Solitary Confinement Is A Form Of Torture At Sharp Odds With Our Evolved Psychology
We are people who evolved in small bands, living cooperatively with others, meaning our minds are adapted for social living -- being amongst others.
Evolutionary psychologist and psychiatrist Randy Nesse (though I can't find the exact reference on deadline day morning) contends that we, in fact, seem to have a deep psychological need to be around others. In fact, it seems to be essential to our psychological health, which is why solitary confinement is a horrible punishment that we need to stop using.
Here is one quote from Randy, from his paper, "Emotional disorders in evolutionary perspective," from 1998:
Many authors have noted that for humans, the main reproductive resources are social resources, and much of life is spent in social efforts (Alexander, 1974; Cronin, 1993; Humphrey, 1976). That solitary confinement is worse even than most prisons, is a telling fact about human nature.
The New York Times editorial board rightly lauded President Obama for barring federal prisons from holding juveniles in solitary confinement and making big changes in how solitary is used throughout the federal prison system:
By taking a new course at the federal level, Mr. Obama hopes to accelerate changes that are already underway in many state and local corrections systems.Solitary confinement, which is often used arbitrarily and to punish minor rule infractions, is a form of torture. It is psychologically damaging even to healthy people and increases the likelihood of suicide among the young and the mentally ill.
Announcing the new policy in an op-ed essay in The Washington Post, Mr. Obama wrote: "The United States is a nation of second chances, but the experience of solitary confinement too often undercuts that second chance. Those who do make it out often have trouble holding down jobs, reuniting with family and becoming productive members of society. Imagine having served your time and then being unable to hand change over to a customer or look your wife in the eye or hug your children."
He cited the shameful case of Kalief Browder, who was arrested in New York City at the age of 16 in 2010 and jailed for three years without trial for allegedly stealing a backpack. Mr. Browder spent two of those years in solitary confinement, endured "unspeakable violence at the hands of inmates and guards" and tried to kill himself several times. He was released in 2013, but never fully recovered, and he hanged himself last year.
I'm not a fan of this president, but this is a case where he has done the right thing -- and a very essential and humane right thing.
Prisoners also need to be protected from harm, especially rape, but from other forms of violence, too. There's sometimes a sneering that you go to prison; you deserve whatever happens there, but that is disgusting "cruel and unusual punishment" -- unconstitutional and a black mark on our society and humanity.
If prisoners need to be protected or punished, as the President notes in the WaPo op-ed, there needs to be another way -- something other than solitary.
It is also interesting how much variation there is on how much socialization people need. I know people who need to interact with someone else every day or two or they start to get antsy. While at the other extreme I need to interact with another every month or two.
Ben at February 2, 2016 6:03 AM
Prisoners also need to be protected from harm, especially rape, but from other forms of violence, too.
That's a lovely thought, but we can't hire nearly enough prison guards to prevent that. Assuming that the guards aren't inflicting some of that violence themselves.
So...thoughts on how to protect society at large from the dregs of society, and then protecting the dregs of society from each other?
I R A Darth Aggie at February 2, 2016 6:08 AM
You don't need a guard for solitary. The term doesn't mean "bare cell, bread and water". You can rotate library books or a PC in kiosk mode into a cell.
Do not forget for an instant that some of these people KILLED the last person they were allowed to be alone with. Others represent tender meat to the fine, upstanding people only in jail because of the skin color (not). Ever try to keep food from the dog?
It is incredibly stupid that we pretend that "justice" is administered on an individual basis, then the punishment really isn't - or that jail is a civilized place. That's a fantasy.
Radwaste at February 2, 2016 7:18 AM
I'm with IRA Darth Aggie on this one.
Another empty gesture from Obama.
The places that need prison and law enforcement reform the most, are almost all controlled by the Democratic Party, and have been for the last fifty years.
Isab at February 2, 2016 7:25 AM
Amy,
I would commend the blog post this morning by veteran criminal defense lawyer Scott Greenfield, "Empty Gestures And Powerful Messages," http://blog.simplejustice.us/2016/02/02/empty-gestures-and-powerful-messages/
Obama may have the right idea, but the new policy applies (as you say) only to juveniles held in solitary in the federal prison system. It does not apply to state or local prisons. As Scott points out, the total number of juveniles held in federal prisons is 26, not hundreds or thousands. It's unlikely that all of those 26 are being held in solitary, but even if all are, the announcement applies to only a handful of inmates.
And Kalief Browder is not one of them.
Jim Tyre at February 2, 2016 9:00 AM
"I'm not a fan of this president, but this is a case where he has done the right thing -- and a very essential and humane right thing."
Amy, I respectfully disagree.
This sounds like "feel good" legislation to me. And usually "feel good" laws do NOT work as there is no thought put into them.
For example, did Obama meet with law-makers or law enforcers on whether or not this was a good thing? or was it even going to be enforceable? How can a president act on something without input from experts? Oh, wait, I forgot, Obama is THE expert on everything.
Also, as IRA said, what do we do with those who cannot "get along with others"? Just how do we keep them from harming other prisoners? An even better question is: how do we keep them from harming or killing guards? Again, this just wasn't thought out by Obama. Obama is good at telling others what they cannot do; but, he is short on giving excellent, well-thought-out, advice on what others CAN do.
Lastly, while you might think that Obama is doing a good thing here (and maybe he is), it is NOT his job to write laws. That is the role of congress.
Sure, he has done this kind of unilateral legislation from the executive branch before, as have many presidents before him and many will after; but, is it worth eroding our system of government? Just how many prisoners does this effect? Okay, I hear some folks say - but if it saves even one it will be worth it! Nope, I don't think so. How many others will be hurt because a truly dangerous individual cannot isolated from others? Don't their lives matter?
This is just Obama being Obama - dictating to others how they should do their jobs, live their lives, etc.
Jeez, I so cannot wait until this jerk is gone! But, he can still do a lot more harm in the year left.
charles at February 2, 2016 9:14 AM
Conan the Grammarian at February 2, 2016 9:39 AM
And what do you propose we do with those inmates who are an immediate threat to other inmates?
I can't help but feel I would fare much better than most if I was placed in solitary confinement. I rather like my isolation.
Patrick at February 2, 2016 11:09 AM
"cruel and unusual punishment"
The words mean exactly what they say. It is constitutional to be cruel as long as it is a common cruelty. We cannot yet remove cruelty from our society or even our government. But we demand they not get creative with their tortures. As such solitary confinement is perfectly constitutional.
Ben at February 2, 2016 1:43 PM
"And what do you propose we do with those inmates who are an immediate threat to other inmates?"
Lock them in a windowless hole until they go completely insane. What could go wrong?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 2, 2016 2:50 PM
This is a bunch of BS. The juvenile offenders are often the absolute most violent. At the state hospital, RNs HATE when they get floated to the adolescent wing-they WILL get beat up. They are every bit as violent, unpredictable, and strong as the adults, but without even their rudimentary amount of impulse-control.
Leaving some people alone may make them insane. Making others risk their lives because you WON'T leave the violent alone....that's asking to much of people.
momof4 at February 2, 2016 3:24 PM
charles: "Lastly, while you might think that Obama is doing a good thing here (and maybe he is), it is NOT his job to write laws."
He is not writing laws here. He is managing a government entity that is within his realm of authority.
Isab: "Another empty gesture from Obama."
Obama's statements on this topic are not just empty gestures. Though his actual authority on the subject only applies to the management of federal prisons, with a grand total of a couple dozen juvenile inmates, and not to state or private organizations, he does have an enormous amount of influence, especially in institutions where the majority of administrators and staff see themselves as politically correct, liberal-progressive Democrats.
I expect Obama's statement will have at least a "chilling effect" on what I see as the often unnecessary use of restraints and seclusion on adolescents in the psychiatric facility where I work - over which I often butt heads with my progressive colleagues who value being perceived as politically correct.
Ken R at February 2, 2016 3:51 PM
momof4: "RNs HATE when they get floated to the adolescent wing-they WILL get beat up."
That's a bit of an exaggeration there.
Ken R at February 2, 2016 3:55 PM
I expect Obama's statement will have at least a "chilling effect" on what I see as the often unnecessary use of restraints and seclusion on adolescents in the psychiatric facility where I work - over which I often butt heads with my progressive colleagues who value being perceived as politically correct.
Posted by: Ken R at February 2, 2016 3:51 PM
What is keeping the restraints and seclusion of these adolescents ongoing is not going to be Obama's disapproving glare, and pouty lips, for the next 340 odd days.
It is the possibility of getting their asses literally *sued off* if an unrestrained adolescent kills themself or someone else.
Isab at February 2, 2016 4:47 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2016/02/02/solitary_confin_2.html#comment-6429262">comment from IsabIf those in the business of imprisonment think for 22 seconds, they can come up with other solutions besides solitary confinement -- like to have confinement that separates prisoners physically but keeps them in the same environment with others.
Amy Alkon at February 2, 2016 4:56 PM
Patrick: "I can't help but feel I would fare much better than most if I was placed in solitary confinement. I rather like my isolation."
I like my isolation too; I often go for days without speaking face-to-face with another person. My cell phone usage averages 16 minutes a month, and most of those are on incoming calls.
But the isolation of solitary confinement in a prison or jail, or seclusion within a psychiatric facility, locked in a small room or cell that you can't get out of, involves a pretty high degree of sensory deprivation. And that is harmful over a pretty short period of time, even for healthy adults, and especially for juveniles and other people with serious mental illnesses.
The isolation I choose for myself includes things like a stroll to Starbucks, around the lake or in the woods, sitting on the deck in the sun enjoying scenery, reading and music of my choice, reading and posting comments on blogs like this one, Amazon Prime Video, blowing holes in things with firearms, various DIY projects, a drive somewhere... and it ends when I choose to end it.
Ken R at February 2, 2016 5:00 PM
If you allowed me books, a cross-stitch project or two, and my dog, I'd happily stay in isolation and consider it a blessing that I never had to interact with other human beings. It would be far better than what I put up with going to work and having to pay for all my own food. I didn't ASK to be born human and don't like other humans at all! Where can I sign up?
Pirate Jo at February 2, 2016 5:57 PM
Following up on my previous comment, there has to be a market for this someplace. We lock up loads of people for smoking pot because they couldn't find a job anyway in a world where there are far more people than jobs. So I'm willing to sign up! Just stick me in a cell and let me read and cross-stitch all day with my dog, and I'll cost less (and take up one less job) than all those nimwits living on the outside. Can I get on a list?
Pirate Jo at February 2, 2016 6:00 PM
Isab: "What is keeping the restraints and seclusion of these adolescents ongoing is not going to be Obama's disapproving glare... It is the possibility of getting their asses literally *sued off* if an unrestrained adolescent kills themself or someone else."
That doesn't even make sense. Obama's "disapproving glare" is not intended to keep the restraint and seclusion of adolescents ongoing. It's to decrease its occurrence.
Fear of getting sued: People say that all the time. In the 20 years that I've worked in various psychiatric settings and in health services in jails I've never once - not one single time - heard someone in the position of deciding how, when and why someone would be restrained or secluded, express even the slightest concern about having their "ass sued off." This supposed pervasive fear of being sued is a myth. I sometimes wish there was such a fear; I think it would have a positive effect.
In psychiatric facilities, about 75% of the times restraints or seclusion are used on adolescents, the purpose is not to prevent them from killing their self or someone else. The purpose is coercion or punishment or behavior modification; and "safety" is just pretense. Safety is almost always the documented reason, if there's even documentation at all, because it's a violation of state and federal regulations and a patient's rights to restrain or seclude them in a hospital or residential treatment facility for any reason other than imminent danger of harm to self or others. And they can only be restrained or secluded until that imminent danger has passed.
Ken R at February 2, 2016 6:42 PM
If those in the business of imprisonment think for 22 seconds, they can come up with other solutions besides solitary confinement -- like to have confinement that separates prisoners physically but keeps them in the same environment with others.
Posted by: Amy Alkon Author Profile Page at February 2, 2016 4:56 PM
I sure they can, but feasibility ($$$) and manpower are the big issues. Those in solitary confinement are not sitting in a dungeon somewhere 24 hours a day. They are being let out for exercise, and also taken to the showers several times a week.
Protecting vulnerable prisoners from predators and vica versa isn't an easy task.
You rightly condemn prison rape, but if you can't isolate people who are dangerous, exactly how do you prevent it?
I know a couple of people who have worked as prison guards. It is a dangerous, thankless task. Requires a lot of physical fitness, and the mind of a psychoanalyst.
Ever tried to convince a 350 pound , mentally ill inmate that hears Jesus talking to him, that Jesus wants him to stay in prison and obey the rules because it isn't time to get out yet?
A guy so dumb and mentally ill that when he was paroled he broke into his old apartment (someone else was living there) sat down at the table and fixed himself some dinner?
Of course he ended up right back in prison.
My Son In Law has dealt with these people. Many of them cannot be reasoned with, if they could be, they wouldn't be in prison to begin with.
Isab at February 2, 2016 6:44 PM
. And they can only be restrained or secluded until that imminent danger has passed.
Posted by: Ken R at February 2, 2016 6:42 PM
I'm really glad that you are such a perfect prescient mind reader of when someone is a danger to themselves or others, and when that danger has passed.
You can tell me right now, out of the million or so schizophrenics and sociopaths in the US , which ones will become mass murderers, (and when) so we can prevent all these tragedies up front. And while you are at it, all suicides too. :-).
Isab at February 2, 2016 6:53 PM
Pirate Jo: "I'd happily stay in isolation and consider it a blessing... Where can I sign up?"
At the bank. Just hand them a note saying you have a bomb and to give you all the money.
When you get to your new home just bang a guard over the head with your breakfast tray and they'll give you a private room. I don't know about your dog and cross-stitch, but you can probably get a book, and you won't have to share your toilet/sink/drinking fountain unit.
Ken R at February 2, 2016 6:53 PM
No, Ken, it's not. Kids simply don't care. They'll launch at you with everything they've got. There aren't many adults who will-and those are the super-dangerous ones.
Not sure where you work, but fear of lawsuit has been mentioned more than once in front of me, as rationale for not doing/doing something. 95% of medicine is CYA. Psych medicine or not.
momof4 at February 2, 2016 7:10 PM
Isab: "I'm really glad that you are such a perfect prescient mind reader of when someone is a danger to themselves or others, and when that danger has passed... You can tell me right now, out of the million or so schizophrenics and sociopaths in the US , which ones will become mass murderers, (and when) so we can prevent all these tragedies up front. And while you are at it, all suicides too."
I wish I could. I don't know how that can be done outside of an institution, when you can't observe someone with a mental illness continuously, or even know who has a mental illness or who to observe.
Restraint and seclusion pertain to restricted environments, like psychiatric hospitals and residential treatment facilities, where patients are monitored continuously. So it's a little less difficult to judge when someone is beginning to escalate, to try to de-escalate them, and to be ready to deal with them if they reach that point of imminent danger; and then to tell when medications have taken effect, or an agitated patient has calmed down enough to be safe.
People rarely just suddenly snap and explode in violence. They decompensate over time - hours or days or weeks. There are usually warning signs. But there has to be someone there to notice it, or everyone will be caught by surprise.
As far as sociopaths and mass murderers, or people who commit suicide, outside of institutions no one is watching them, and often no one even notices them until they do something really bad. Then when they investigate after the fact, they find weeks and months of evidence that the person was decompensating and something bad was going to happen.
As a merely average psych nurse I admit that managing and caring for the kids on the adolescent psych unit where I work challenges me to the limits of my ability. In that environment I and the people I work with can, somewhat tenuously, tell when a patient is escalating toward the point of imminent danger to their self or others. That's the main reason why they're there. I won't say that nothing bad could ever happen - we are merely average humans and sometimes we fall short - but so far we've had no suicides or murders.
Ken R at February 2, 2016 8:30 PM
momof4: "No, Ken, it's not. Kids simply don't care. They'll launch at you with everything they've got... Not sure where you work, but fear of lawsuit has been mentioned more than once in front of me, as rationale for not doing/doing something."
I'm a charge nurse on an adolescent unit at a psychiatric hospital. I've also worked in adult psych, a psych triage center, two big jails and an emergency room.
I don't want to discount your experience; you know what you've seen, heard and done.
It's certainly true that kids are impulsive, have little ability to regulate their emotions, have poor insight and judgment, and many of them, after years of abuse, neglect and living in fear, often literally in fear for their lives, have PTSD and are pissed off at the world. But I've seen all of that in adult psych patients too.
The kids are less likely to be psychotic than the adults - most first psychotic breaks happen in late teens/early 20's. And when the kids escalate and go off, they usually do it a lot faster than the adults. Nurses who float to my unit, who don't work with adolescent patients, are sometimes caught by surprise.
I've been screamed at, cussed at, flipped off, threatened and even shoved a couple of times by kids. I haven't had anything thrown at me by them... yet... but a couple of my coworkers have. And we did have a psych tech, a young man in his early 20s, get knocked to the floor by a small 15 year old girl, and then get kicked in the nuts by her when he started to get up (if I'd gotten to her one second sooner I could've prevented the kick)
By the adults I've had all of that plus been punched a few times, kicked, smacked with a rolled up magazine, knocked down, threatened with makeshift weapons, and had foods and beverages thrown at me (fortunately nothing worse)
These things happen every once in a while - over 20 years for me - they're not everyday occurrences.
As far as lawsuit, I guess I would wonder if it's mentioned as rationale for not doing/doing something, or as an excuse for not doing/doing something. Though I've often had patients and inmates threaten to sue me, it's not something I've ever worried about happening, not even a little bit. For one thing, I would never abuse or mistreat them in any way. And for another, mentally ill people and prison and jail inmates are almost universally poor and seriously lack credibility. It'll be a cold day in hell before they find a lawyer who'll give them the time of day, let alone do any work for them. I've tried to help a few patients find someone who would advocate or take action on their behalf, but even nonprofit organizations and others who present themselves as advocates of the mentally ill wouldn't give them the time of day.
Ken R at February 2, 2016 9:43 PM
"The New York Times editorial board rightly lauded President Obama for barring federal prisons from holding juveniles in solitary confinement..."
One more thing: notice that this is being expressed now, before facilities can provide the magical, "confinement that separates prisoners physically but keeps them in the same environment with others"?
How do you DO that, anyway? Chicken wire?
What are the odds the New York Times has a clue all of a sudden?
"Sure, kid. Here you go, in with the lifers. The President says you get a roommate."
Sure that's "very essential and humane".
Radwaste at February 2, 2016 9:50 PM
IRA Darth Aggie: "So...thoughts on how to protect society at large from the dregs of society, and then protecting the dregs of society from each other?"
Patrick: "And what do you propose we do with those inmates who are an immediate threat to other inmates?"
I recommend putting a big Xanax salt lick in every area inmates have access to, and a smaller one in each cell. The only problem I can see with this is just keeping the guards away from it. But you probably wouldn't even need very many guards.
But seriously, I think drugs are way underused in prisons and jails. Whenever I mention this ingenious idea in professional circles, people look shocked and start harping that it would be cruel, abusive, inhumane, and so on...
Huh!?? Currently, when an inmate gets violent, or even just a bad attitude, the guards beat him with clubs, pepper spray him, taze him, throw him down on his face, kneel on his neck, twist his arms up behind his back, hyperflex his knees, put shackles on him and drag him to solitary.
That's more humane than 25 cents worth of Xanax or Haldol?
Ken R at February 2, 2016 10:19 PM
Leave a comment