Managing Prisons Through Extended Solitary Confinement: A Necessary Approach or a Signal of Prison System Failure?

Abstract

In contemporary American corrections, extended solitary confinement (ESM) as a management tool has emerged as a strategy for avowedly controlling the most violent individuals and, in so doing, creating a safer prison system. We theorize that the emergence of this unique form of housing may also be viewed as a signal of prison system failure. To advance this argument, we identify how different theoretical perspectives can be used to anticipate the effects of ESM on prison system violence and order and then investigate the plausibility of this account by grounding it in analysis of qualitative data from a study of one state’s prison system. The analysis suggests theoretical and empirical warrant for both views of ESM—as an effective tool and as a symptom of system failure. Implications of the study research and policy are discussed.

Captives of the “Society of Captives”: Working in Solitary Confinement

“…Proceeding from that observation, we argue that his theory can be utilized to identify ways in which personnel who work in solitary confinement facilities experience deprivations that mirror those of individuals housed in them. In so doing, we respond to calls by scholars to theorize and investigate how contemporary prisons, solitary confinement facilities in particular, influence officers (Crewe & Laws, 2018; Garcia, 2016; King, 2005; Mears & Watson, 2006; Rudes et al, 2022). Focusing on corrections officers in general, Crawley (2004), for example, noted that “while the sociology of the prison has acknowledged the impact of prison on the emotional lives of prisoners, .…”

“…As a result, a large body of research has focused on the impacts of such housing on the mental health of incarcerated persons who experience extended periods of isolation that contribute to mental disorders and constitute what critics view as inappropriate or constitutionally questionable conditions (see, generally, Cohen, 2016; Haney, 2008). There are, however, other groups and aspects of the practice that bear consideration—solitary confinement may have influences that extend to correctional officers’ lives and prison systems (Garcia, 2016; Mears & Watson, 2006; Sundt, 2016).…”

“…The emphasis on control stemmed in part from views that incarcerated persons had too much influence in the governance of prisons and that new generations represented an increasingly dangerous population (Crewe & Laws, 2018; Riveland, 1999). Reliance on specialized housing that virtually incapacitated these individuals served to highlight that prison systems were in charge (Mears & Watson, 2006; Toch, 2003). It functioned as well to signify “a wider penal ideology of managerial efficiency” (Crewe & Laws, 2018, p. 129).…”

“…Incarcerated persons have minimal contact with others (Kupers, 2017). They have little to no visitation or programming (Mears & Watson, 2006; Shalev, 2009). Even healthcare is limited.…”

“…For personnel who work in extended solitary confinement facilities, these observations hold special relevance. Incarcerated persons may feel that they have been placed in confinement unfairly, and so view prison authority as illegitimate (Mears & Watson, 2006; Rhodes, 2004; Richards, 2015). They are subject to what critics view as inherently degrading conditions (Kupers, 2017).…”