Solitary Confinement for Prison Infractions: Ethics and Reform

Introduction

This paper examines solitary confinement as a punishment for breaking prison rules and explores its moral dimensions. It considers the available evidence on the practice's prevalence and effects, and evaluates whether it should be continued or reformed.

Background of Solitary Confinement

The United States incarcerates more people than any other country in the world, with over 2 million individuals held in various federal, state, and locally operated facilities — a figure representing an almost 400% increase compared to the incarcerated population of the 1970s. The 2014 U.S. National Research Council report found that in 2012, America held over 25% of the world's prisoners, with roughly 1% of all Americans behind bars.

A common prison practice that has attracted significant attention and criticism is the segregation of specific inmates into separate cells, either to protect the general prison population or to impose additional punishment. This practice is known by several names, including solitary confinement, seclusion, and restricted housing, and it is primarily characterized by confining inmates to small, isolated cells for periods that can extend to years. Various individuals and organizations have spoken out against the practice. The "Stop Solitary" movement, for example, argues that the treatment is inhumane and may worsen the already deteriorating mental health of the growing number of patients with mental illness in U.S. correctional facilities.

When the Government Accountability Office (GAO) compiled its 2013 report, over 7% of the 217,000 federal prisoners it reviewed were subjected to solitary confinement for an estimated 23 hours per day. The U.S. government recognizes several levels of confinement, including Special Housing Units (SHU), Special Management Units (SMU), and the Administrative Maximum (ADX) facility. The same report revealed that between 2008 and 2013, the number of prisoners held in solitary confinement rose by approximately 17%.

Although no universally accepted definition of solitary confinement exists — despite the variety of names applied to it — the practice can be described simply as the isolation and confinement of a person to a restricted cell for 22 to 24 hours per day, with very limited contact with others (Solitary confinement — Penal Reform International).

The specific rules governing solitary confinement vary somewhat between facilities, but common features include the following (Solitary confinement facts — American Friends Service Committee):

• Imprisonment behind a secured door for more than 22 hours per day
• Drastically reduced interaction with other people
• Occasional phone calls and infrequent non-contact family visits
• Little or no access to psychotherapy
• Very limited medical and psychological health services
• Minimal access to reading materials or personal effects
• In some cases, physical, psychological, and chemical coercion using various methods

Inmates are the primary subjects of this practice and bear its direct consequences, while prison staff and legislators are the main stakeholders responsible for its design and modification. Solitary confinement was developed as a form of heightened punishment for rule-breaking inmates, stripping them of privileges such as recreational time, family contact, socialization, and television. These are not trivial losses; such privileges constitute a significant source of relief for prisoners during incarceration (Gangi, 2015). When placed in solitary confinement, inmates often compare their new circumstances to their prior conditions and, as a result of the psychological strain, may respond in unpredictable ways.

Ethical Implications

Solitary confinement has been shown to have a strong association with increased rates of self-harm. Research findings indicate that inmates who had ever experienced solitary confinement were three times more likely to attempt to harm themselves within three years compared to those who had never been subjected to it. Those with prior experience of confinement were also twice as likely to harm themselves while in segregation and six times more likely to do so after release from segregation, compared to inmates with no history of solitary confinement (Solitary confinement in prisons: Key data and research findings). Analysis of the prison population under study found that 4% of prisoners suffered from severe mental disorders, while 7.3% had experienced solitary confinement.

Although approximately 25% of the total prison population is held in separated cells, more than 50% of reported prison suicides occur in solitary confinement. At any given time, over 500,000 of the estimated 2 million inmates in U.S. facilities suffer from serious mental disorders. According to Igne-Bianchi, a practice designed to protect the majority may be pushing a vulnerable minority toward crisis.

Dr. Stuart Grassian, a prominent scholar on the psychology of solitary confinement, has documented the psychological effects of this form of punishment in detail (Igne-Bianchi). His research found that punishing individuals with the goal of modifying behavior — a practice he termed aversive conditioning — contradicts ethical principles and can cause significant harm. Studies on the subject have consistently demonstrated deterioration in mental functioning and, in some cases, the emergence of new psychological disorders. Several of these studies also found that between 22% and 45% of prisoners in maximum-security facilities suffer serious psychological disorders, including irritability, violent dreams, and paranoia (Igne-Bianchi). Grassian also observed that inmates frequently distance themselves from the visible effects of their confinement by refusing to discuss their experience or minimizing its impact in order to downplay the severity of what they endured.

While theories of poor institutional organization and abuses of power differ in important respects, both perspectives agree that the absence of adequate infrastructure to manage overcrowding has played a major role in the recent rise of solitary confinement. The GAO confirmed this in a September 2012 report, which documented system-wide overcrowding of 36–38%, with maximum-security facilities reportedly operating at 55% over capacity (Igne-Bianchi). The report also projected nationwide overcrowding exceeding 45% by 2018. Although more than 50% of prisoners in the United States were incarcerated for non-violent offenses, certain states — such as Texas — nonetheless place inmates in isolated cells as a matter of policy (Igne-Bianchi).

The GAO published a further report in May 2013 examining the effectiveness of the Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) use of solitary confinement. That report concluded that the impact of solitary confinement on the safety of prisoners, staff, and the public cannot be properly assessed without first investigating the long-term effects of social isolation (Igne-Bianchi). Despite the lack of evidence supporting the effectiveness of solitary confinement, the number of prisoners held in isolation continued to rise by approximately 17%.

Conclusion

The evidence reviewed in this paper strongly suggests that solitary confinement, as currently practiced in the United States, inflicts serious psychological harm on inmates while offering little demonstrable benefit to institutional safety. Rising incarceration rates, overcrowded facilities, and the absence of robust mental health infrastructure have all contributed to the expansion of a practice whose effectiveness remains unproven. Legislative alternatives such as the HALT Solitary Confinement Act offer a more evidence-based and humane framework for managing dangerous inmates, one that prioritizes rehabilitation over further punishment. On the basis of the available evidence, continued reliance on prolonged solitary confinement is difficult to justify on either ethical or practical grounds.