Window dressing: possibilities and limitations of incremental changes in solitary confinement.
Correctional health
Corrections
Policy
Reform
Segregation
Journal
Health & justice
ISSN: 2194-7899
Titre abrégé: Health Justice
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101626355
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 Jul 2021
31 Jul 2021
Historique:
received:
11
01
2021
accepted:
28
06
2021
entrez:
1
8
2021
pubmed:
2
8
2021
medline:
2
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In light of mounting evidence of the physical and psychological harms associated with solitary confinement, many correctional systems, state legislators, courts, and even international human rights bodies are increasingly recommending and implementing reforms to mitigate the harms of solitary confinement, if not abolish the practice entirely. In this piece, we examine three specific infrastructural changes to solitary confinement conditions and practices implemented in Washington state prisons with such harm minimization goals in mind: (1) building so-called "nature imagery rooms" to play videos of outdoor spaces, (2) eliminating punishments for self-harm, and (3) conducting daily cell-front wellness checks. Drawing on 183 in-depth qualitative interviews with both staff working in and people imprisoned in solitary confinement units conducted in Washington state restrictive housing units in 2017, we find that these three reforms not only resulted in limited successes but also generated new conflicts. Institutional logics such as deprivation, risk-management, and responsibilization ultimately impeded even the most modest attempts to mitigate the inherently harsh practice of solitary confinement. The limits of these reforms are due in part to individual choices made by people imprisoned in solitary confinement and staff working in these units, as well as the larger cultural norms that shape life in restrictive housing units. Incrementalist reforms aimed at softening the environment of solitary confinement may actually serve to increase the strain and stress experienced by people confined to and working within them. Even the most well-intentioned reforms, like those attempted by the Washington DOC, should be scrutinized in order to determine if they are producing the desired outcomes, or instead, reproducing a different, but nonetheless damaging set of harms to people imprisoned in solitary confinement. Further, even well-intentioned reforms are often stymied by the underlying institutional logics of restrictive housing spaces.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In light of mounting evidence of the physical and psychological harms associated with solitary confinement, many correctional systems, state legislators, courts, and even international human rights bodies are increasingly recommending and implementing reforms to mitigate the harms of solitary confinement, if not abolish the practice entirely. In this piece, we examine three specific infrastructural changes to solitary confinement conditions and practices implemented in Washington state prisons with such harm minimization goals in mind: (1) building so-called "nature imagery rooms" to play videos of outdoor spaces, (2) eliminating punishments for self-harm, and (3) conducting daily cell-front wellness checks.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Drawing on 183 in-depth qualitative interviews with both staff working in and people imprisoned in solitary confinement units conducted in Washington state restrictive housing units in 2017, we find that these three reforms not only resulted in limited successes but also generated new conflicts. Institutional logics such as deprivation, risk-management, and responsibilization ultimately impeded even the most modest attempts to mitigate the inherently harsh practice of solitary confinement. The limits of these reforms are due in part to individual choices made by people imprisoned in solitary confinement and staff working in these units, as well as the larger cultural norms that shape life in restrictive housing units.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Incrementalist reforms aimed at softening the environment of solitary confinement may actually serve to increase the strain and stress experienced by people confined to and working within them. Even the most well-intentioned reforms, like those attempted by the Washington DOC, should be scrutinized in order to determine if they are producing the desired outcomes, or instead, reproducing a different, but nonetheless damaging set of harms to people imprisoned in solitary confinement. Further, even well-intentioned reforms are often stymied by the underlying institutional logics of restrictive housing spaces.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34333731
doi: 10.1186/s40352-021-00145-7
pii: 10.1186/s40352-021-00145-7
pmc: PMC8325829
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
21Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Allen, D. G., Lovell, D. G., & Rhodes, L. A. (2001). Correctional mental health: A research agenda. In J. J. Fitzpatrick, & P. A. White (Eds.), Psychiatric mental health nursing research digest, (pp. 180–184). New York: Springer.
Amend. (2020). Transforming Correctional Culture, Retrieved December 31, 2020, from https://amend.us/
American Association of Architects (2020). Press Release: AIA Board of Directors commits to advancing justice through design. Retrieved from https://www.aia.org/press-releases/6356669-aia-board-of-directors-commits-to-advancin?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=daily
Association of State Correctional Administrators and the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program, Yale Law School (ASCA-Liman) (2018). Reforming restrictive housing: The 2018 ASCA-Liman nationwide survey of time-in-cell. Report issued by the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) & the Liman Center for Public Interest Law at Yale Law School. Retrieved from https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/center/liman/document/asca_liman_2018_restrictive_housing_released_oct_2018.pdf .
Beck, A. J. (2015). Use of restrictive housing in U.S. prisons and jails, 201112. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Government Printing Office Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/urhuspj1112.pdf .
Berzofsky, M., & Zimmer, S. (2017). 2018 National Inmate Survey (NIS-4): Sample design evaluation and recommendations.
Borchert, J. W. (2016). Controlling consensual sex among prisoners. Law & Social Inquiry, 41(03), 595–615. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12221 .
doi: 10.1111/lsi.12221
Calavita, K., & Jenness, V. (2015). Appealing to justice: Prisoner grievances, rights, and carceral logic. Univ of California Press.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Correctional News. (2015). Prison in Washington is latest to institute “Blue Room.” Correctional News. Retrieved from http://correctionalnews.com/2015/09/09/prison-in-washington-state-latest-institute-blue-room/
Crewe, B. (2007). Power, adaptation and resistance in a late-modern men’s prison. British Journal of Criminology, 47(2), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azl044 .
doi: 10.1093/bjc/azl044
Crewe, B. (2011). Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment. Punishment & Society, 13(5), 509–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474520928115 .
doi: 10.1177/1462474520928115
Crewe, B. (2020). The depth of imprisonment. Punishment & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474520952153 .
Dear, G. E., Thomson, D. M., & Hills, A. M. (2000). Self-harm in prison: Manipulators can also be suicide attempters. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(2), 160–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854800027002002 .
doi: 10.1177/0093854800027002002
Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage.
Franco, K., Patler, C., & Reiter, K. (2020). Punishing Status and the Punishment Status Quo: Solitary Confinement in U.S. Immigration Detention Facilities, 2013–2017. Punishment Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474520967804 .
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226190174.001.0001 .
doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226190174.001.0001
Grassian, S. (1983). Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140(11), 1450–1454.
doi: 10.1176/ajp.140.11.1450
Groves, A. (2004). Blood on the walls: Self-mutilation in prisons. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.37.1.49 .
doi: 10.1375/acri.37.1.49
Haney, C. (2017). “Madness” and penal confinement: Some observations on mental illness and prison pain. Punishment & Society, 19(3), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474517705389 .
doi: 10.1177/1462474517705389
Haney, C. (2018). Restricting the use of solitary confinement. Annual Review of Criminology, 1(1), 285–310. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092326 .
doi: 10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092326
Haney, C. (2020). The science of solitary: Expanding the harmfulness narrative. Nw. UL Rev., 115, 211.
Jenkins, A. (2014). Washington Prisons will No Longer Punish Inmates for ‘Self-Harm.’ NW News Network, https://www.nwnewsnetwork.org/post/washington-prisons-will-no-longer-punish-inmates-self-harm
Jewkes, Y. (2018). Just design: Healthy prisons and the architecture of Hope. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(3), 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865818766768 .
doi: 10.1177/0004865818766768
Jewkes, Y., & Moran, D. (2015). The paradox of the ‘green’ prison: Sustaining the environment or sustaining the penal complex? Theoretical Criminology, 19(4), 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480615576270 .
doi: 10.1177/1362480615576270
Kaba, F., Lewis, A., Glowa-Kollisch, S., Hadler, J., Lee, D., Alper, H., … Venters, H. (2014). Solitary confinement and risk of self-harm among jail inmates. American Journal of Public Health., 104(3), 442–447. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301742 .
Kaeble, D., & Cowhig, M. (2018). Correctional populations in the United States, 2016 (NCJ 251211). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6226
Kenning, C., Cooper, J., Short, V., Shaw, J., Abel, K., & Chew-Graham, C. (2010). Prison staff and women prisoner's views on self-harm; their implications for service delivery and development: A qualitative study. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 20(4), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.777 .
doi: 10.1002/cbm.777
Lobel, J., & Akil, H. (2018). Law & neuroscience: The case of solitary confinement. Daedalus, 47(4), 61–75.
doi: 10.1162/daed_a_00520
Lovell, D. (2008). Patterns of disturbed behavior in a supermax population. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 985–1004. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808318584 .
doi: 10.1177/0093854808318584
Lovell, D., Tublitz, R., Reiter, K., Chesnut, K., & Pifer, N. (2020). Opening the black box of solitary confinement through researcher–practitioner collaboration: A longitudinal analysis of prisoner and solitary populations in Washington state, 2002–2017. Justice Quarterly, 37(7), 1303–1321.
Marti, I., Hostettler, U., & Richter, M. (2017). End of life in high-security prisons in Switzerland: Overlapping and blurring of “care” and “custody” as institutional logics. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 23(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345816684782 .
doi: 10.1177/1078345816684782
Mathiesen, T. (2014). The politics of abolition revisited. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315777900 .
doi: 10.4324/9781315777900
McCoy, T. (2015). The stunning simple idea that could change solitary confinement as we know it. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/10/12/the-stunningly-simple-idea-that-could-change-solitary-confinement-as-we-know-it/
McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 165–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213486447 .
doi: 10.1177/0001839213486447
Moran, D. (2013). Carceral geography and the spatialities of prison visiting: Visitation, recidivism, and hyperincarceration. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 31(1), 174–190. https://doi.org/10.1068/d18811 .
doi: 10.1068/d18811
Nadkarini, N. (2010). Life Science in Prison. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/nalini_nadkarni_life_science_in_prison .
Peterson, M., Chaiken, J., Ebener, P., Honig, P. Survey of prison and jail inmates. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation. 1982 Nov. Report No.: N-1635-NIJ.
Pifer, N. (2016). Re-entrenchment through reform: The promise and perils of categorical exemptions for extreme punishment policy. Alabama Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Law Review, 7(2), 171–218.
Reiter, K. (2012). The Most Restrictive Alternative: A Litigation History of Solitary Confinement in U.S. Prisons, 1960–2006. Studies in Law, Politics and Society, 57, 69–123.
Reiter, K. (2014). The Pelican Bay hunger strike: Resistance within the structural constraints of a U.S. Supermax prison. South Atlantic Quarterly, 113(3), 579–611. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-2692191 .
doi: 10.1215/00382876-2692191
Reiter, K. (2018). After solitary confinement: A new era of punishment? Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 77, 1–29.
doi: 10.1108/S1059-433720180000077001
Reiter, K., & Blair, T. (2018). Superlative subjects, institutional futility, and the limits of punishment. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 23(2), 162–193.
Reiter, K., Sexton, L., & Sumner, J. (2018). Theoretical and empirical limits of Scandinavian Exceptionalism: Isolation and normalization in Danish prisons. Punishment & Society, 20(1), 92–112.
doi: 10.1177/1462474517737273
Reiter, K., Ventura, J., Lovell, D., Augustine, D., Barragan, M., Blair, T., … Strong, J. (2020). Psychological distress in solitary confinement: Symptoms, severity, and prevalence, United States, 2017-18. American Journal of Public Health, 110, S52–S56.
Rhodes, L. A. (2004). Total confinement: Madness and reason in the maximum security prison. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520937680 .
doi: 10.1525/9780520937680
Ross, R. (2007). Architecture of authority. New York: Aperture.
Rubin, A. T. (2019). Punishment’s legal templates: A theory of formal penal change. Law and Society Review, 53(2), 518–553. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12400 .
doi: 10.1111/lasr.12400
Rudes, D. S., Magnuson, S., Portillo, S., & Hattery, A. (2020). Sex logics: Negotiating the prison rape elimination act (PREA) against its’ administrative, safety, and cultural burdens. Punishment & Society.
Schlanger, M. (2020). Incrementalist vs. maximalist reform: Solitary confinement case studies. Northwestern University Law Review, 115(1), 273–310.
Sexton, L. (2015). Penal subjectivities: Developing a theoretical framework for penal consciousness. Punishment & Society, 17(1), 114–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474514548790 .
doi: 10.1177/1462474514548790
Stahn, A. C., Gunga, H. C., Kohlberg, E., Gallinat, J., Dinges, D. F., & Kuhn, S. (2019). Brain changes in response to long Antarctic expeditions. New England Journal of Medicine, 381(23), 2273–2275. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1904905 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1904905
Strong, J. D., Reiter, K. A., Gonzalez, G., Tublitz, R., Augustine, D., Barragan, M., Chesnut, K., Dastgard, P., Pifer, N., Blair, T. (2020) The body in isolation: The physical health impacts of incarceration in solitary confinement. PLOS ONE 15 (10):e0238510
Thorton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001 .
doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199601936.001.0001
Washington State Department of Corrections. (2020a). The Washington State Department of Corrections Partners with the Vera Institute to Focus on Restricted Housing Reforms, from https://www.doc.wa.gov/news/2019/05162019p.htm
Washington State Department of Corrections. (2020b). Press release: Department of Corrections and Amend at UCSF announce new partnership, from https://www.doc.wa.gov/news/2020/10212020p.htm
Washington State Department of Corrections (2020c). Policy: Restrictive housing. DOC, 320, 255 from https://doc.wa.gov/information/policies/files/320255.pdf .
Washington State Department of Corrections (2020d). Policy: Dry cell search/watch. DOC, 420, 311 from https://doc.wa.gov/information/policies/files/420311.pdf .
Washington State Department of Corrections (2020e). Policy: Mental health services. DOC, 630, 500 from https://doc.wa.gov/information/policies/showFile.aspx?name=630500 .
Wildeman, C., & Andersen, L. H. (2020). Solitary confinement placement and post-release mortality risk among formerly incarcerated individuals: A population-based study. The Lancet Public Health, 5(2), e107–e113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30271-3 .
doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30271-3
Williams, B. A., Li, A., Ahalt, C., Coxson, P., Kahn, J. G., & Bibbins-Domingo, K. (2019). The cardiovascular health burdens of solitary confinement. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 34(10), 1977–1980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05103-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05103-6
Zigmond, M. J., & Smeyne, R. J. (2020). Use of animals to study the neurobiological effects of isolation. In J. Lobel, & P. S. Smith (Eds.), Solitary confinement: Effects, practices, and pathways toward reform. New York: Oxford University Press.