Solitary Confinement in the United States

Solitary Confinement and the State Laws

In a July 14, 2015, speech at the NAACP National Convention, President Barack Obama announced that he had asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to conduct a review of “the overuse of solitary confinement across American prisons.” The President directed that the purpose of the review be not simply to understand how, when, and why correctional facilities isolate certain prisoners from the general inmate population, but also to develop strategies for reducing the use of this practice throughout our nation’s criminal justice system. Over the past several months, a team of senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice met regularly to study the issue of solitary confinement—or “restrictive housing,” to use the more general corrections term—and formulate policy solutions.

Justice Department Report

The use of restrictive housing in America issue strikes at some of the most challenging questions facing correctional officials and criminologists: How should prisons and other correctional facilities manage their most violent and disruptive inmates? How can they best protect their most vulnerable and victimized ones? And what is the safest and most humane way to do so? These questions are of particular importance to the Justice Department. Not only does the Department oversee the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the nation’s largest prison system, but it also provides funding and technical assistance to other correctional systems, through the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), and enforces the constitutional and statutory rights of state and local inmates through the Department’s Civil Rights Division.

After extensive study, we have concluded that there are occasions when correctional officials have no choice but to segregate inmates from the general population, typically when it is the only way to ensure the safety of inmates, staff, and the public. But as a matter of policy, we believe strongly this practice should be used rarely, applied fairly, and subjected to reasonable constraints. This Report includes a series of “Guiding Principles” that we believe should guide plans for limiting the use of restrictive housing across the American criminal justice system, as well as specific policy changes that the Federal Bureau of Prisons (the Bureau) and other Department components could undertake to implement these principles.

The stakes are high. Life in restrictive housing has been well-documented by inmates, advocates, and correctional officials. In some systems, the conditions can be severe; the social isolation, extreme. At its worst, and when applied without regard to basic standards of decency, restrictive housing can cause serious, long-lasting harm. It is the responsibility of all governments to ensure that this practice is used only as necessary—and never as a default solution. But just as we must consider the impact on inmates, so too must we consider the impact on correctional staff. These public servants work hard, often for long hours and under difficult conditions, and we must protect them from unreasonable danger. For years, the Bureau has been asked to do more and more, putting strain on its officers and other staff. Correctional officers need effective tools to manage the most challenging inmates and protect the most vulnerable.

We do not believe that the humane treatment of inmates and the safety of correctional staff are mutually exclusive; indeed, neither is possible without the other. In recent years, numerous correctional systems have succeeded in safely lowering the number of inmates in restrictive housing, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which has reduced its total restrictive housing population by nearly 25% since January 2012. Under the leadership of its outgoing Director, Charles E. Samuels, Jr., the Bureau has also developed a range of progressive alternatives to restrictive housing—and has done so while supporting and enhancing staff safety. This Report includes a number of proposals that would help continue the downward trends in the Bureau’s restrictive housing population, while also ensuring that those placed in segregation receive the support and rehabilitative services they need.

DEFINITIONS

Not all segregation is truly “solitary,” and many prison systems, including the Bureau, often house two segregated inmates together in the same cell, a practice known as “double-celling.” For the purposes of this report, we define “restrictive housing” as any type of detention that involves: (1) removal from the general inmate population, whether voluntary or involuntary; (2) placement in a locked room or cell, whether alone or with another inmate; and (3) inability to leave the room or cell for the vast majority of the day, typically 22 hours or more. Even this definition, however, leaves substantial room for variation. Restrictive housing takes many forms, and an inmate’s experience in segregation can vary considerably depending on certain external factors, such as the length of stay, conditions of confinement, and degree of social isolation, as well as factors specific to each inmate, such as age and psychological resiliency. As this report makes clear, it is not enough to say that an inmate is in “restrictive housing” (or “solitary confinement,” for that matter); it is just as important to know the details of the placement. [DOJ Report, pp. 3-6]

“GUIDING PRINCIPLES” FOR ALL CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS

The Report includes more than 50 “Guiding Principles,” which are intended as best practices for correctional facilities across the American criminal justice system. These Guiding Principles do not have the force of law and do not create or confer any rights, privileges, or benefits to past, current, or future inmates or detainees within any American correctional or detention system, including the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The Guiding Principles were developed for correctional systems that detain or incarcerate inmates in connection with criminal proceedings in civilian courts. Other correctional or detention systems may wish to review these Guiding Principles to determine which are applicable to their unique circumstances and to make appropriate changes accordingly.

These aspirational principles are designed to serve as a roadmap for correctional systems seeking direction on future reforms, and address a range of topics, including the use of disciplinary segregation, protective custody, and long-term preventative segregation; the conditions of confinement in restrictive housing; and the treatment of certain categories of inmates, including juveniles (under 18), young adults (18 to 24), inmates with medical needs, pregnant women, LGBTI inmates, and inmates with serious mental illness. [pp. 94-103]

The Report’s “Guiding Principles” include:

Inmates should be housed in the least restrictive setting necessary to ensure their own safety, as well as the safety of staff, other inmates, and the public.

Correctional systems should always be able to clearly articulate the specific reason(s) for an inmate’s placement and retention in restrictive housing.The reason(s) should be supported by objective evidence.Inmates should remain in restrictive housing for no longer than necessary to address the specific reason(s) for placement.

Restrictive housing should always serve a specific penological purpose.

An inmate’s initial and ongoing placement in restrictive housing should be regularly reviewed by a multi-disciplinary staff committee, which should include not only the leadership of the institution where the inmate is housed, but also medical and mental health professionals.

For every inmate in restrictive housing, correctional staff should develop a clear plan for returning the inmate to less restrictive conditions as promptly as possible.This plan should be shared with the inmate, unless doing so would jeopardize the safety of the inmate, staff, other inmates, or the public.

All correctional staff should be regularly trained on restrictive housing policies. Correctional systems should ensure that compliance with restrictive housing policies is reflected in employee-evaluation systems.

Correctional systems should establish standing committees, consisting of high-level correctional officials, to regularly evaluate existing restrictive housing policies and develop safe and effective alternatives to restrictive housing.

Absent a compelling reason, prison inmates should not be released directly from restrictive housing to the community.

Correctional systems should seek ways to increase the minimum amount of time that inmates in restrictive housing spend outside their cells and to offer enhanced in-cell opportunities.Out-of-cell time should include opportunities for recreation, education, clinically appropriate treatment therapies, skill-building, and social interaction with staff and other inmates.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Note: see algo the entries about: Federal Bureau of Prisons | United States Marshals Service | Civil Rights Division | United States Attorney’s Offices | National Institute of Corrections | Bureau of Justice Assistance | National Institute of Justice

The Report also includes a series of policy recommendations to ensure that the Department of Justice lives out the principles described above [These recommendations are subject to the same caveats and limitations that apply to the Guiding Principles. Recommendations will be implemented only as consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations]. As the Report makes clear, the Department can and should use the full range of its powers to safely reduce the use of restrictive housing in the United States. The Department is prepared not only to direct the Federal Bureau of Prisons to change its own policies and practices, but also to use the many tools at the Department’s disposal to encourage other correctional systems to do the same.

Some of these policy proposals will be implemented in the near future; others will require additional resources and, in the case of the Bureau, may be subject to collective bargaining. As noted in the Report, the current budget environment complicates efforts to undertake widespread changes, especially at the Bureau. After three decades during which the inmate population grew at a far faster rate than the number of correctional officers and other staff, the Bureau is stretched thin, which presents particular challenges when addressing the high-needs, high-risk inmate population that often resides in restrictive housing.

Resources

Further Reading

• Information about Solitary Confinement in the Gale Encyclopedia of American Law.