Long-Term Isolation in Prison - Essay Example

Long-Term Isolation in Prison When people hear of torture, often what comes to mind is the Medieval rack stretching the human body to painful extremes, the pulling out of fingernails, one by one, in agonizing horror, or the more modern and current torture de jour, water boarding. Yet there is another type of torture that most adults are aware of, but most choose not to ponder it often. Many may not even consider it torture, but solitary confinement, especially long periods of it, should not be considered anything less. People know that it occurs in prisons all over the world, and still one rarely hears of any opposition to it. In fact, because those who impose the torture, prison officials, correction officers, and the lawyers who defend them in court, do not discuss it in any meaningful way. They do not release statistics about how many prisoners are kept isolated from the rest of the prison population, and they appeal any verdicts that say that solitary confinement is cruel and unusual punishment. Yet, how something that can cause the same amount of physical damage as being hit in the head hard enough to change one’s brain function, like as little as two weeks of solitary confinement does, can be called anything but torture is beyond reason to most people. This widespread and uniquely cruel form of torture goes by several different names. Among them are solitary confinement, segregation or “SAMs” (i.e. Special Administrative Measures) established “in 1996 for gang leaders and other crime bosses with demonstrated reach in cases of ‘substantial risk that an inmate's communication or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury to persons’" (Theoharis). Perhaps no one speaks of solitary confinement in terms of inhumane torture because they believe it is used just for the worst of the worst, the gang leaders and crime bosses, and since September 11, 2001, terrorists. Cool Hand Luke was thrown in “the hole” for defying the prison camp’s rules, and most people’s concept of solitary confinement matches what was portrayed in that movie and others like it. Most people believe solitary confinement is a place for inmates who violate prison rules. And, to be fair, it is. There are not a lot of freedoms to restrict or privileges to take away from a prisoner who has already had most of his/her rights removed through incarceration. Maybe though it is just easier not to think of such things. After all, if one is not a criminal, one never has to worry about spending 23 hours a day in a cinder block cell with no television, radio, or newspapers. Not even a deck of playing cards are allowed. Books are and usually inmates in solitary confinement can write letters to one family member once a week, although the rules on that vary. Some inmates in segregated units—another more sterile name for solitary confinement—can have visitors; some cannot. They can leave their cell for one hour a day to exercise or shower, and all that activity is watched by guards via monitoring devices. These are not conditions most people see as humane even for criminals convicted of heinous crimes, but what should be done with prisoners who cannot get along with other prisoners, who incite violence or are caught with contraband in their cells? Solitary confinement seems like the only alternative. That is why it is surprising to some to learn that many prisoners kept in segregation are not violent, have not broken any rules, and are not being punished per se. Miki Ann DiMarco, a transsexual female incarcerated before the transformational surgeries were completed spent fourteen months in protective segregation in Wyoming Women’s Center. Because DiMarco still had some male genitalia, prison officials thought it best to keep her out of the general prison population for fear that she would be harassed. “DiMarco accepted the judgment of prison authorities that she not be placed in general population, but objected to the spartan nature of her confinement, but she was never allowed to have a hearing or an appeal process to contest the decision” (Lesbian/Gay Law Notes 26). When DiMarco was released from prison she filed a law suit claiming, among other things, that her right to due process was violated. A judge in the District Court of Wyoming found that “[DiMarco] had been subjected to atypically harsh conditions of confinement that raised issues under the due process clause, and that she had been entitled to more in the way of procedural due process at least a hearing process to contest the conditions of her confinement” (Lesbian/Gay Law Notes 26). The judge awarded DiMarco $1,000 to compensate for fourteen months of solitary confinement plus attorney’s fees and other costs of bringing the lawsuit. Whatever the sum of the award, apparently the state of Wyoming thought it was too much and appealed. Unfortunately, DiMarco died before she saw the case come to the ultimate conclusion, which was that, because DiMarco was no longer the primary party bringing the case, the ruling was reversed. The judge to whom the case was appealed agreed that DiMarco’s complaints were valid: the conditions under which she was confined were “admittedly Spartan” and not typical of protective custody. However, the judge also found that the prison had provided the basic necessities to sustain life (i.e., three hots and a cot). She was deprived of many amenities available to other prisoners, but not human contact since she interacted with the prison staff. “Having said this,” wrote Circuit Court Judge Tim Tymkovich “given her unique condition it is hard to believe the prison could not make better accommodations for her long-term placement. Many of her complaints about living conditions were commonplace and the petty denial of certain amenities borders on the absurd “ (Lesbian/Gay Law Notes 26). Clearly Wyoming prison officials felt little concern for DiMarco’s mental and emotional well-being. One must wonder if the denial of simple items to ease her isolation was part of another agenda other than protecting her. Perhaps prison officials justified it as more of an issue with her lifestyle than one of human rights. Though most people, it seems, assume that an extended length of time in solitary confinement can and most likely will lead to some sort of psychological damage. One prisoner who spent a considerable amount of time segregated from the general prison population says that it most definitely does. Raymond Luc Levasseur who spent fifteen years in solitary confinement during eighteen years in federal prison for committing terrorist bombings in the 1970s and early 1980s says, “I think it's recognized by most people that extended solitary confinement is going to cross the line at some point to psychological torture of an individual. . . . I've seen everything from suicides to people slipping into total depression, becoming extremely violent, smearing themselves with feces because there's nothing left to do"(Curtis). If the sheer boredom does not get to a person, the lack of privacy and the sleepless nights probably will. Besides the constant monitoring, a light is left on after dark so prisoners in segregation never get to sleep, eat, use the bathroom, or just sit on their cots without having a spotlight illuminating their actions. The idea of separating prisoners who need protection from other prisoners or from whom other prisoners need protection has been taken to the extreme now in the super maximum prisons. Lorna Rhodes explains, “Supermax prisons fulfill some of the same managerial goals as segregation, removing and punishing prisoners who get in fights, harm staff, or are simply considered troublemakers. But these facilities are no longer serving as ‘jail’ or relatively short-term detention; rather, contemporary prisoners serve long supermax sentences in ‘administrative’ rather than disciplinary segregation . . . .The aim is to remove and isolate, often preemptively, and many are held for years or even decades” (Rhodes 549). Most people think that the types of prisoners who are held in these supermax facilities are the worst of the worst, but that may not necessarily be so. “Supermax placement is rarely determined by the crime for which an inmate is sentenced and can result not only from serious offenses committed in prison but also from mental illness, need for protection, the accumulation of multiple minor infractions, or membership in ‘threat’ groups” (Rhodes 551). In fact, Rhodes cites sources estimating that 25% of all supermax inmates are mentally ill. Some showed signs of mental illness before their incarceration and others developed symptoms during their incarceration under such torturous conditions. Since these supermax prisons have become popular nationwide mainly because corrections officials claim that their high cost is warranted. But no one has ever really defined what constitutes success in terms of these facilities or if they are cost effective and merit the billions in tax dollars spent on them every year. Supermax prisons not only are a sort of question mark in the overall system of corrections in the United States, they have garnered a lot of negative feedback. Jeffrey Ian Ross claims that the conditions inside the Supermax prisons are so bad that human rights organizations like Amnesty International and the American Civil Liberties Union believe these prisons may violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the state from engaging in cruel and unusual punishment (Ross 63). Others point out that the supermax prisons were not necessary and only came into being as “part of the correctional industrial complex (i.e., an informal network of correctional workers, professional organizations, and corporations that keep the jails and prisons system growing)” (Ross 64). In other words, supermax prisons were created to keep the tax payer dollars supporting the jobs of those who work in corrections, especially those who prefer to take the easier road of punishment for rule breakers than the more complicated and difficult method of reforming prisoners. This may explain why those who oversee these institutions are reluctant to share any statistics about their success. Perhaps the gravy train would end if tax payers were to find out about the daily violation of human rights that goes on in the name of keeping the greater public at large safe. While everyone agrees that prisons are for punishment and reform, mostly the former, prolonged solitary confinement goes beyond normal punitive measures. Yet the alternatives are few. Prisoners who are serving life in prison may feel they have nothing to lose so they will continue to be violent, maintain gang ties, and just generally carry on with the lifestyle that resulted in their imprisonment. The only things left to take away from those types of prisoners are the few freedoms and/or amenities they have such as television privileges, visits with family, access to common areas and the outdoor exercise yard. That is what segregation achieves: temporary removal from normal prison life. It also accomplishes the physical removal of the dangerous or endangered prisoner from the environment in which the danger has the potential of occurring. It places the prisoner in a cell with little stimulus where s/he can be watched constantly in hopes of preventing any harm to themselves or anyone else. Supermax facilities theoretically just enhance that capability to achieve the ideal of solitary confinement by having the capacity to house greater numbers of prisoners in segregated units. Also, it is not just state prisons who torture inmates by placing them in solitary confinement for extended periods of time. Federal prisons do the very same thing with even less oversight. Since September 2001 a person suspected of terrorism can be held without being tried in court or even accused in some cases for an indeterminate amount of time. Many of them are placed in solitary confinement. During a forum at Albany Law School on Solitary Confinement and Isolation in Federal Prison held on March 30, 2011 the effects of the solitary conditions imposed upon terrorist suspects was described. Stephen Downs recounts, “Within weeks, [the prisoner] begins to break down mentally. His thoughts become confused, speech becomes difficult, and he can become paranoid or irrational or experience panic. Survivors describe it as mental pain akin to torture. According to the Geneva Convention III, prisoners of war should not be held in solitary for more than 30 days, but unfortunately this treaty does not apply to defendants awaiting trial who are presumed innocent” (Downs). Many people have not heard of these conditions because the Patriot Act allows for prosecution of anybody who speaks publicly about the conditions. Downs cites attorney, Lynne Stewart, who is serving a ten-year jail sentence for violating the SAMs. This harsh penalty is warranted, according to officials, because of the gravity of terrorism charges which justify the SAMs. Prison officials and lawyers who have successfully thwarted all attempts to prohibit the practice of placing prisoners, convicted or not, in solitary confinement argue that segregating prisoners is not akin to torture. They say it is a legitimate way to manage prisoners who refuse to conform to the rules of the prison; however, others point out that the practice speaks more to the inability of prison officials to mediate tense situations and to find ways to reduce the conflicts germane to prison life. Some would say it shows the lack of imagination to come up with new and more reasonable methods and unwillingness of correction workers to view prisoners as anything more than troublemakers incapable of reform. Unfortunately, segregating prisoners who cause problems or who are the target of those who would, has become the primary way of disciplining and/or maintaining order. The effects of such methods are clear. Several studies about the effects of solitary confinement on prisoners were conducted in the 1990s with inconclusive results. Since then, and probably due to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the legislation coming from that (i.e., the Patriot Act), few studies have been done specifically on the effects of prolonged solitary confinement. Yet, if one were to ask, most people would believe, just from a sense of common decency, that prolonged isolation is not good for human beings. Human beings are social animals and need others like them to talk to. Prisoners are no different than the unincarcerated general public in that respect and being closed in a seven-by-twelve foot cell for 23 hours a day cannot be good for someone who has already had most of his/her rights taken away. No longer having contact with other humans leads to devastating consequences especially for those who already had issues of one nature or another, which, not surprisingly, most prisoners do. The effects of extended solitary confinement are numerous and devastating. One function that tends to deteriorate quickly in isolation is the ability to reason. A professor of psychology at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, Kurt Danziger cites two sets of studies he conducted on the effects of isolation. In what he called the most pertinent experiment, Danziger described how two paid volunteer subjects were isolated for three or four days. Before they began the study, the subjects were given a battery of psychological tests. Danziger’s concluded, “The type of intellectual function that seems to suffer most clearly under these conditions, I would say that it is the capacity for reasoning … the capacity of the person to discriminate between degrees of falsehood and truth and the probabilities of a case to be judged on the basis of given information; in other words, his capacity for drawing correct inferences” (qtd. in Louw and O'Brien 98). Other normal functions lost as a result of prolonged isolation and deprivation include the “loss of a normal critical attitude, heightened suggestibility, depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, and appetite disturbances” (Louw and O'Brien 98). These sorts of psychological and emotional alterations of a person’s psyche can cause him/her to confess to anything just to end the torture. One must wonder how many prisoners have pled guilty to pending charges just to escape the solitary confinement. But one does not even have to have any compassion for prisoners who have confessed to or been convicted of breaking the law. Some well-documented cases of hostages being held in isolation and the resulting mental anguish should spur some sense of injustice. Atul Gwande cites the case of Terry Anderson. He was the chief Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press. On March 16, 1985 he was captured by the Hezbollah in Lebanon and held captive for nearly seven years. During this time he was “placed in what seemed to be a dusty closet, large enough for only a mattress. Blindfolded, he could make out the distant sounds of other hostages. . . . Peering around his blindfold, Anderson could see a bare light bulb dangling from the ceiling. He received three unpalatable meals a day—usually a sandwich of bread and cheese, or cold rice with canned vegetables, or soup” (Gawande). Anderson and other notable Americans who were prisoners of war, namely John McCain, claim that even though they suffered other kinds of torture, the isolation and lack of human contact was the worst and most devastating. The effects are not just emotional. They are physical too. Gwande cites studies going back to the 1960s using EEGs that have shown scattered areas of slower brain waves in prisoners after a week or more of solitary confinement. “In 1992, fifty-seven prisoners of war, released after an average of six months in detention camps in the former Yugoslavia, were examined using EEG-like tests. The recordings revealed brain abnormalities months afterward; the most severe were found in prisoners who had endured either head trauma sufficient to render them unconscious or, yes, solitary confinement. Without sustained social interaction, the human brain may become as impaired as one that has incurred a traumatic injury” (Gawande). This makes the claims of DiMarco and Levasseur not seem so much like whiny prisoners who thought they had been treated unfairly as most prisoners do. It is clear that prolonged solitary confinement is torture and should not be practiced in the United States. Even the Supreme Court ruled against the use of segregation for inmates with existing mental disorders. In Madrid vs. Gomez (California, 1995) the court found that it was a violation of the Eighth Amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment to place mentally ill inmates in Pelican Bay-Special Housing Unit (SHU). Frederick Maue quotes the court’s decision. “Those who the record demonstrates are a particularly high risk for suffering very serious or severe injury to their mental health, including overt paranoia, psychotic breaks with reality, or massive exacerbations of existing mental illness as a result of conditions in the SHU" (Maue). The court would consider it a violation of the Eighth Amendment if inmates with certain disorders were placed in SHU including mental illness, borderline personality disorder, brain damage, mental retardation, chronic depression and/or impulse control disorders. That list most likely covers the majority of people incarcerated in any prison let alone a place like Pelican Bay, one of the most notorious supermax prisons. This ruling was made in 1995, yet today, in 2011, many prisoners in solitary confinement—25% Rhodes says—maybe more, suffer from mental illness. Surely there are more cost efficient and humane alternatives to this type of mental torture. Perhaps locking a prisoner in a cell not out of the general population is the answer. That way s/he can at least have contact with others and darkness to sleep by. Maybe the solution is to provide more mental stimulus to prisoners in segregation, or perhaps that stimulus should come before prisoners become so bored they behave in ways that causes them to be considered safer to themselves or the general prison population locked up in solitary confinement. One solution may be to make prisoners work a full time job and give the money to their victims. This provides them with something to occupy their time, gives them work experience, and satisfies the need to make amends. Works Cited Curtis, Abigail. "Is solitary confinement torture?: Proposed bill would place limits on use of solitary confinement in state prison ." Bangor Daily News (ME), 2009 24 October. Downs, Stephen F. "Solitary Confinement and Isolation in Federal Prisons." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 30.4 (2011). Gawande, Atul. "Hellhole." New Yorker 30 March 2009: Academic Search Premier. Accessed November 8, 2011. Lesbian/Gay Law Notes. "10th Circuit Holds Intersexual’s Due Process Rights Not Violated in Solitary Confinement Decision." Lesbian/Gay Law Notes (2007): 25-27. Louw, Johann and Catherine O'Brien. "The Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement: An Early Instance of Psychology in South African Courts." South African Journal of Psychology 37.1 (2007): 96-106. Maue, Frederick R. "Management of the Mentally Ill In Administrative Segregation: Legal and Management Challenges ." Corrections Today 68.4 (2006): Academic Search Premier. Accessed November 8, 2011. Rhodes, Lorna A. "Supermax as a Technology of Punishment." Social Research 74.2 (2007): 547-566. Ross, Jeffrey Ian. "Supermax Prisons." Society 44.3 (2007): 60-64. Theoharis, Jeanne. "My Student, the 'Terrorist'." Chronicle of Higher Education 57.31 (2011): Academic Search Premier. Accessed November 8, 2011. Read More