Solitary Confinement Can Be Necessary

Tammi Gregg and Donna Lieberman of the American Civil Liberties Union wrote a column in The Washington Post of April 29, 2021 about the “torture” of prolonged solitary confinement and referred to it as a “institutional, systemic injustice.”

As thousands of dedicated men and women who work in prisons know, solitary confinement of inmates can be a necessary, often life-saving measure to spare both staff and inmates from injury or death. What can correctional officers do when faced with an inmate who not only constantly defies basic rules of conduct but who also poses a constant danger to staff and other prisoners?

Consider the following situation. Brad* was serving a life sentence for burglary, first degree sexual assault, and assaulting a police officer with a “pry bar.” Incarcerated in the state penitentiary, the inmate stabbed a corrections officer in the chest with a homemade spear fabricated from nail clippers and a ballpoint pen rolled up in a newspaper. The wound was serious enough to require treatment at a hospital emergency room. Brad was found to have a homemade handcuff key. An attempt at escape was not successful. In addition, he had amassed 37 “major conduct reports.” The staff assessed him as posing “a substantial risk” to others and to institutional security as there was evidence that he was affiliated with a gang and that he planned to participate in a riot. Brad refused to communicate with staff members and declined to participate in any programs or activities.

A prison staff committee decided unanimously that Brad be placed in “administrative confinement.” This solitary housing was extremely restrictive. Brad was to remain in his cell unless directly supervised by at least one officer. If moved for any reason from his cell, he would have to wear handcuffs and leg irons. He was not permitted to participate in programs outside his cell. Brad was given the right to appeal this decision to place him in solitary confinement. He did not avail himself of this right and continued to refuse to speak to staff members.

Also consider Jack* who had a life sentence for “intentional homicide while possessing a dangerous weapon.” Since being confined, he obtained conduct reports for threats, engaging in fights, use of intoxicants, and manufacture and possession of weapons. He and his accomplices had made and concealed a number of shanks to be used for a planned “future disturbance.” He was identified as a prominent gang member and discovered to have written a note stating that certain inmates must die. After a hearing, he was placed in solitary confinement. After a period of good behavior, he was allowed to participate in a self-improvement program that was available to him on a television screen in his cell.

Inmates like Brad and Jack pose an ongoing security risk to other inmates and staff. They are defiant, violent, destructive of property, and refuse to interact with staff members. It is unlikely that anyone would suggest that solitary confinement would benefit either of these two men. But removing them from the general population would help immeasurably in allowing other inmates to live without the constant fear that their presence engendered.

Certainly, solitary confinement should be employed as a last resort for inmates like Brad and Jack, but not as a disciplinary measure used capriciously or malevolently. If an inmate fears physical attack by inmates like Brad or Jack in the shower, in his cell, in the dayroom or anywhere else in the institution, he is the one experiencing psychological “torture.”

Offenders make choices as to how they will behave in prison. Some try to rule the place. Others keep a low profile and avoid involvement in prison intrigue, do not plan crimes, and cooperate with staff. If a prisoner persistently threatens the safety of others, what is the prison staff to do? It would be impossible to achieve rehabilitative or other worthwhile objectives in a facility where, day to day, prisoners feel unsafe.

------
*Brad and Jack represent actual cases. However, these names are used to maintain confidentiality.