Reflecting on Forced Isolation
by Sue Borchardt in collaboration with Interfaith Action for Human Rights
Inside correctional facilities, the practice of placing individuals in isolation goes by many names with many variations. What they have in common is being locked in a small cell, either alone or with one other person, for 22–23 hours a day. Most, if not all, activities are suspended.
Whether the intention is to protect or to punish, the unintended detrimental effects of prolonged isolation have been well documented.
While some might argue that we should not go out of our way to reduce the suffering of people who are incarcerated, our current use of forced isolation often results in people leaving correctional systems in worse shape than when they arrived: In other words, we are making our communities LESS safe.
As currently used, solitary confinement and other forms of restrictive housing not only take a human toll, but also a monetary one, sapping funds that might otherwise be spent on improving conditions for both staff and those incarcerated.
Despite these downsides…
- Most states have no limit on the number of days an individual can spend in restrictive housing.
- Infractions leading to Disciplinary Segregation are not necessarily serious or violent.
- People who are incarcerated are sometimes released directly to the community from restrictive housing, despite recommendations to the contrary by the American Correctional Association and other organizations.
Experiments in correctional facilities around the country show there are ways of maintaining the positive uses of solitude, while measuring and reducing the human, financial, and public safety downsides. One such effort is described in a segment aired on 60 minutes.
While we might not be able to create a perfect justice system we can work to make it more efficient, humane, and safer for everyone.
Additional Information:
Vera Report May 2018: Rethinking Restrictive Housing: https://www.vera.org/publications/rethinking-restrictive-housing
