Bag of Snakes is an occasional email series that highlights different aspects of the criminal punishment system in Arkansas. Learn more here. Did you miss Part One? Read it here.
In our first email we introduced solitary confinement and the collaboration between DecARcerate and Disability Rights Arkansas to study solitary confinement. Advocates and activists in our state and across the country are working to eliminate the use of solitary confinement. To understand why so much effort is being put into ending this rarely talked about practice, we have to look at all of the problems that arise when solitary confinement is used. Solitary confinement is an inhumane practice that impacts not only the individuals experiencing it but the prison system and community at large. This email will break down six of the biggest problems associated with holding people in solitary confinement.
Psychological Harm
Many calls for ending restrictive housing (another term for solitary confinement) are in response to the evidence of psychological harm that extended stays in solitary can cause to individuals. The isolation, forced idleness, and sensory deprivation experienced in solitary can cause or exacerbate mental illness, even in people without a history of mental illness, that continues even after they exit solitary.
The behaviors/ symptoms that people can develop in solitary include:
At our core, humans are wired for meaningful social connection. It is essential for our normal emotional development, stable self-identity, and lasting well-being. This removal from meaningful social connection is a dehumanizing practice. The lasting damage is best explained by Eddie Ellis, who spent a decade straight in solitary confinement. During that time, he hugged no one, rarely saw the sky, and never touched a flower or blade of grass.
The psychological harm is of concern to many groups and is the reason that the National Commission on Correctional Health Care is advocating for prisons to limit solitary confinement stays to no more than 15 days.
Pre-Existing Mental Illness and Discipline
In America, about 11% of people over the age of 18 meet the criteria for a serious mental illness (SMI). In prisons, the percentage is much higher; between 15% and 24% of incarcerated individuals have an SMI diagnosis.
Not only can solitary create mental illness in individuals without a history of mental illness, it can also make preexisting and unresolved mental illness worse. While in solitary, their mental illness may take the form of self-destructive, violent, or aggressive behavior; mental breakdown or loss of sense of self; psychosis; severe depression or mania; extreme panic, anger, anxiety, or impulsivity; or suicidal thoughts or attempts.
The use of solitary confinement as punishment creates a harmful cycle that is hard to escape, for people with preexisting mental illness. Mental illness can make people uncooperative or can make it difficult for these people to follow rules. For example, someone with a psychotic disorder may believe that others are trying to control them or read their minds. These thoughts and behaviors may lead to breaking prison rules, which in many states, including Arkansas, is often punished with time in solitary confinement. However, as we just stated, this time in solitary can make mental illness worse which only leads to more punishment (time in solitary) which makes their mental illness worse, and so the cycle continues.
Safety and Security
Prison safety is seen as the number one priority for anyone working in or managing prisons. Supporters of solitary confinement argue that this practice is absolutely necessary to maintain order and keep prisons safe. However, there is little research or evidence proving this claim to be true. Additionally, several recent studies have shown that solitary confinement does not have an impact on misbehavior, violence, or even gang activity within prisons.
The Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons has gone so far as to say that solitary confinement can actually lead to increased violence, “[making] worse the very problem it is designed to solve.”
Advocates for prison reform say inadequate attention has been given to how broad use of restrictive housing may conflict with what should be the overarching penal aims — rehabilitation, successful preparation for re-entry, low recidivism, and public safety. In its place, advocates are calling for new and more impactful solutions for safety within prisons.
Re-entry, Public Safety, and Recidivism
The problems caused by solitary confinement are not isolated to a person’s time in solitary.The use of solitary confinement creates lasting effects for both the individual and their community. These issues are tied to re-entry from solitary into the general prison population or to life outside prison recidivism, and the likelihood of their re-arrest for a crime.
A study in New York prisons concluded that, among individuals who had been segregated, negative behaviors increased after their return to the general prison population. These individuals reported that they “found it difficult to control their emotions, reacting aggressively and violently to situations that would not previously have provoked such a response.”
Not only is there an increase in negative behavior in general, solitary confinement has also been linked to greater levels of violence. A study in Florida found that folks who experienced more than 90 days in solitary were 18% more likely to commit a violent crime in the first three years after release. Another study, in Washington, found that individuals in a supermax prison who were released directly into general society were more likely to commit a felony. If the goals of prison should be safety and rehabilitation, solitary confinement actively works against them by increasing likelihood of violence and challenges to reentry.
Cost
Restrictive housing units incur significantly more expensive than general population housing, not only for construction but also for operations due to higher staffing requirements. Not all states track the costs, but for those that do, the cost of operating segregated housing is consistently much higher — up to double or more — than general population housing. A few examples:
Maryland: In Maryland in 2000, the cost of general population housing was a third of that for the super-max.
Texas: In Texas in 2002, general population housing cost $15,498 annually per person, compared to $22,494 for housing in administrative segregation.
Ohio: In Ohio in 2003, general population housing cost $22,995 annually per person; for maximum security, $26,865; for supermax, $54,385.
Illinois: In Illinois in 2009, housing at a supermax cost $92,000 annually per person, which was two or three times the cost for other maximum-security prisons.
Credits: This edition of Bag of Snakes was written by Claire White and Nancy Dockter. Logo design is by Tanya Hollifield. Editing and layout by Zachary Crow. DecARcerate depends on the generosity of people like you. Please consider making a one-time or recurring donation to support our ongoing work.