Introduction and Background
Introduction
The use of solitary confinement in the United States has been a subject of heated debate and legal battles, with Connecticut and California serving as a notable arenas of controversy. Recent developments in the CA have triggered new questions about the efficacy and ethics of solitary confinement reforms while CT's inmates at Corrigan for example, still suffer from the use of SEG, also called solitary confinement. This paper aims to analyze the interplay between court decisions, legislative moves, and advocacy efforts in shaping the future of solitary confinement policies in California and Connecticut.
|
Background
The Ashker Settlement
In 2015, a landmark settlement in the case of Ashker v. Governor of California fundamentally changed the landscape of solitary confinement in the state. The class-action lawsuit targeted the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) practices of indefinite solitary confinement, particularly focusing on the conditions in Security Housing Units (SHUs) (Reiter, 2016; Shalev, 2009). The settlement resulted in significant revisions to the state's policies, including the prohibition of indeterminate SHU placements based solely on alleged gang affiliations. Take a look at the data on long term mortality rates of prisoners subjected to SEG, SHU or solitary confinement.
Legislative Efforts: The Mandela Act
While the Ashker Settlement laid the groundwork for reform, legislative efforts sought to codify these changes into law. The California Mandela Act, a bill aimed at limiting solitary confinement to a maximum of 15 days, recently gained traction but faced delays and opposition, mirroring the complexities of reform (Pizarro & Narag, 2008).
Judicial Oversight
Federal oversight, initially intended to last two years post-settlement, has extended to eight years. However, a recent ruling by a three-judge panel threatens to remove this oversight, casting doubt on the future effectiveness of solitary confinement reforms (Butler & Griffin, 2017).
Current Challenges and Judicial Interventions
Reversal of Oversight
In a turn of events that has sent shockwaves through the advocacy community, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in late August to end federal oversight of California's solitary confinement policies. This judicial intervention critically undermines the power of the federal magistrate to monitor and limit the use of prolonged solitary confinement in the state (Sundt et al., 2008).
Legal Appeal and Legislative Stalemate
In response, prisoners' rights advocates have filed for an en banc review by the Ninth Circuit Court. This move temporarily halts the termination of the settlement agreement, but its fate remains uncertain. Concurrently, legislative progress on the Mandela Act has been stalled. Despite previous Senate approval, the bill's sponsor, Assemblymember Chris Holden, agreed to hold the bill in the final days of the legislative session due to strong opposition from law enforcement agencies (Gawande, 2009).
The Role of Advocacy
Advocates have not been deterred by these setbacks. They continue to lobby lawmakers and engage in public campaigns to raise awareness about the inhumanity and detrimental effects of solitary confinement. The Center for Constitutional Rights, among other organizations, remains at the forefront of these efforts, signifying the crucial role of civil society in shaping public policy (Haney, 2003).
Implications and Future Directions
Long-Term Effects of Solitary Confinement
Despite the legal and legislative uncertainties, it's crucial to consider the human impact of these policies. Studies indicate that long-term solitary confinement can lead to severe psychological issues, including anxiety, depression, and cognitive distortions (Arrigo & Bullock, 2008; Grassian, 2006). Individuals subjected to extended periods in the SHU often suffer from debilitating mental health conditions that can persist long after their release (Smith, 2006).
The Struggle for Accountability
Another persisting issue is the lack of accountability and transparency within the CDCR. Recent monitoring revealed numerous instances where officials falsified statements attributed to informants, undermining the disciplinary procedures that lead to SHU placements (Rhodes, 2004). These findings amplify the need for continuous oversight and raise questions about the agency's commitment to meaningful reform (Simon, 2000).
Grassroots Activism and Political Will
The public perception of solitary confinement as a penological necessity has been challenged by mass hunger strikes, advocacy campaigns, and lawsuits, signaling a shift in societal attitudes (Sandoval, 2023). However, the recent setbacks show that grassroots activism alone may not be sufficient to bring about systemic change. Strong political will and legislative action are essential to codify and enforce reforms (Casella & Ridgeway, 2013).
Conclusion & Bibliography
Conclusion
The ongoing struggle to reform solitary confinement in California illustrates the complex interplay between the judicial system, legislative efforts, and advocacy. While significant strides have been made, notably through the Ashker Settlement and subsequent monitoring, recent court decisions and legislative delays present new challenges. These obstacles not only threaten the momentum gained but also put vulnerable populations at risk, underscoring the urgent need for sustained advocacy and political commitment.
Despite these setbacks, the continuing efforts by prisoners' rights advocates and civil society organizations demonstrate the resilience of the movement against solitary confinement. Future research should focus on quantifying the psychological and social costs of solitary confinement and the effectiveness of alternative disciplinary methods, to inform both policy and practice.
Complete Bibliography
Arrigo, B. A., & Bullock, J. L. (2008). The Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prisoners in Supermax Units. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(6), 622-640.
Butler, H. D., & Griffin, O. H. (2017). The use of administrative segregation and its function in the institutional setting. The Prison Journal, 97(2), 166-184.
Casella, J., & Ridgeway, J. (2013). Hell Is a Very Small Place: Voices from Solitary Confinement. The New Press.
Gawande, A. (2009). Hellhole. The New Yorker, 30(2009), 36-45.
Grassian, S. (2006). Psychiatric effects of solitary confinement. Journal of Law & Policy, 22, 325-383.
Haney, C. (2003). Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and “Supermax” Confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49(1), 124-156.
Pizarro, J. M., & Narag, R. E. (2008). Supermax Prisons: What We Know, What We Do Not Know, and Where We Are Going. The Prison Journal, 88(1), 23-42.
Reiter, K. (2016). 23/7: Pelican Bay Prison and the Rise of Long-Term Solitary Confinement. Yale University Press.
Rhodes, L. A. (2004). Total Confinement: Madness and Reason in the Maximum Security Prison. University of California Press.
Sandoval, J. (2023). Unlock the Box: Advocacy to End Solitary in the U.S. Truthout.
Shalev, S. (2009). Supermax: Controlling Risk Through Solitary Confinement. Willan.
Simon, J. (2000). The ‘Society of Captives’ in the Era of Hyper-Incarceration. Theoretical Criminology, 4(3), 285-308.
Smith, P. S. (2006). The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: A brief history and review of the literature. Crime and Justice, 34(1), 441-528.
Sundt, J. L., Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2008). The Effect of Supermax Confinement on Inmate Behavior: A Longitudinal Study. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(8), 1005-1020.