such cases of deception by inmates can lead to distrust and problems, which worsen their stay in the SC, for example, the previously mentioned difficulties in obtaining medical care.
Considering one of the critical functions of the SC – deterrence and order support, it is also worth noting that the measure is not always successful. Lucas and Jones (2019) did not find confirmation that the theory of deterrence is applicable in practice in prisons. Experience in the SC does not stop most prisoners from subsequent misconduct. Moreover, criminals that fall into the SC are often replaced by others, provoking new riots, for example, in a gang (Mears et al., 2021). Moreover, since the SC pushes prisoners to manipulation, they use it after returning to the general unit. Often, the experience of isolation becomes a ground for increasing the criminal reputation, leading to even greater disobedience on the part of prisoners (Mears et al., 2021). Consequently, the SC can have the opposite effect to what is expected, which means failure for its purposes.
The problems associated with the SC are also complicated because the policy for using such measures is not developed and agreed upon enough, which supports the improper placement of prisoners. For example, Labrecque et al. (2021a) and Coppola (2019) indicate that the standards of living conditions in the SC and the timing of their check differ depending on the jurisdiction. Differences in requirements can cause varying degrees of influence on inmates, suggesting that prisons with worse conditions are more likely to worsen health problems. Another problem is the difference in authority to make decisions regarding the placement of prisoners in the SC and its duration. Some jurisdictions have specific committees to make such decisions, while others keep them for employees’ consideration (Labrecque et al., 2021a). When officers decide on placement in SC, prisoners may perceive it unfair, worsening relations with personnel.
Several other aspects are pretty contradictory in various policies in the country. For example, there are no specific requirements for the frequency of health surveillance of prisoners, especially their mental health (Labrecque et al., 2021a). The policy also generally does not provide standards for SC conditions; for example, not all jurisdictions describe minimal requirements for hygiene procedures or rest (Labrecque et al., 2021a). As a result, when reforming the SC, a more precise formulation of policies is also needed, which regulates related processes.
The problem of the effectiveness of correctional institutions and the measures taken in them is disclosed from an additional perspective when considering the issue of recidivism. Recidivism involves a return to criminal activity after experiencing measures that should prevent new crimes. Recidivism poses a significant threat to society and brings financial losses, physical and psychological damage (Luigi et al., 2020b). This problem indicates that the correctional system does not cope with its task of rehabilitating criminals (Luigi et al., 2020b). As noted earlier, the severity of the SC measures is intended for a deterrent effect. Still, in some cases, it only leads to increased aggression and does not reduce misconduct in the institution. Therefore, it can be assumed that this deterrent measure also cannot prevent recidivism, and their relationship needs to be considered.
Getting into the SC usually suggests more criminal behavior and refusing to obey the rules, which means that such prisoners may need rehabilitation to prevent crimes more than others. Luigi et al. (2020b) note that criminal behavior in prison can be a significant predictor of recidivism. Moreover, mental deterioration due to being in SC also interferes with effective rehabilitation (Luigi et al., 2020b).
Studies by Wildeman and Andersen (2020) and Luigi et al. (2020b) found that incarceration in the SC was more likely to lead inmates to recidivism. In particular, according to Wildeman and Andersen (2020), prisoners with such experience also have difficulties in the labor market and can commit a new crime within three years after release. Increasing recidivism is further evidence that SC may be a drawback rather than an effective tool for the correctional system.
One may consider several potential reasons that increase recidivism among prisoners in the SC. In particular, psychological stress, which lasts a long time even after release, is a significant barrier to rehabilitation and the establishment of the usual way of life (Wildeman & Andersen, 2020). Problems with medical care access, particularly psychological support, exacerbate the situation by prolonging psychological issues. SC also restricts prisoners’ access to educational and professional programs necessary for future rehabilitation (Luigi et al., 2020b). As a result, the restrictions provided in the SC not only do not prevent new crimes but can also become an additional influence factor for misconduct.
In some cases, the reason for recidivism is the individual perception and reaction to the experience in SC. For example, negative emotions arise when the SC interferes with developing self-control and supports impulsive behavior (Luigi et al., 2020b). Moreover, life in detention, both in the general unit and isolation, requires unique adaptation from prisoners, for example, the development of defense and manipulation abilities (Luigi et al., 2020b). Such qualities change patterns of human behavior, making it more challenging to return to society.
It is worth noting that not all researchers consider the evidence of SC’s influence on recidivism convincing. For example, comparing recidivism rates among inmates after SC experience and prisoner experience in standard units, some studies note that the difference between them is minimal (Lucas & Jones, 2019). Nevertheless, most researchers acknowledge the SC’s negative impact on prisoners’ health. The difference in evidence, in turn, can be justified by attention to various forms of SC and other variables, for instance, the time of release, the age of prisoners, or the presence of addictions. Leaving the possibility of recidivism, the effectiveness of SC to deter and control prisoners remains questionable.
The possibility of more effective control over dangerous criminals is one of the features of the SC. Prison officers noted that this characteristic is especially relevant in case of understaffing. However, the lack of personnel also has a negative side, as it interferes with helping prisoners in SC. Officers believe that many prisoners entering the SC have the potential for rehabilitation, but taking appropriate measures becomes impossible due to the small number of employees (Mears et al., 2021). Failure to achieve deterrence and the need for assistance for prisoners in SC is also noted in a study by Woo et al. (2020). Researchers found no evidence that similar penalties of isolation reduce misdemeanors (Woo et al., 2020). However, social support programs significantly reduced the likelihood of new misconduct and attacks (Woo et al., 2020). Given that the SC does not achieve most of its goals, it is necessary to consider alternative approaches to working with prisoners.
Alternatives
The evidence and arguments presented above suggest the need to reform SC practices. Several alternative programs aimed at changing the various stages have already been proposed and tested. For example, the Vera Institute of Justice created the Safe Alternatives initiative, which examines possible changes that can be made to the practices and policies of the SC to reduce its negative impact (Luigi et al., 2020a). They examined a CAPS program implemented in New York to prevent the deterioration of mentally ill prisoners, placing them in hospital departments where they could receive care instead of SC (Luigi et al., 2020a). The program assumes that prisoners will spend more time in therapeutic sessions and classes instead of strict isolation in the cell (Luigi et al., 2020a). Such a measure reduces the risks of self-harm and trauma to vulnerable prisoners.
Changes are also possible for other elements of the SC to reduce harm to all prisoners. For example, the SC may include extended off-camera time, continued access to educational and professional programs, and enhanced rehabilitation assistance (Luigi et al., 2020a). It is crucial to introduce the practice of reviewing cases to return prisoners to standard units to improve the fairness of detention in the SC (Luigi et al., 2020a). Reviewing inmates’ cases and continuing participation in education will reduce the power and duration of a negative impact and help them return to social contact more quickly.
Changing the conditions of detention can mitigate the effect of SC on the health of prisoners, which has been tested in practice. Similar measures were included in the Step Up Program (SUP) in Oregon (Labrecque et al., 2021b). The program aims to improve the SC environment through enhanced interaction between prison staff and inmates, providing more time outside the cell, motivating compliant behavior, and reintegration programs (Labrecque et al., 2021b). In this case, the purpose of the detention of the SC exceeds the usual containment, as it seeks to make prisoners better than they were before entering isolation. After implementing the program, prison staff and prisoners noted significant differences from the SC and were optimistic about its outcomes (Labrecque et al., 2021b). Introducing such programs is vital for the well-being and rehabilitation of prisoners but requires further study of their short-term and long-term consequences.
Reform Challenges
While transformations in SC practice are necessary, and there are various programs and proposals for change, reform may face resistance and other challenges. The program’s vision, as it should be, is difficult to implement in practice (Labrecque et al., 2021b). Staff and prison management can resist change due to a lack of resources or similar reasons. Moreover, sometimes employees perceive changes as a threat to the usual order in a correctional institution (Augustine et al., 2021). Prisoners, especially vulnerable groups, can also carry additional burdens if given closer attention and resist new programs (Augustine et al., 2021). Finally, creating an environment to support prisoners is contrary to the conditions of strict control in the SC, and as a result, reform measures are not taken seriously (Augustine et al., 2021). Therefore, paying attention to these obstacles in preparing transformations in correctional institutions is also essential.
Conclusions
Thus, the SC is a form of imprisonment in correctional institutions, which implies harsher detention conditions for incarcerated individuals with increased limitations. A significant number of prisoners constantly live in the SC, and, as in the entire correctional system, there is inequality in relation to national minorities. The severity of the conditions of the SC has disastrous consequences for the mental and physical health of prisoners, even for those who had no health problems before receiving this form of punishment.
At the same time, the application of SC measures also often does not achieve its goals of supporting order or deterrence. Nevertheless, the SC can be useful for protecting those prisoners who get there, but considering crime avoidance, it can lead to the opposite effect – an increase in recidivism. The harm to health and the inability to achieve order and reduce crime testify to the need to reform the practice of the SC; otherwise, taxpayers’ money is wasted, and society is not protected. Alternative approaches, such as social support programs and education, should focus on prisoner rehabilitation. Moreover, it is vital to protect the health of prisoners, especially vulnerable groups that already have health problems.
References
Augustine, D., Barragan, M., Chesnut, K., Pifer, N. A., Reiter, K., & Strong, J. D. (2021). Window dressing: Possibilities and limitations of incremental changes in solitary confinement. Health & Justice, 9(1), 1-13. Web.
Brinkley-Rubinstein, L., Sivaraman, J., Rosen, D.L., Cloud, D.H., Junker, G., Proescholdbell, S., Shanahan, M.E., & Ranapurwala, S.I. (2019). Association of restrictive housing during incarceration with mortality after release. JAMA Network Open. 2(10), 1-11. Web.
Coppola, F. (2019). The brain in solitude: An (other) eighth amendment challenge to solitary confinement. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 6(1), 184-225. Web.
Jahn, J. L., Bardele, N., Simes, J. T., & Western, B. (2022). Clustering of health burdens in solitary confinement: A mixed-methods approach. SSM. Qualitative Research in Health, 2, 1-17. Web.
Labrecque, R. M., Campbell, C. M., LaBranche, K. J., Reddy, L., Zavita, K. R., & Morgan, R. D. (2021a). Administrative segregation: A review of state and federal policies. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 32(7), 718-739. Web.
Labrecque, R. M., Tostlebe, J. J., Useem, B., & Pyrooz, D. C. (2021b). Reforming solitary confinement: The development, implementation, and processes of a restrictive housing step down reentry program in Oregon. Health & Justice, 9(1), 1-15. Web.
Laws, B. (2021). Segregation seekers: An alternative perspective on the solitary confinement debate. The British Journal of Criminology, 61(6), 1452-1468. Web.
Lucas, J. W., & Jones, M. A. (2019). An analysis of the deterrent effects of disciplinary segregation on institutional rule violation rates. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 30(5), 765-787. Web.
Luigi, M., Dellazizzo, L., Giguère, C. É., Goulet, M. H., & Dumais, A. (2020a). Shedding light on “the hole”: A systematic review and meta-analysis on adverse psychological effects and mortality following solitary confinement in correctional settings. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 1-11. Web.
Luigi, M., Dellazizzo, L., Giguère, É., Goulet, H., Potvin, S., & Dumais, A. (2020b). Solitary confinement of inmates associated with relapse into any recidivism including violent crime: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(2), 444 –456. Web.
Mears, D. P., Aranda-Hughes, V., & Pesta, G. B. (2021). Managing prisons through extended solitary confinement: A necessary approach or a signal of prison system failure? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 1-23. Web.
Strong, J. D., Reiter, K., Gonzalez, G., Tublitz, R., Augustine, D., Barragan, M., Chesnut, K., Dashtgard, P., Pifer, N., & Blair, T. R. (2020). The body in isolation: The physical health impacts of incarceration in solitary confinement. PloS One, 15(10), 1-20. Web.
Tayer, L., Einat, T., & Antar, A. Y. (2021). The long-term effects of solitary confinement from the perspective of inmates. The Prison Journal, 101(6), 652-674. Web.
Western, B., Simes, J. T., & Bradner, K. (2022). Solitary confinement and institutional harm. Incarceration, 3(1), 1-25. Web.
Wildeman, C., & Andersen, L. H. (2020). Long‐term consequences of being placed in disciplinary segregation. Criminology, 58(3), 423-453. Web.
Woo, Y., Drapela, L., Campagna, M., Stohr, M. K., Hamilton, Z. K., Mei, X., & Tollefsbol, E. T. (2020). Disciplinary segregation’s effects on inmate behavior: Institutional and community outcomes. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(7), 1036-1058. Web.