Supermax Prisons

Abstract

Research Summary Supermaximum‐security prisons—or “supermaxes”—symbolize the “get tough” criminal justice policies that have developed over the past three decades in the United States and in other countries. Proponents believe that they effectively address critical prison system problems; opponents believe that they do not and that they create substantial harm. This essay examines the available evidence about supermaxes. Policy Implications A range of considerations are relevant to determining whether supermaxes constitute effective policy. These include (a) definitional problems in discussing supermax incarceration; (b) five critical dimensions along which evidence for policies is desirable and along which supermaxes fall short, including demonstration of policy need, credible policy theory, high‐quality implementation, impact, and benefits that exceed costs and do so more than other policies; (c) the challenge of assessing causal claims related to supermaxes; (d) legal and ethical issues; (e) policy and political challenges confronting states; (f) policy options other than supermaxes; and (g) research gaps that remain to be addressed. The essay argues that causal uncertainty about supermax incarceration makes it difficult at present to claim credibly that it achieves intended goals. Policy implications and recommendations are discussed.

Quantitative syntheses of the effects of administrative segregation on inmates’ well-being.

“…Beyond examining the effects of AS on inmate physical and mental health functioning, as well as behavioral outcomes (e.g., recidivism), the results of this study also provide penological implications. Opinions vary as to whether AS is an effective punishment strategy that increases safety and promotes order throughout the prison system, or whether it might contribute to an increase in institutional misconduct making prisons less safe over time (see Mears, 2013;Pizarro, Zgoba, & Haugebrook, 2014). Collectively, these two meta-analyses indicate a small increase in postrelease recidivism (ES ϭ .12 and .33 in RS1 and RS2,respectively) and antisocial indicators (ES ϭ 0.31 in RS2); however, the estimate for institutional misconducts (r ϭ Ϫ.01) suggests a small decrease in inmate violence because of AS.…”

Disentangling the relationship between serious disorder problems and the use of supermax prisons

“…The inverse relationship between nuisance behaviors and the odds of supermax does not necessarily reject that assertion that supermax is used to house nuisance individuals but does suggest that they may not be identified according to their low‐level misconduct (or at least not directly). For example, the results demonstrated strong associations between mental illness and supermax, which may be the more realistic indicator of who is deemed a “nuisance” (Butler et al., 2014; Mears, 2005, 2013; O'Keefe, 2008; Siennick et al., 2022). This finding also underscores a potential problem with supermax implementation given that supermax policies state that long‐term solitary confinement should be avoided for individuals with mental illness.…”

“…From this view, supermax allows prison systems to respond to disorder problems by systematically identifying the most disruptive people—those who are thought to drive systemwide disorder—and isolating them for months or years in a highly secure facility. The assumption that supermax is used in such a theoretically informed and uniform way has received skepticism (e.g., King, 1999; Kurki & Morris, 2001; Mears, 2013; Mears & Reisig, 2006; Pizarro & Narag, 2008; Rhodes, 2004; Shalev, 2009).…”

Disciplinary Segregation’s Effects on Inmate Behavior: Institutional and Community Outcomes

“…Inmate isolation ranges from 24 hours or less to 23 hours of isolation per day with limited physical activity (e.g., supermaximum confinement). Recent evidence indicates that correctional authorities typically segregate inmates away from the general prison population for considerably briefer periods of time than “supermax” confinement (e.g., Barak-Glantz, 1983; Beck, 2015; Labrecque & Mears, 2019; Mears, 2013; Mears & Bales, 2010); yet academic studies assessing supermax’s effects on inmates have outpaced that of more routine applications of SC (e.g., Butler, Steiner, Makarios, & Travis, 2017; Lovell, Johnson, & Cain, 2007; Mears & Bales, 2009; Mears & Reisig, 2006; Morgan et al, 2016; Pizarro & Narag, 2008; Smith, 2006).…”