Supermax prisons: goals, conditions, and effects on inmate behavior

Capital Punishment

Supermax Prisons

Supermax is short for super-maximum security. Supermax prisons are places intended to house violent prisoners or prisoners who might threaten the security of the guards or other prisoners. Some prisons that are not intended as supermax prisons have control units in which circumstances are similar. The theory is that solitary confinement and sensory deprivation will bring about behavior alteration (What is a Supermax prison, n.d.).

Characteristics of Prisons

Supermax prisoners are housed in small cells for approximately 23 hours out of every day. They have almost no contact with other people. There are no group activities, no work, no educational chances, no eating together, no sports, no getting together with other people for religious services, and no attempts at rehabilitation. They are not given contact visits. Prisoners are kept behind a plexi-glass window. Phone calls and visitation privileges are severely limited. Books and magazines may be denied and pens restricted under certain circumstances. TV and radios may be forbidden or, if allowed, are controlled by guards and not prisoners (What is a Supermax prison, n.d.).

Prisoners have very little or no personal privacy at all. Guards watch the inmates' actions by way of video cameras. Communication between prisoners and the control booth officers is mostly done by way of speakers and microphones. An officer at a control center may be able to monitor cells and corridors and control all doors by electronic means. Typically, the cells have no windows. Lights are restricted by guards who may leave them on night and day. For exercise there is typically only a room with high concrete walls and a chin-up bar. Showers may be restricted to three per week for not more than ten minutes (What is a Supermax prison, n.d.).

Some sources suggest the main rationale is to protect other inmates and staff. How this protection takes place is unclear. The rotten apple theory suggests that removing the most violent inmates helps avert other inmates from committing assaults and infractions. An alternative dispute is that supermax prisons debilitate the worst inmates, preventing them from injuring others. According to this outlook, there is no rotten apple effect per se. Rather, any overall decrease in prison violence results completely from incapacitating the most violent and serious offenders. The most common goals of supermax prisons are summarized in the following table:

Table 1 Goals and intended impacts associated with supermax prison goals

Increase prison safety

• Fewer murders of staff and prisoners

• Fewer assaults on staff and prisoners

• Fewer riots

• Less concern and fear among inmates and staff about threats to personal safety

Increase system wide prison order and control of prisoners

• Greater compliance with rules by prisoners

• Greater and more consistent fulfillment of daily routines and obligations by prisoners

• Fewer disruptions and outbursts

• Fewer lockdowns in general population prisons

• Fewer use of force incidents by staff

• Fewer warning shots fired by staff

Improve supermax prisoners' behavior

• More successful reintegration of supermax inmates into other prisons and society

• Greater rule compliance following release from supermax prison

• Less violence following release from supermax prison

• Fewer returns to supermax prisons

Reduce the influence of gangs

• Less gang involvement

• Less intimidation by gang members of fellow prisoners

• Less drug trafficking

Punish violent and disruptive prisoners

• Increase level of punishment for violent and disruptive inmates

• Increase perceived level of punishment among violent and disruptive inmates

Increase public safety

• Fewer escape attempts

• Fewer successful escapes

• Lower recidivism rates among supermax and general population prisoners

• Less crime

• Less fear of crime among residents

Improve operational efficiencies

• Reduce delays for prisoners awaiting placement into some type of segregation

• Reduce costs by operating fewer segregation cells and blocks in different facilities

• Reduce staff time devoted to transporting prisoners from facility to facility

Source: (Mears & Watson, 2006)

Prevalence of Supermax Prisons

In 1984 there was only one prison in the United States that would now be called a supermax prison. In 1999, by various counts and various definitions, between thirty and thirty-four states had supermax prisons or units, with more building apace (Supermax Housing: A Survey of Current Practice, 1997). In 2004, state-run supermaxes in 44 states held about 25,000 people (Tapley, 2010). In some jurisdictions supermax facilities or units house only those inmates who cannot be controlled in traditional segregation or administrative confinement conditions. Others are, essentially, an extension or expansion of traditional segregation or administrative confinement and may house either or both protective custody and disciplinary segregation inmates (Supermax Housing: A Survey of Current Practice, 1997).

Effectiveness of Supermax Prisons

Supermax prisons fundamentally comprise a policy intended at achieving a set of goals. Thus, as with efforts to assess any policy, a clear statement of these goals is necessary. Knowing how goals are attained also is essential, as it permits for determining whether the policy is likely accountable for changes in any observed outcomes, and adjusting those features of the policy that might lead to even better improvements in the outcomes. Correspondingly, to arrive at a fair and balanced evaluation, all unintentional impacts, both positive and negative, have to be recognized and measured. This information can be used to produce more realistic and appropriate measurements of the cost effectiveness of the policy. At the same time, it can be supportive to know whether other alternatives exist that might serve as effective options to supermax prisons (Mears, 2005).

Costs associated with Supermax Prisons

Most of the Supermaxes in the United States are brand new or nearly so. Others are simply free-standing prisons that were retrofitted. "According to a study by the Urban Institute, the per-cell cost of a Supermax is about $75,000 annually, compared to $25,000 for each cell in an ordinary state prison" (Ross, 2006). The supermax models emerged out of the prison violence of the 1970's and the early 1980's, when dozens of guards around the country, were murdered by prisoners. First, prison authorities developed procedures to minimize inmate-staff contact. Then they took to locking down entire prisons for indefinite periods, keeping inmates in their cells all day and closing down communal dining rooms and exercise yards. Eventually, they began to explore the idea of making the general prison population safer by creating entirely separate high-tech, supermax prisons in which the worst of the worst would be incarcerated in permanent lockdown conditions. In the late 1980's, several states and the federal government began constructing supermax units. Indeed, throughout the l990's, despite declines in crime, one state after another pumped tens of millions of dollars into building supermax prisons and supermax facilities within existing prisons-sections that are usually called secure housing units (SHU's). Defenders of supermaxes argue that their restrictions provide a way to establish control in what is inherently an extremely dangerous environment (Abramsky, 2002).

Solitary confinement even for prolonged periods, is not unique to the United States. "Death-row prisoners in Japan, who numbered 107 in 2010, are held in strict solitary confinement in 50-square-foot cells from the time of their sentence until their execution -- on average six years, but in some cases more than 20 years and, in at least one reported case, 42 years. Political prisoners in Bolivia, Myanmar, Israel, Iran, Peru and Turkey, for example, may spend their entire sentence in solitary confinement. In Russia, prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment may be subjected to a "special regime" that includes strict solitary confinement, solitary "walking exercise" for up to 1-hour and 45 minutes daily, and two visits of up to four hours a year. In a number of European countries, including Italy, the Netherlands and the U.K., a small number of prisoners -- around 20 in the Netherlands and fewer than 50 in the U.K. -- considered to be the most dangerous and disruptive can be held in a regime of prolonged solitary confinement in small high-security units, with varying levels of restrictions on visits, telephone calls, access to programming and other privileges. In Scandinavia, pre-trial detainees are routinely held in solitary confinement for up to three months and at times indefinitely, with restricted access to visits, telephone privileges, correspondence and newspapers" (Shalev, 2011).

But although solitary confinement is used in most prisons all over the world, the scale and depth of its use in the United States, particularly in supermax prisons, is a unique phenomenon. Tens of thousands of prisoners, routinely and systematically are subjected to solitary confinement and additional deprivations for years and sometimes decades. The difference between U.S. And European practices is reflected in the attitudes of their individual judiciaries. While U.S. courts have articulated concern over solitary confinement, European courts have gone further. "In July 2010, the European Court of Human Rights issued an interim decision to halt the extradition of four men from the United Kingdom to the United States to face terrorism charges. The court considered that the stringency of conditions at ADX, the supermax prison where the men were likely to be held should they be convicted, and in particular the possibility that they would spend the rest of their lives under these conditions, raised "serious questions" about the compatibility of these prisons with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits the use of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" (Shalev, 2011).

The costs associated with supermax facilities are not limited to incarceration costs. If these inmates have been abused, treated violently, and confined in dehumanizing conditions that threaten their mental health, then they may leave prison angry, dangerous, and far less capable of leading law-abiding lives than when they entered prison. It is probable that inmates who have spent prolonged periods in solitary confinement have a more difficult time adjusting to life outside of prison, especially given the potential for the development or exacerbation of psychological problems. Supermax inmates may be more likely than comparable inmates serving sentences in regular institutions to recidivate or to escalate their offending. Furthermore, the presence of psychological problems means that the release of these individuals into society poses additional burdens on communities trying to effectively deal with mentally ill offenders (Pizarro & Stenius, 2004).

Legal and Ethical Issues

The overall constitutionality of supermax prisons remains unclear. The Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, requires that prisoners be afforded a minimum standard of living. Many argue that the living conditions and treatment provided to inmates in supermax facilities do not meet the standards of the Eighth Amendment. Federal court judges, however, have repeatedly ruled that prolonged segregation is cruel and unusual punishment only for the mentally ill. U.S. district courts maintain that although the conditions in these institutions are horrible, they are necessary for security reasons and therefore do not violate inmates' constitutional rights (Pizarro & Stenius, 2004).

Given that the courts have yet to rule supermax prisons as being in violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the major issue to be looked at is the criteria for placing and keeping a prisoner in supermax. On one side the inmates argue that since the conditions are so much more damaging in supermax than in a general population prison, administrators ought to have a reason, like assaulting a guard or dealing drugs, before they can place a person. It is also thought that there ought to be objective standards that a prisoner can meet in order to work his way out of supermax and back into general population. On the other side, the government argues that the prisoners are chattel and prison administrators should have complete power to place any inmate wherever they want him, regardless of his actions and regardless of the conditions in the prison. Administrators persist that the criterion for placing and keeping an inmate in a supermax remain totally subjective and are based solely on their professional judgment as to the inmate's probable future performance (Rudolph, 2008).

Back in the 1990's a prisoner brought a case before the Supreme Court, claiming that his due process rights were violated as a consequence of his being sentenced to thirty days in Disciplinary Segregation (Sandin v. Conner.) the Court ruled that since it was just thirty days, where the conditions are the same as in any supermax, there was not enough evidence to associate Sandin's liberty interests. But the Supremes speculated that if Sandin had been living in such uncharacteristic circumstances for a long period of time he would have had a liberty interest in staying away from placement in such an isolation unit. And if that were the case, then the government had an compulsion to provide some form of due process before they could reasonably transfer and keep an inmate in long-term segregation. The court referred to this as Administrative Segregation (as) as opposed to Disciplinary Segregation (Rudolph, 2008).

Supermaxes are designed to house inmates under Administrative Segregation long-term but how much due process was due to inmates in supermax the court hasn't said. In 2006 a group of inmates housed in a supermax in Ohio were back before the Supreme Court to get an answer (Wilkinson v. Austin). The Court's ruled that inmates were not due much due process. Yes, prison administrators had to give inmates due process in order to place and keep them at Ohio's supermax, said the Court, but very minimal due process standards were sufficient. First, administrators had to give an inmate notification of his impending transfer to the supermax. Second, they had to give him the chance to contest his transfer to supermax. And third, while at supermax he had to be given a meaningful periodic review in order to keep him there. At the review, the inmate could again contest his placement in the supermax. The trouble is the Supreme Court left it up to the prison administrators to decide the criteria for placing and keeping an inmate in a supermax. Many feel that the meaningful periodic reviews every six months are nothing more than just formalities (Rudolph, 2008).