Solitary Confinement 
13 November 2006
A Report by The Nuffield Foundation

The Foundation is funding Dr. Sharon Shalev, Mannheim Centre for Criminology, LSE to produce a handbook on solitary confinement. The project aims to provide prison practitioners with a much needed single point of reference on the health effects of solitary confinement, and on professional, ethical and human rights law guidelines and codes of practice relating to its use.

Background

With the exception of the death penalty, solitary confinement is the most extreme penal practice legally imposed on prisoners. It was first widely and systematically used on both sides of the Atlantic in the 19th century as a tool for reforming prisoners (Roscoe, 1823; Rothman, 1980; Evans, 1982), but abandoned when it transpired that rather than being reformed, a large proportion of prisoners became mentally ill (Ignatieff, 1978; Philo, 1989; McConville, 1981). By then, however, solitary confinement had become a permanent feature of prison systems worldwide, routinely used as a form of short term, if sever, punishment for prison offences; for holding political prisoners and those charged with offences against national security and for protecting vulnerable prisoners. In addition, in the last two decades solitary confinement has been increasingly used as a tool for the long term management of prisoners variously labelled dangerous, violent or disruptive. This trend is particularly prevalent in the USA, where the Federal Government and at least 38 states have constructed new prisons generically known as ‘Supermaxes’, specially designed for a regime of strict and prolonged solitary confinement. Although on a smaller scale, similar prisons have been built in the last decade in Australia, Canada, England, Holland, Peru, Turkey and South Africa, holding prisoners in conditions described by a US district judge, referring to a Supermax in California, as ones which "may press the outer bounds of what most humans can psychologically tolerate" (Madrid v. Gomez, 1995).

The assertion that solitary confinement profoundly affects the human mind is endorsed by many health professionals and monitoring bodies. Studies indicate that it may lead not only to mental illness, but also directly contribute to increased violence, thus turning some prisoners into the dangerous individuals they were claimed to be all along (e.g. Nitsche & Wiliams, 1913; Faris, 1934; Rasmussen, 1973; Grassian, 1983, 1986; Haney, 1994, 2003; Toch, 1992; Kupers, 1999). Prison sociologies from the 1950s to date similarly highlight the damaging effects of solitary confinement, and indicate that it is an ineffective tool for prisoner control (e.g. Sykes, 1958; McCleery, 1961; Colvin, 1992; Adams, 1994, 1998; King & McDermott, 1995; Sparks et al. 1996; Rhodes, 2004). The severity of solitary confinement also raises human rights issues, and the practice is specifically addressed in a large number of international and regional human rights law instruments (including the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT), the UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMR)). In recent years human rights bodies have been increasingly explicit in their criticism of the practice, and have stated that under certain conditions it may amount to cruel, unusual or degrading treatment in breach of international law (e.g. UN Committee Against Torture 2000; UN Commission on Human Rights 1996; Prison Reform Trust 1998 & 1999; Human Rights Watch, 2000, Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) various country reports).

But such criticisms, the experience and knowledge gained through over two centuries of the use of solitary confinement in prisons, the wealth of medical literature documenting its damaging health effects, sociological and criminological research demonstrating its ineffectiveness, and human rights and legal standards regulating and limiting its use, appear to largely unknown to those who devise and manage isolation units, not least those charged with diagnosing and treating isolated prisoners. In this regard, it could be said that prison health professionals unwittingly assist in making solitary confinement, to use a term coined by historian David Rothman (1980), become ‘legitimised despite its failures’. The lack of a cohesive review of research findings on the health effects of solitary confinement, nor a single volume addressing relevant human rights standards, professional codes of ethics and best practice recommendations issued by professional and human rights bodies does not assist matters. This is a serious problem, particularly when, on the ground, growing numbers of prisoners and detainees are subjected to social isolation and restricted sensory input, with severe mental health consequences.

Objectives

The main objective of the Handbook on Solitary Confinement is to provide prison practitioners with a comprehensive single point of reference. Its outcome will be a publication that will:

• Document the health effects of solitary confinement.
• Summarise relevant professional guidelines and recommended codes of conduct and ethics for prison practitioners
• Set out the human rights and other case law on its use
• Offer, in light of the above, best practice guidance on the use of solitary confinement

A regime of solitary confinement cannot be divorced from the physical design of segregation units, which also has an impact on prisoners’ health. Equally, health effects will depend on the psychological state and particular circumstances of those placed in solitary confinement. The Handbook will therefore also:

• Examine prison design issues and their impact
• Provide an overview of which prisoners are placed in solitary confinement, the role of health professionals in the prisoner classification process, and the possible consequences of classificatory decisions.

Geographically, the Handbook will focus on UK and European practices, with reference to the United States and elsewhere where needed. As findings on the health effects of solitary confinement and international human rights laws, standards and ethical codes are universally applicable, however, the core of the Handbook will be of relevance to prisoners and prison practitioners worldwide.

It is hoped that the compilation and dissemination of the Handbook will achieve a number of goals: Firstly, to guide and inform prison health professionals and prison staff about the health effects of solitary confinement, and prison designers and architects on the impact of the prison environments they design. Secondly, to inform those working in prisons of the relevant codes of conduct and ethical guidelines pertinent to their work and, thirdly, to provide a single reference point on the human rights position regarding solitary confinement for practitioners, policy makers, penal reform and human rights organisations and legal professionals. On a more academic level, the handbook will help to demonstrate how the disciplines of criminology and human rights, which have traditionally developed separately and with little regard to one another, can, and should, serve to inform each other.