Originally written for U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui & Assistant U.S. Attorney Olivia B. Hinerfeld

Abstract

On any given day, there are 80,000 to 120,000 Americans living in solitary confinement. Restricted to their cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, these inmates are deprived of human interaction for days, weeks, years, or even decades. While the practice is intended as a means of protection for the general prison population or vulnerable inmates, researchers have found extreme and irreversible psychological damage in inmates who were placed in an isolated unit for both short and long periods of time. In fact, Dr. Grassian, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, determined that there was a specific psychiatric disorder associated with solitary confinement, which is now referred to as Special Housing Unit (SHU) Syndrome. Others have since found higher rates of suicide, self-harm, violence, and premature death associated with this form of isolation. Though the practice has become a longstanding custom in American prisons, I argue that solitary confinement is unconstitutional, as it violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment by subjecting inmates to serious and unreasonable dangers to their future health and safety. Through a two-pronged parallel with Helling v. McKinney, a SCOTUS case in which a former inmate successfully defended his freedom from cruel and unusual punishment after being subjected to secondhand smoke while incarcerated, I demonstrate that there is clear precedent for ruling the practice unconstitutional. Here, I employ the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine as well as the previous rulings that informed it to establish the application of Helling v. McKinney to the case of solitary confinement. Finally, I conclude with alternatives that better achieve solitary confinement’s intended outcomes.

A timid Boy Scout with a knack for mathematics and writing, Benjamin van Zandt was sentenced to four years in prison for a property crime at age seventeen. While incarcerated, he sought out counseling, coursework, and several other opportunities to fulfill his intellectual potential. After being named valedictorian of his inmate GED program, he eventually enrolled in the Bard College Prison Initiative to begin his college degree. Despite his model behavior, he was caught bringing a piece of bread from the prison cafeteria back to his cell and was immediately transferred to New York’s Fishkill prison as a consequence. There, he was repeatedly harassed, beaten, and sexually assaulted by inmates twice his age, most of whom were seasoned criminals dominating the prison network. Still a reserved adolescent, Van Zandt was immediately preyed upon and coerced into being a carrier of contraband. As a result, he was placed in solitary confinement. Ten days later, he was found hanging from his sheets and shoelaces.

Introduction: What is Solitary Confinement?

On any given day, there are 80,000 to 120,000 Americans living in solitary confinement. Restricted to their cells for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day, these inmates are deprived of human interaction for days, weeks, years, or even decades. They are often denied reading material, natural light, visitation, and participation in group activities. Though originally a pacifist Quaker initiative led by Benjamin Franklin the late 1700s meant to be an opportunity for spiritual reflection and moral contemplation, solitary confinement has quickly been weaponized in the U.S. as a disciplinary act meant to maintain order and deter violence within the general prison population. Today, it is common practice to move inmates to solitary confinement for three primary reasons: (1) discipline for nonviolent transgressions, such as possessing contraband or insolence toward a prison official, (2) protection of others due to an inmate exhibiting violent behavior or the threat of violent behavior, or (3) protection of an inmate who is in danger of being victimized by the violent behavior of inmates in the general prison population. Thus, any inmate regardless of their behavior while incarcerated could be subjected to solitary confinement, which is often the case for LGBTQ+, neurodivergent, or mentally ill inmates, as well as inmates of color. In fact, one study indicates that 11% of all black men born in the late 1980s experienced solitary confinement by their thirty-second birthday. This disproportionality partially stems from the bias of prison officials, who often allow an inmate’s race, mental illness, or other identifying factor to dictate their perception of the events.

Despite its protective intent, solitary confinement has been shown to amplify rates of violent recidivism. This is a direct result of the mental health issues caused from extreme solitude. Thus, the motivations for placing inmates in Special Housing Units (SHU), a euphemistic title for solitary confinement, are void. However, in this paper, I will focus not on why the U.S. should terminate all solitary confinement units but why it must. Shown through a parallel analysis with Helling v. McKinney, I argue that solitary confinement is an unconstitutional practice, as it violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment by subjecting inmates to serious and unreasonable dangers to their future health and safety. To support this argument, I will first provide an overview of the inadequacies of legal action taken against the extreme isolation in prisons thus far. Then, I will dive into the case of Helling v. McKinney and its two-pronged application to the practice of solitary confinement. Finally, I will introduce alternative methods of accomplishing the intended goals of SHUs that will facilitate the realization of ruling solitary confinement unconstitutional.

Looking through a Legal Lens: Eighth Amendment Implications

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Both the most controversial and most subjective clause, cruel and unusual punishment is at the forefront of modern debates on penitentiary justice. Originally, the phrase was intended to prevent torture as a technique of coerced confession or simply as a punishment. It was also meant to outlaw the use of barbaric instruments and public humiliation in formal sentencing. Today, the amendment is commonly employed for criminal defendants facing excessive bail or lengthy sentences at a young age. However, its use as a preventative measure against torture is often overlooked due to the lack of resources provided to victims subjected to torture during incarceration. However, the tide of Eighth Amendment cases may be shifting towards an inter-prison perspective, which has the potential to include solitary confinement.

In the 2012 class action suit Ashker v. Governor of California, thousands of plaintiffs subjected to long periods of isolation in SHUs across the state due to alleged gang membership, 78 of whom spent over 20 years in solitude, sued the governor for violating their Eighth Amendment freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. They eventually agreed to a settlement that required the state to reduce their SHU population both by capacity and maximum sentence length, remove gang membership as a qualification to be placed there, and provide alternatives for those unable to serve their sentence in the general prison population. However, since this settlement, the state of California has repeatedly violated the terms and minimal change has emerged. Similarly, in Jensen v. Thornell (2012), Arizona inmates in isolation units sued for changes to the prison healthcare system, agreeing to a settlement by which the Arizona government had no intention of abiding. As such, the District Court judge rescinded approval of the settlement, bringing the parties back to trial in 2021 with new guidelines for managing medical care and health-related conditions in the state’s isolation units. Along with a handful of others, these two cases show the inadequacy of litigation over the constitutionality of solitary confinement in civil court. Though the plaintiffs may have won their cases, little has been done to reform SHUs, and tens of thousands of people remain subject to these abusive conditions daily. According to UN Special Reporter on Torture Juan Mendez, any time in forced isolation longer than fifteen days is considered abusive by UN standards. Thus, torture and abuse are commonplace within American prisons, as the average SHU inmate spends one to three months in solitude, with the longest remaining there for over forty years. As such, I argue that reform is insufficient; solitary confinement is unconstitutional and must be outlawed.

Helling v. McKinney: A Potential Path Forward

The Supreme Court has already laid the groundwork for ruling that solitary confinement is an unconstitutional practice under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinney questions whether future health risks imposed by prison officials is a form of cruel and unusual punishment, and thus a violation of an inmate’s Eighth Amendment rights. In a Nevada state prison, William McKinney was placed in a cell with an inmate who smoked five packs of cigarettes each day. As a result, McKinney inhaled unhealthy levels of second-hand smoke, which he argued posed a serious risk to his current and future health. He sued the warden of the prison as well as several other prison officials for violating his Eighth Amendment freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. The federal Magistrate Judge ruled that the Eighth Amendment did not guarantee McKinney’s right to a smoke-free environment, arguing that McKinney failed to prove any serious medical needs that the prison neglected to address. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal Magistrate Judge’s decision, holding that McKinney should be given a second opportunity to prove that the levels of second-hand smoke constituted an unreasonable danger to his future health. Yet, during the litigation of Helling v. McKinney, SCOTUS ruled on Wilson v. Seiter, a case in which a formerly incarcerated individual claimed he experienced cruel and unusual punishment and sought financial reparations from two prison officials but lost the case because he did not prove the officials had a “culpable state of mind.” The justices held that conditions of incarceration or confinement that are not explicitly outlined in an inmate’s sentencing require a subjective component that comes from the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine. This doctrine was created in Estelle v. Gamble in 1974 in which SCOTUS held, “Deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner's serious illness or injury constitutes cruel and unusual punishment contravening the Eighth Amendment.” Exerting “deliberate indifference” has been characterized by SCOTUS as a transgression greater than negligence but less than omission with malintent. Thus, the doctrine is rather subjective in application. Nonetheless, a new dimension was added to McKinney’s case. Now, prison officials could be held accountable for a lack of adequate action with knowledge of a serious health or safety risk to an inmate. Appealing all the way to the Supreme Court, McKinney found himself in a battle with the government over whether the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine applied only to current health and safety risks or future risks alike, as his case emphasized the future health issues resulting from extreme inhalation of second-hand smoke. SCOTUS sided with McKinney, affirming his right to sue under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment and the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine. In the majority opinion, Justice Byron White argued that the doctrine in no way specified that it only applied to current health risks and should thus include future health and safety risks as well. As such, McKinney, despite not being sick at the time, successfully demonstrated a violation of his Eighth Amendment freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, as prison officials acted indifferently to his future health.

Drawing a Parallel: Helling v. McKinney and Solitary Confinement

Helling v. McKinney greatly expanded the rights of vulnerable inmates, as they can now sue for damages that they are likely to experience post-release. When considering the constitutionality of solitary confinement, one can clearly draw a parallel between second-hand smoke and the mental illnesses that directly result from isolation. For one, solitary confinement aligns with the qualifications to employ the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine stated in Wilson v. Seiter; it is a condition of incarceration not explicitly stated in judicial sentencing. Once eligibility has been established, there are two axioms of Helling v. McKinney that solitary confinement must satisfy in order to prove that victims of SHUs have a reasonable case to sue prison officials for violating their Eighth Amendment freedom from cruel and unusual punishment: (1) solitary confinement poses a serious and unreasonable danger to the future health of inmates and (2) those overseeing SHUs exhibit deliberate indifference to said danger.

Future Health Effects of Solitary Confinement

Initial research on the psychological dangers of extreme isolation was funded by the Canadian Defense Research Board and eventually the U.S.’s Central Intelligence Agency in the early 1950s to harness a psychological warfare defense to combat the Soviets, who were brainwashing prisoners of war. Led by Dr. Donald Hebb at McGill University, student volunteers were placed in isolation boxes meant to deprive them of all their senses. Each student was to remain in the box for as long as they felt they could, only leaving to use the restroom and eat meals, during which a facilitator of the experiment would guide them. Dr. Hebb expected to observe changes in their behavior over the course of six weeks; however, the experiment only lasted six days. The results were jarring: the students complained of vivid hallucinations, “blank” periods in their minds, inability to write or solve a basic math problem, hyperrealism of external stimuli, new fears, separation of mind and body, and even the sensation of being hit with pellets. Dr. Hebb’s findings have since been weaponized as a punitive practice for convicted criminals. Though, opponents of solitary confinement have reclaimed his work and used it to demonstrate that solitary confinement is in fact cruel and unusual punishment.

Since then, more research has emerged specifically studying the correlation between solitary confinement in prisons and mental illness. For instance, a study on incarceration in New York found that inmates in solitary confinement for any length of time were five times more likely to die by suicide and 3.2 times more likely to self-harm than an inmate in the general prison population. Similarly, a California study found that hypertension was three times more common among SHU inmates. Across the U.S., those subjected to solitary confinement for any length of time were 24% more likely to die within the first year after release, including 78% more likely by suicide and 54% more likely by homicide, demonstrating an increase in violence as a result of the very practice that was meant to curb it. Furthermore, they were 127% more likely to fatally overdose on opioids in the first two weeks following release. Similar research has been conducted to determine if short stays in solitary confinement would fulfill the intended purposes while avoiding the detrimental effects; however, this was not the case. One study only included subjects that had spent less than a week in solitary confinement, yet this group had significantly higher death rates from unnatural causes such as suicide, violence, and vehicular accidents than those who had only spent time in the general prison population.

Dr. Stuart Grassian, a psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School, concentrated his research on the set of traits emerging in formerly solitarily-confined inmates post-release. After conducting several series of interviews and experiments, Dr. Grassian determined that there was a specific psychiatric disorder associated with solitary confinement, which is now referred to as SHU Syndrome. In a 2006 publication, he outlines the seven key symptoms consistent among nearly every inmate he studied: (1) hyperresponsivity to external stimuli, (2) perceptual distortions, illusions, and hallucinations, (3) panic attacks, (4) difficulties with thinking, concentration, and memory, (5) intrusive obsessional thoughts, (6) overt paranoia, and (7) impulse control. These symptoms are remarkably similar to those found in Dr. Hebb’s isolation experiment in 1951. Moreover, Dr. Grassian notes that this combination of reactions is unique to SHU Syndrome and cannot be found in nearly any other psychiatric disorder. He characterizes the condition as a form of an acute organic brain syndrome. Confirming this research, neuroscientist Huda Akil suggests that solitary confinement can permanently alter the structure of an inmate’s brain, as the functioning and structure of the human brain changes in response to environmental stimuli.  As such, solitary confinement for any length of time can cause a distinct health defect that often permanently affects the inmate, even after release. Therefore, solitary confinement fulfills the first axiom presented in Helling v. McKinney, as it poses a significant and unreasonable danger to the future health of inmates.

Deliberate Indifference in the Case of Solitary Confinement

Wilson v. Seiter, which established that the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine in Estelle v. Gamble applies to conditions of prison confinement, cites Whitley v. Albers in its holding, stating “the ‘wantonness’ of conduct depends not on its effect on the prisoner, but on the constraints facing the official.” Therefore, the second axiom of applying the Helling v. McKinney precedent to the case of solitary confinement, which requires deliberate indifference on the part of prison officials, relies on the ability of prison officials to inhibit the placement of inmates in solitary confinement, which, as shown, is a grave danger to their future health. This proposition is fulfilled in two parts: (1) by demonstrating that prison officials have the capability to terminate or avoid placements in solitary confinement but deliberately choose to place inmates in SHUs and (2) by demonstrating that prison officials are likely aware of the health effects of extreme isolation but choose to exercise indifference.

The decision to place an inmate in solitary confinement is almost entirely up to the discretion of guards and prison officials. As stated previously, inmates are sent into SHUs for a vast range of reasons, including for unprohibited behavior like talking back to a guard. As a result, a large portion of inmates in solitary confinement were placed there at the subjective discretion of a prison employee, despite never engaging in malicious behavior that would make them a danger to the general prison population. Instead, many inmates in SHUs are victims rather than perpetrators and are thus subjected to the rights violations of solitary confinement due to no actions of their own. This issue has been especially rampant in New York state prisons, where investigations show that much of the SHU population is constituted by victims of prison guard abuse, which can either be physical abuse or a guard’s abuse of power over the inmate. In fact, one investigation found 160 lawsuits of inmates who were sentenced to solitary confinement by guards who fabricated assault allegations. Often, these inmates were subjected to physical abuse at the hands of prison guards, some even resulting in permanent injury or death. However, this abusive network of guards is largely protected by their membership in an officers’ union, with which the state signed an agreement to allow arbitrators from the union to be the final determinator of an officer’s employment status. This means that when an inmate accuses a guard of abuse or misplacement in solitary confinement, the guard’s peers have the right to reinstate them in their position even if higher prison officials chose to terminate their employment. Consequently, 88% of the guards accused of fabricating reports to conceal abuse in the 160 lawsuits were reinstated in their roles, as only a court can overrule the decision of the arbitrators. This leads to a demoralizing cycle in which inmates are subjected to abuse, isolated from the general prison population, and then denied the ability to hold their abuser accountable, often leading to further abuse if they try. Once a guard places their victim in an SHU, they are usually the only form of human contact the inmate receives, thus leaving the inmate in an increasingly vulnerable position with no resource but their abuser for help. As such, a prison official can exploit their position of authority over inmates and send anyone who threatens that authority, whether it be their victims or someone who simply verbally offended them, to solitary confinement. This is not to say that all guards or prison officials have malintent in their discretion over SHU placement; yet enough are malicious and are protected by the system that the issue must be addressed. Due to the structural nature of SHUs, inmates’ placement in solitary confinement and thus their future health is often in the hands of prison guards who are neither trained mental health professionals nor judges determining the inmate’s sentence. Nonetheless, they are left to use their discretion in a life-or-death matter. As a result, placements in solitary confinement are the deliberate decision of prison officials, satisfying the first criteria of exercising deliberate indifference: the ability to terminate or avoid placing an inmate in a SHU but instead choosing to send or keep them there.

Secondly, prison officials must have the knowledge that an inmate’s health will suffer as a result of placing them in solitary confinement in order to show culpability of indifference. This can be addressed by providing evidence that a prison official was aware of a health or safety risk but failed to act to resolve it. As previously stated, every prison official is in the position to act, which in the case of solitary confinement means removing an inmate from an SHU or avoiding placing them there in the first place. However, their knowledge of the risks involved is somewhat more difficult to prove. One way to establish their awareness of the practice’s dangers is through their direct experience working in a correctional facility. Research shows that prison officials are also physically and mentally affected by working in a solitary confinement unit. One study found that SHU correctional staff witness “intense human suffering” such as “smearing feces, ingesting objects, self-injury, violent outbursts” which causes “vicarious trauma” to the official. As a firsthand witness to the deterioration of inmates subjected to solitary confinement, any competent prison guard can recognize that the health and safety of the inmate are in danger as a result of extreme isolation. Furthermore, reports show that prison officials experience significantly increased stress levels when working in solitary confinement, providing them with empirical indicators of the mental risks associated with spending time in an SHU. Additionally, corrections officials assigned to solitary confinement units are at higher risk of heart disease, hypertension, PTSD, and suicide, which are some of the same health risks for isolated inmates. These rates were found to be significantly higher than both the national average and among individuals with other stressful jobs, such as the military or police force. Thus, knowledge of these personal health effects coupled with the visual sight of inmates suffering from the seven symptoms outlined in Dr. Grassian’s research of SHU Syndrome are clear indicators to prison officials of the dangerous consequences of solitary confinement. Moreover, there is a consensus among the American public that extreme isolation can be a danger to one’s health, as 86% of voters support removing inmates from solitary confinement at the first sign of an adverse health effect. This demonstrates that knowledge of the risks of solitary confinement is prevalent throughout the nation’s people, who are largely in consensus about the dangers of the practice. The deliberate indifference doctrine requires that prison officials deliberately choose to place inmates in solitary confinement over other alternatives, which has already been established, and also requires that the officials know that placing an inmate in solitary confinement will have negative health effects. Thus, this common knowledge paired with being a firsthand witness to symptoms of SHU Syndrome establishes that prison officials know the health and safety risks associated with solitary confinement, are indifferent to them, and deliberately choose to not prevent them, therefore satisfying the Deliberate Indifference Doctrine.

Motivations to Outlaw Solitary Confinement

As shown, solitary confinement poses a serious and unreasonable danger to the mental health of inmates and is a practice in which a prison official must exercise deliberate indifference, thus making it unconstitutional under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. Helling v. McKinney implies that any condition of confinement that puts the future health and safety of an inmate at risk and that a prison official knowingly ignores is a violation of the rights of the inmate guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Helling v. McKinney set an important precedent in the litigation of prisoners’ rights; however, solitary confinement remains a common practice in each of the fifty states despite the parallel that has been established. Moreover, based on the research provided, the future health risks of solitary confinement are arguably much more extreme than those of second-hand smoke inhalation, with a disturbing portion of inmates like Ben van Zandt not even surviving their sentence. Yet, being subjected to second-hand smoke has been regarded as a violation of the Eighth Amendment for nearly three decades, and solitary confinement remains commonplace. As such, it is time that SHUs across the nation are put on the stand and examined for their compliance with the Constitution of this country. As Helling v. McKinney stands, solitary confinement should be  unconstitutional and must be outlawed.

Moreover, solitary confinement is not currently adding any benefit to the functioning of American prisons or the rehabilitation of subjected inmates. The practice is employed to protect the general prison population from violent inmates, protect vulnerable inmates who are common targets among others, or discipline inmates who disrespect the rules or officials that govern the prison. However, solitary confinement does not actually achieve any of its intended goals. Rather, it has been found to exacerbate the very issues it sets out to solve. The vast majority of studies on the effects of solitary confinement on future inmate behavior and inter-inmate violence within the general prison population has reached a consensus that there is no statistically significant correlation. This is true for both crime frequency and intensity. In fact, one study found that solitary confinement increased rates of recidivism post-release. An even stronger correlation was found between time spent in solitary confinement and violent re-offenses, indicating that the community was less safe than it would have been in the absence of the practice. As such, SHUs are not fulfilling their intended goals of reducing inter-prison violence. Instead, they are subjecting up to 120,000 people to irreversible psychological damage on any given day.

Alternative Solutions to Solitary Confinement

Rather than continue this practice, the precedent set by Helling v. McKinney must be employed to rule solitary confinement unconstitutional under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. However, I acknowledge that inter-prison violence and rule violations must be addressed. I propose three alternatives: specialized units for inmates with mental illnesses, de-escalation training for prison staff, and increased programming. The state of New York has already begun implementing these practices through its Humane Alternatives to Long-Term (HALT) Solitary Confinement Act, which was passed in 2021 and went into full effect in 2022. Prior to the ratification of this bill, the state began to reform its solitary confinement units by introducing the Clinical Alternative to Punitive Segregation, or CAPS, program. Instead of being punished for violating prison rules with isolation, inmates who exhibit serious mental illnesses are directed to the CAPS program where they receive in depth counseling, treatment, and rehabilitative intervention. As a result, the rates of self-harm for inmates who otherwise would have been sent to SHUs decreased drastically. Hence, specialized units, whether it be for inmates with mental illnesses or other groups that may be targets in the general prison population and thus require isolation, provide a realistic alternative to solitary confinement that maintains an inmate’s humanity and sociability while providing them the rehabilitative resources necessary to reenter society.

Secondly, Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) for prison staff is a crucial method for creating safer communities within correctional facilities. One study found that prison officials who were trained in crisis management had a significantly decreased bias in the distribution of reported incidents. Furthermore, CIT officials were more likely to seek out less common and less severe alternative punishments rather than choose to send an inmate into isolation. As a result, less inmates were subjected to the cruel and unusual punishment of solitary confinement and were instead given the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and discuss their actions. As such, de-escalation training for prison staff has the ability to change both the inequitable discrepancies and frequency of use that are associated with placement in SHUs.

Finally, educational and transitional programming is key to the rehabilitation of inmates, especially those who have spent time in isolation. In one Minnesota facility, there has been a transition away from the isolating nature of solitary confinement towards the rehabilitative intention of placing an inmate in an SHU. This was primarily achieved through three programs: the introduction of Prison To Community (PTC) specialists, a companion program, and accessible treatment resources. For instance, an inmate who needed to be placed in an SHU would be assigned a PTC specialist to meet with them and discuss a plan to re-enter both the general prison population and society. Similarly, they would be given a hired companion inmate from the general prison population who would be screened to sit outside of their cell and keep them company while in isolation. This is beneficial for the SHU inmate and provides employment to the general population of inmates. Lastly, the isolated inmate would be given a variety of reading, audiovisual materials, and assignments related to addressing emotional, psychological, or behavioral issues, prompting the inmate to self-rehabilitate throughout their time in an SHU.

While these programs are still not ideal in the sense that they do not eliminate the use of solitary confinement completely, they are a valuable step in transitioning prisons across the country from relying heavily on the practice to maintain order as they do now to terminating the practice in its entirety. These three alternatives provide a realistic path forward in the aftermath of ruling solitary confinement unconstitutional. Though it may require a shift in public attitude on the rights of inmates, the road to ending extreme isolation in prisons is clear and necessary. The case of solitary confinement, though more dire, parallels McKinney’s battle for his future health. As shown through its future health effects, the presence of deliberate indifference, and the strong precedent set in Helling v. McKinney, solitary confinement is a clear violation of the Eighth Amendment. The practice has existed unrightfully in this country for far too long, and it is time to rule on it for what it is: it is cruel, it is unusual, it is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court ought to act accordingly.

[Prisoners subject to solitary confinement] fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community. It became evident that some changes must be made in the system. – SCOTUS, 1890

References

ACLU Staff. “Ashker v. Governor of California.” American Civil Liberties Union, June 21, 2023. https://www.aclu.org/cases/ashker-v-governor-of-california#:~:text=Summary-,Ashker%20v.,in%20the%20California%20prison%20system.

ACLU Staff. “Ashker v. Governor of California.” American Civil Liberties Union, June 21, 2023. https://www.aclu.org/cases/ashker-v-governor-of-california#:~:text=Summary-,Ashker%20v.,in%20the%20California%20prison%20system.

ACLU Staff. “Jensen v. Thornell.” American Civil Liberties Union, May 2, 2024. https://www.aclu.org/cases/jensen-v-thornell.

ACLU Staff. “The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States.” American Civil Liberties Union, August 13, 2014. https://www.aclu.org/publications/dangerous-overuse-solitary-confinement-united-states.

Admin. “Five in Six Voters Favor Sharply Restricting Use of Solitary Confinement.” Program for public consultation, June 29, 2021. https://publicconsultation.org/criminal-justice/solitary-confinement/.

Barraza, Alicia, Doug van Zandt, Cerissa Harrell, and Danielle MacKenzie. “Families of Fishkill Correctional Facility Prisoners: Covid Deaths Unacceptable.” The Journal News, February 1, 2021. https://www.lohud.com/story/opinion/2021/02/01/families-fishkill-correctional-facility-prisoners-covid-deaths-unacceptable/4338579001/.

Canada, Kelli E., Amy C. Watson, and Scott O’kelley. “Utilizing Crisis Intervention Teams in Prison to Improve Officer Knowledge, Stigmatizing Attitudes, and Perception of Response Options.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 48, no. 1 (July 21, 2020): 10–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820942274.

Casella, Jean, Alexandra Rivera, Jack Beck, Scott Paltrowitz, and Jessica Sandoval. “Calculating Torture.” Solitary Watch, June 24, 2023. https://solitarywatch.org/calculating-torture/.

Casella, Jean, and James Ridgeway. “A Brief History of Solitary Confinement.” Bunk History, February 2, 2016. https://www.bunkhistory.org/resources/a-brief-history-of-solitary-confinement.

Cloud, David H., Craig Haney, Dallas Augustine, Cyrus Ahalt, and Brie Williams. “The Resource Team: A Case Study of a Solitary Confinement Reform in Oregon.” PLOS ONE 18, no. 7 (July 26, 2023). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288187.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)

Fair Fight Initiative Staff. “Solitary Confinement and Prison Guard Abuse.” Fair Fight Initiative, August 6, 2016. https://www.fairfightinitiative.org/solitary-confinement-and-prison-guard-abuse/#:~:text=People%20can%20be%20placed%20in,the%20guards%20and%20prison%20officials.

Glowa-Kollisch, Sarah, Fatos Kaba, Anthony Waters, Y. Leung, Elizabeth Ford, and Homer Venters. “From Punishment to Treatment: The ‘Clinical Alternative to Punitive Segregation’ (CAPS) Program in New York City Jails.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 13, no. 2 (February 2, 2016): 182. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph13020182.

Grassian, Stuart. “Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 22 (January 2006): 325–83.

Grondahl, Paul. “The Brief, Anguished Life of a Mentally Ill Inmate.” Times Union, June 15, 2015. https://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/The-brief-anguished-life-of-a-mentally-ill-inmate-6327006.php.

Helling v. McKinney, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-1958 (last visited May 2, 2024).

James, Kayla, and Elena Vanko. “The Impacts of Solitary Confinement.” Vera Institute of Justice, April 2021. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/the-impacts-of-solitary-confinement.pdf.

Kaba, Fatos, Andrea Lewis, Sarah Glowa-Kollisch, James Hadler, David Lee, Howard Alper, Daniel Selling, et al. “Solitary Confinement and Risk of Self-Harm among Jail Inmates.” American Journal of Public Health 104, no. 3 (March 2014): 442–47. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2013.301742.

Lobel, Jules, and Huda Akil. “Law & Neuroscience: The Case of Solitary Confinement.” Daedalus 147, no. 4 (October 2018): 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00520.

Matei, Andreea. “Solitary Confinement in US Prisons.” Urban Institute, August 2022. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/Solitary Confinement in the US.pdf.

Medley, Petitioner, 134 U.S. 160 (1890)

National Constitution Center Staff. “The Eighth Amendment.” National Constitution Center, 2024. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-viii/clauses/103#:~:text=(2)%20The%20Clause%20prohibits%20disproportionate,be%20acceptable%20for%20other%20crimes.

NYCLU Staff. “The Humane Alternatives to Long-Term (‘halt’) Solitary Confinement Act.” NYCLU, March 7, 2024. https://www.nyclu.org/resources/policy/legislations/humane-alternatives-long-term-halt-solitary-confinement-act.

Otterman, Michael. “Codifying Cruelty.” Essay. In American Torture: From the Cold War to Abu Ghraib and Beyond, 42–58. London, UK: Pluto Press, 2007.

Pullen-Blasnik, Hannah, Jessica T. Simes, and Bruce Western. “The Population Prevalence of Solitary Confinement.” Science Advances 7, no. 48 (November 26, 2021): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abj1928.

Rockwood, Bill, Evan Wexler, and Sarah Childress. “How Much Time U.S. Prisoners Spend in Solitary – Locked up in America.” PBS Frontline, April 22, 2014. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/locked-up-in-america/how-much-time-u-s-prisoners-spend-in-solitary/.

Sandoval, Jessica. “How Solitary Confinement Contributes to the Mental Health Crisis.” National Alliance on Mental Illness, February 7, 2024. https://www.nami.org/advocate/how-solitary-confinement-contributes-to-the-mental-health-crisis/#:~:text=A%20recent%20study%20shows%20the,(54%25%20more%20likely).

Santo, Alysia, and Joseph Neff. “We Investigated Abuse by Prison Guards in New York. Here Are Five Takeaways.” The Marshall Project, May 22, 2023. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2023/05/22/new-york-prison-corrections-officer-discipline-findings.

Special Housing Units (SHUs), 28 CFR § 541.21 (2016)

Steiner, Benjamin, and Calli M. Cain. “The Relationship Between Inmate Misconduct, Institutional Violence, and Administrative Segregation: A Systematic Review of the Evidence.” Essay. In Restrictive Housing in the U.S.: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions, 165–97. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2016.

U.S. Const. amend. VIII.

Vera Staff. “Why Are People Sent to Solitary Confinement? The ...” Vera Institute of Justice, March 2021. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/why-are-people-sent-to-solitary-confinement.pdf.

Williams, Brie A., Amanda Li, Cyrus Ahalt, Pamela Coxson, James G. Kahn, and Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo. “The Cardiovascular Health Burdens of Solitary Confinement.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 34, no. 10 (June 21, 2019): 1977–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05103-6.

Wilson v. Seiter, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1990/89-7376 (last visited May 2, 2024).

Zyvoloski, Sarah. “Impacts of and Alternatives to Solitary Confinement in Adult Correctional Facilities.” St. Katherine University Sophia, May 2018. https://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/841?utm_source=sophia.stkate.edu%2Fmsw_papers%2F841&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.