Solitary Confinement and Supermax Prisons: Psychological Effects
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.
- Introduction: Origins of Prison Isolation in America: Pennsylvania and Auburn systems spark isolation debate
- The Rise of Supermax Facilities and Control Units: USP Marion model spreads supermax prisons nationwide
- Living Conditions Inside Security Housing Units: Extreme confinement conditions inside SHU cells
- Medical and Psychiatric Care Failures in SHUs: Pelican Bay and Wisconsin supermax healthcare failures
- Violence, Abuse, and the SHU Institutional Culture: Documented staff abuse and extreme force in SHUs
- Solitary Confinement: Other Potential Uses: Researchers debate rehabilitative potential of isolation
- The Psychological Impact of Solitary Confinement: Long-term isolation causes serious mental health harm
- Summary and Conclusion: Reform recommendations for solitary confinement practices
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds its argument in documented legal cases — particularly Madrid v. Gomez (1995) and Jones El v. Berge (2001) — giving concrete, court-verified evidence for claims about inadequate care and abuse.
- Provides historical context from the Pennsylvania and Auburn systems through to modern supermax development, situating contemporary policy within a long arc of correctional practice.
- Balances the critical argument with a brief counterpoint section on the rehabilitative potential of controlled isolation, demonstrating awareness of the scholarly debate.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper makes effective use of legal case citations alongside peer-reviewed research, blending criminological scholarship with judicial findings. This cross-referencing of court rulings (primary sources) and journal articles (secondary sources) strengthens claims about institutional conditions that might otherwise rely solely on advocacy reports.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with historical background on early U.S. prison systems, then traces the institutional evolution toward modern supermax units. Middle sections systematically catalog SHU conditions — physical environment, healthcare failures, and staff violence — supported by case law and research. A brief section on rehabilitative uses of isolation provides a counterargument before the psychological impact section consolidates the evidence. The conclusion synthesizes findings and offers a bulleted list of reform recommendations.
Introduction: Origins of Prison Isolation in America
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 Rise of Supermax Facilities and Control Units
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).
Living Conditions Inside Security Housing Units
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).
References
Arrigo, B. A., & Bullock, J. L. (2007). The psychological effects of solitary confinement on prisoners in supermax units: Reviewing what we know and recommending what should change. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology.
Cockburn, A. (2001, July 15). Commentary: Insane in the SHU box. Los Angeles Times, p. M5.
Committee to End the Marion Lockdown. (1992). From Alcatraz to Marion to Florence: Control unit prisons in the United States.
Grassian, S. (1983). Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140(11), 1450–1454.
Human Rights Watch. (1997). Human Rights Watch world report. New York: Author.
Human Rights Watch. (2000). Out of sight: Super-maximum security confinement in the United States.
In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160 (1890).
Jackson, M. (2001). The psychological effects of administrative segregation. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 109–116.
Jones El v. Berge, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1096 (2001).
King, R. D. (1999). The rise and rise of supermax: An American solution in search of a problem? Punishment and Society, 1, 163–168.
Kurki, L., & Morris, N. (2001). The purposes, practices, and problems of supermax prisons. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 28, 385–424.
Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
Mears, D. P. (2005). A critical look at supermax prisons. Corrections Compendium, 30, 6–7, 45–49.
Mears, D. P., & Reisig, M. D. (2006). The theory and practice of supermax prisons. Punishment and Society, 8, 33–57.
National Institute of Corrections. (1997). Supermax housing: A survey of current practices, special issues in corrections. Longmont, CO: National Institute of Corrections Information Center.
Pizarro, J., & Stenius, V. M. K. (2004). Supermax prisons: Their rise, current practices, and effects on prisoners. Prison Journal, 84(2), 248–264.
Rogers, R. (1993). Solitary confinement. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 37(4), 339–349.
Suedfeld, P. (1974). Solitary confinement in the correctional setting: Goals, problems, and suggestions. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology, Methods and Therapy, 20(3), 10–20.
Suedfeld, P., & Roy, C. (1975). Using social isolation to change the behavior of disruptive inmates. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 19(1), 90–99.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.