This paper examines the origins and expansion of solitary confinement in the United States, tracing its roots from the Pennsylvania and Auburn prison systems of the 1800s through the development of modern supermax Security Housing Units (SHUs). It explores the severe living conditions prisoners endure in these facilities, the chronic inadequacy of psychiatric and medical care, and the widespread abuse documented by U.S. district courts. Drawing on cases such as Madrid v. Gomez (1995) and Jones El v. Berge (2001), the paper details the psychological consequences of long-term isolation and concludes with policy recommendations aimed at reforming confinement practices.
Two prison systems were developed in the 1800s in the United States: the Auburn system and the Pennsylvania system. In the Auburn system, prisoners performed labor together but were required to remain silent. In the Pennsylvania system, prisoners were isolated not only from society but also from fellow inmates. The idea behind the Pennsylvania system was that solitary confinement would give prisoners the privacy and time to reflect on their crimes, leading them to feel remorse or penitence — which is how the term penitentiary was derived (Rogers, 1993).
The criminals and convicts held in Pennsylvania-system prisons suffered severe psychological and physical side effects (Kurki & Morris, 2001; Pizarro & Stenius, 2004). The U.S. Supreme Court took notice of the harmful effects of isolation as early as 1890. It was observed that many prisoners kept under this system fell into a state of semi-mindlessness; others became completely insane, and some committed suicide. The small number who did endure the ordeal relatively intact were generally not reformed, and most suffered lasting cognitive decline that prevented them from contributing meaningfully to society (In re Medley, 1890).
German prisons modeled on early U.S. institutions recorded similar outcomes. Numerous articles in German medical journals documented the psychological problems that prisoners experienced when placed in isolation (Grassian, 1983).
Despite this historical evidence of isolation's harm — both psychological and physical — the practice of rigidly isolating prisoners returned to prominence because it was believed that the most dangerous prisoners were best managed through solitary confinement (Mears, 2005).
The opening of the United States Penitentiary (USP) in Marion, Illinois, in 1963 is widely credited with giving rise to ultra-security units, also known as control units (Mears & Reisig, 2006). USP Marion replaced the Alcatraz federal prison, which closed the same year Marion opened. Like Alcatraz before it, USP Marion was designated for prisoners considered a serious threat to correctional officials. Notorious convicts, including political prisoners and gangsters, were also held there (Committee to End the Marion Lockdown, 1992). USP Marion has since been replaced by the Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado as the federal system's most secure institution (Kurki & Morris, 2001).
The use of isolation expanded progressively at USP Marion. Authorities forced prisoners to participate in therapy programs and extended solitary confinement as a means of suppressing rebellion — for example, following a 1972 work stoppage by prisoners protesting a guard's beating of a minority inmate (King, 1999). Not only did the use of solitary confinement increase over time, but the duration of individual sentences to isolation grew as well. In 1983, following the murders of two prison guards by inmates, USP Marion placed its entire prison population in their cells indefinitely (Committee to End the Marion Lockdown, 1992).
Since that time, all state Security Housing Units (SHUs) across the country have looked to USP Marion as their model (Kurki & Morris, 2001). By 1996, the National Institute of Corrections reported that 34 state jurisdictions were operating or planning to operate one or more supermax facilities (Pizarro & Stenius, 2004). Approximately 55 or more control units were in operation nationwide at that time, collectively housing around 20,000 prisoners (Mears & Reisig, 2006; National Institute of Corrections, 1997). A 2004 survey by the Urban Institute found that 44 states had at least one supermax security facility, and that these facilities collectively housed approximately 25,000 prisoners (Mears, 2005).
Most prisoners in SHUs are confined in small cells — often measuring just 6 by 8 feet — behind steel doors for 22 to 23 hours each day. They are permitted to leave their cells for solitary exercise or a shower only a few hours per week, leaving their interaction with other prisoners and correctional staff extremely limited. In most SHUs, prisoners are not permitted any visitors; the few who do receive visitors must communicate through closed-circuit televisions. Access to reading materials is severely restricted, leaving inmates with very few opportunities for educational activity.
Physical exercise space is wholly inadequate. Most SHU cells have no windows, depriving prisoners of natural light; cells are illuminated around the clock by electric lights that inmates cannot dim or turn off. Without windows, prisoners cannot distinguish day from night. Recreational activities are nearly nonexistent. Inmates are assigned to these control units for indeterminate periods — sometimes months, sometimes years. These conditions provide minimal physical or mental stimulation, leaving most SHU prisoners in profound isolation (Committee to End the Marion Lockdown, 1992; Human Rights Watch, 2000).
Generally, prisons lack adequate psychiatric and medical care facilities, largely due to scarce resources. In SHUs, these deficiencies are particularly severe. In the case of Madrid v. Gomez (1995), brought before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the confinement conditions at Pelican Bay State Prison's SHU were directly challenged. The court found that staff at Pelican Bay showed extreme indifference to the healthcare needs of SHU prisoners. Health professionals were drastically understaffed and inadequately trained, inmates received no regular check-ups, and access to medical care was routinely delayed or denied (Arrigo & Bullock, 2007).
Mental health services at Pelican Bay were found to be in equally dire condition. The mental health department was understaffed and lacked adequate facilities. Incoming inmates were not screened for mental illness. Many prisoners at Pelican Bay were found to be suffering from mental illnesses that, left untreated, deteriorated into psychosis or suicidality. Because there was no screening system, mentally ill prisoners were not separated from the general SHU population and transferred to appropriate psychiatric facilities. The SHU had no treatment facilities for mentally ill inmates whatsoever. In light of these findings, the Madrid (1995) court concluded that the facility was in a state of extreme mental and healthcare crisis, and that conditions were so severe they could result in serious psychiatric consequences for the prisoners held there (Madrid v. Gomez, 1995, p. 1216).
The SHU at Pelican Bay was not unique in its failures. Comparable deficiencies were found at the Wisconsin Supermax Correctional Institution at Boscobel in Jones El v. Berge (2001). The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin found the mental care facility there to be grossly inadequate. Psychiatrist Terry Kupers, testifying as a witness, confirmed that mental healthcare at Wisconsin Supermax was critically deficient and that procedures for screening incoming inmates were inadequate. Although efforts were made to transfer mentally ill prisoners to appropriate facilities, many inmates who suffered from mental illness remained in the general SHU population without treatment (Arrigo & Bullock, 2007).
Hostility and violence characterize conditions inside SHUs (Cockburn, 2001; Mears & Watson, 2006). Prisoners are treated harshly: they are heavily guarded and shackled when taken to showers or exercise and are chained whenever in proximity to other inmates. They frequently face violent cell extractions for minor infractions — such as failing to return a food tray — during which they are subdued with rubber bullets, batons, and tasers. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in Madrid v. Gomez (1995), reported that the use of extreme force was commonplace in SHUs. The court found that officials assaulted prisoners, confined them in outdoor cages in extreme weather conditions, and conducted extremely violent cell extractions (Arrigo & Bullock, 2007).
The institutional mindset that SHU prisoners represent the worst of the worst has positioned correctional staff in direct opposition to inmates, and this attitude is a significant driver of prisoner abuse (Mears & Reisig, 2006). The primary purpose of SHUs is total domination and control over inmates (Jackson, 2001). The general public typically assumes that only the most violent and dangerous criminals are sent to SHUs, and that the brutal conditions there are necessary to keep correctional staff safe — a belief that implicitly justifies the abuse (Pizarro & Stenius, 2004). In reality, the majority of prisoners in SHUs are not violent or dangerous (Haney, 2003). They are most commonly sent there for involvement in a single fight, gang membership, a few nonviolent disciplinary infractions, or for acts of resistance such as organizing protests against prison administration or assisting other inmates. The severity of SHU confinement conditions is entirely disproportionate to the legitimate security and management objectives of correctional institutions (Human Rights Watch, 2000).
Some researchers have argued that solitary confinement, under certain conditions, can support rehabilitation (Rogers, 1993; Suedfeld, 1974; Suedfeld & Roy, 1975). Suedfeld (1974) supported the use of prisoner isolation when carried out in a controlled and monitored environment, arguing that isolation combined with a proper rehabilitative program could genuinely help and motivate prisoners to develop a non-criminal lifestyle (p. 18). Rogers (1993) proposed a model under which inmates could be placed in isolation in a way that would simultaneously reduce costs and ensure prison security. However, both researchers acknowledged that not all prisoners are suited for isolation. Rogers stipulated that prisoners of certain personality types would need to be evaluated regularly to ensure they did not develop psychological problems (p. 345), and Suedfeld similarly conceded that some prisoners cannot safely live in isolation.
Research suggesting that isolation or solitary confinement does not cause psychological harm to prisoners does not accurately represent the conditions found in U.S. correctional SHUs. All investigators have agreed that long-term segregation combined with mistreatment by correctional staff can produce serious mental health consequences, particularly because prisoners in these environments are already highly psychologically vulnerable. With regard to short-term segregation, the side effects are considerably less severe than those associated with long-term isolation; however, the environments in which these studies were conducted must be taken into account. Moreover, the research instruments used in short-term segregation studies may have been insufficiently sensitive to detect the subtle psychological changes that can occur as a result of even brief exposure to solitary confinement conditions (Arrigo & Bullock, 2007).
In order to maintain control and discipline, the use of both long- and short-term confinement has become standard practice in U.S. prisons. The scale of this trend is evident in the rapid proliferation of supermax security units throughout the American correctional system (Kurki & Morris, 2001; Mears & Reisig, 2006; Pizarro & Stenius, 2004).
The duration of solitary confinement is a major factor in determining its psychological impact on prisoners. Those who already have psychological problems are at greater risk of harm because they begin in a more vulnerable position. Inadequate mental healthcare within these facilities compounds the problem. Taken together, the confined and aggressive conditions of SHUs significantly increase the likelihood that a prisoner will emerge emotionally and psychologically damaged.
Given the documented destructive potential of isolation, the following reforms are recommended:
"Pelican Bay and Wisconsin supermax healthcare failures"
"Documented staff abuse and extreme force in SHUs"
"Researchers debate rehabilitative potential of isolation"
"Long-term isolation causes serious mental health harm"
"Reform recommendations for solitary confinement practices"
You’re 81% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 5 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.