At last, mainstream America seems to be talking about solitary confinement. Over the last decade, journalists and politicians have, more than ever before, discussed the perils of the practice: how enforced isolation damages the mind, how quickly it incites and exacerbates mental illness, how frequently it encourages self-mutilation and suicide — and how disproportionately it is used for non-white prisoners. Pope Francis condemned the practice. President Barack Obama pointedly questioned its utility. The federal government banned its use for juveniles in federal prisons.
Most dramatically, 30,000 inmates in California prisons went on a well-publicized hunger strike, starving themselves to protest not only the soul-destroying effects of long-term stays in Segregated Housing Units, but also the circular logic that often determined who ended up there. In a 2013 class-action settlement, the California strikers won what appeared to be a set of stunning concessions. Thousands of people were cleared for release from SHUs, many of whom had been held there for decades; statewide, future SHU stays were capped at five years.
In the years since, numerous other states have made similar reforms, either in response to lawsuits or as preemptive moves. Headlines suggest that we are witnessing the “beginning of the end” of solitary confinement, propelled by a new consensus that it is inhumane and unproductive. Unfortunately, there are good reasons to be skeptical.
[For more of this story, written by Peter C. Baker, go to https://psmag.com/back-in-the-...c7ff1bc8b#.vweappyog]
Comments (1)