Solitary Confinement

The Use of Solitary Confinement in Different Nations

Holly Evans

Senior Capstone Project

Global Studies

2019-2020

Introduction

Solitary confinement is a global, but mentally damaging practice which is defined as the physical and social isolation of persons who remain confined to their cells between twenty-two and twenty-four hours per day. Throughout the world it is utilized differently, some countries use it sparingly only when absolutely necessary, while others may use it as a solution to nearly all behavioral problems within their prisons. The latter should not be what solitary is used for, especially regarding when it is used for more than fifteen days on an individual. Depending on how it is used, it may become exceedingly dangerous and counterintuitive to the original intention of ceasing violence and other activities which are not wanted within prisons. When used for more than fifteen days the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Juan E. Méndez considers it to be inhumane and similar to torture as it has irreversible affects on human behvior (Mèndez et. al., 3).

The objective of this paper is to analyze the manner in which solitary confinement is utilized in three specific and contrasting nations. These three countries are: The United States of America, China, and Austria. They were deliberately chosen because they are all on separate continents. Additionally, these countries all have different approaches to the enforcement of solitary confinement. All three were featured in an United Nations Report called Seeing into Solitary: A Review of Laws and Policies of Certain Nations Regarding Solitary of Detainees by Juan E. Méndez, Alexander Papachristou, Eric Ordway, Amy Fettig, and Dr. Sharon Shalev. Through the use of this report these nations will be compared and contrasted as well as analyzed to evaluate their respective practices regarding their policies, the physical aspects of the cells and cell blocks, and the oversight of the process of detaining an inmate. To preface this there will be a brief summary of the history of solitary confinement through the lens of the novel “Hell is a Very Small Place: Voices from Solitary Confinement” by Jean Casella. An array of other sources were utilized to inform this paper. Most notably a documentantary from Frontline called Last Days in Solitary which spoke to the individual detainees about their experiences in confinement and analyzed the different effects from a psychology standpoint.

History of Solitary Confinement 

 The idea originated as an official practice in the United States in the late eighteenth century through an experiment in rehabilitation done by the Quakers. The thought behind it was to separate humans from otherwise “evil” influences.  They hoped that reflection and inability to separate from those who encourage bad behavior would cause a realization that they needed to cease their poor behavior (Casella, 3). In 1829 Pennsylvania’s Eastern State Penitentiary began experimenting with these lockdowns to spare prisoners from public humiliation tactics like whipping (Casella, 5). They wished to improve prison conditions and rehabilitate inmates. However, essentially the exact opposite happened. The experiment itself was a complete and utter catastrophe. By the 1830’s statistical evidence began to show that there was an inordinate incidence of psychosis, suicide, and overall detoriation of those in solitary. By 1890 there was major condemnation of the institutions by the United States Supreme Court (Casella, 9). While the United States at this particular point in time began to abandon the idea of segregation (until later on) other countries began to catch on. There is not a lot of accessible official evidence of early segregation in most countries, it tends to be recorded in the United States. However, throughout literature and other non-legal sources it is evident that the practice reaches far back in time and touches an array of different countries and continents.

Solitary Confinement in the United States

While the United States may have been where solitary originated and where it has been used the most it is also one of the countries making the most steps to improve. The January 2016 United States Department of Justice Report and Recommendations concerning restrictive housing acknowledged it’s overuse which is the first step. President Barack Obama called for a review of the practices with his unprecedented visit to an American prison. He later denounced the practice in an op-ed in the Washington Post (Mèndez et. al., 11). This garnered media attention as the fight for more humane treatment gained more traction. The Supreme Court began looking at cases centered around solitary confinement which ended in some promising settlements. Overall despite its shortcomings the United States is actively on the right track, but there is still a long road ahead.

Policy of Solitary: United States 

In the past the reasons why an inmate may end up in solitary confinement were quite extensive, and while there are still too many, it is beginning to diminish. Practices vary all across the country, so reasons why someone ends up in isolation varies from state to state. In California someone can be placed in solitary for their own protection if they are a relative or associate of a prison/staff member (Mèndez et. al., 24). In Pennsylvania if an inmate is at risk for sexual victimization they may be admitted until another solution is found, with a proviso that the confinement should not exceed thirty days (Mèndez et. al., 24). Unfortunately in this state someone may be in solitary simply because there is not enough bed space for inmates (Mèndez et. al., 26). For all states a prisoner may be in isolation on death row, but for the regions who no longer use capital punishment like Pennsylvania they may remain there indefinitely (Mèndez et. al., 25). Colorado only uses it for disciplinary reasons and narrowed the reasons for punishment down to thirteen of the most violent offenses (Mèndez et. al., 47). In Illinois 85% of inmates sent within a twelve month span were in there for something as minor as abusive language (Mèndez et. al., 12). It is also possible in the United States if someone is HIV positive they can be segregated if they are seen as a possible health risk (Mèndez et. al., 25). 

Thankfully even though this all may seem like a lot to be placed in isolation for there are time limitations. There are also steps being taken to reduce the reasons you can end up in solitary in order to lessen the isolation population. For example in New York a 2015 settlement diminished its use for administrative and protective purposes, it also lessened its list of eighty-seven violations that would place an inmate in solitary to forty-two. These new limitations removed 1,100 people from segregation (Mèndez et. al., 28). As for time limitations it is still allowed to have indefinite isolation, although again there are strides to change this. In certain states it has already been shortened. In Pennsylvania there is a limit of nighty days per violation, but there is no maximum to the accumulation of offenses (Mèndez et. al., 40). So if you committed multiple violations this is where time can add up for an inmate. In California, Colorado, and Federal prisons there may be indefinite renewals which can allow an inmate to be incarcerated forever . Colorado specifically gives a timeline of six to twelve months in maximum security with evaluations every thirty days to see if an inmate is fit to continue. The limit is intended to be twelve months but can be renewed indefinitely (Mèndez et. al., 40). In New York the HALT Act was also put in place to make it so that there can be no solitary confinement that exceeds fifteen to twenty consecutive days in any sixty day period (Mèndez et. al., 47). 

There are also limitations on who can be placed into solitary, this again varies from state to state. Colorado has made it so that no person with a mental illness can be put in long-term solitary unless there are exigent circumstances (ex: suicide or self harm risk). New York and Illonois also have made strides to ban the use of isolation tactics on the mentally and physically disabled. In Pennsylvania and New York those who are mentally disabled and require separation are placed in entirely different facilities for treatment purposes. A lot of emphasis has been placed on improving the tactics used on juveniles and the disabled. Only Illonois and New York, however, do not allow pregnant women to be placed in solitary (Mèndez et. al., 22). Other states do not seem to have any restrictions centered around pregnant or nursing women. Regarding juveniles many states approach this differently too, but there is pressure from the government (specifically under the Obama administration) to reduce or eliminate isolation on those under the age of twenty-one. Federal prisons, New York, and Illinois all have drastically reduced or eliminated the use of confinement on those under the age of twenty-one (Mèndez et. al., 47). Maine on the other hand allows juvenile confinement but only up to thirty hours at a time (Mèndez et. al., 47). Before Obama and his visits there were little to no restrictions on any of this, but since 2016 the public has become more aware of the issues and reform is beginning to flood in.

Physical Aspects of Solitary: United States

In the United States physical conditions for prisoners have been more closely observed since the Obama administration. In this country there must be a sectioned off area dedicated to solitary confinement cells, meaning there cannot be random cells throughout the general population where people are serving these types of sentences. Additionally in New York there is an entire residential mental health unit for those who have behavioral problems caused by mental disabilities. California, Colorado, and Pennsylvania also have a similar system where mentally disabled inmates are transported to a separate facility or treatment program (Mèndez et. al., 24). 

The U.S. minimum requirement for a cell is eight square meters. In addition there does not seem to be many requirements centered around lighting. In California, for example, there are no windows in the cell but they are required to be painted white (Mèndez et. al., 43). This can be assumed to be required so that the cells are bright enough. America also tends to be more specific when it comes to what they require inside of each cell. They require there to be a toilet, wash basin, bed, and for each inmate to have personal items in order to maintain hygiene (toilet paper, soap, toothbrush, shaving utensils, etc.). An inmate is also able to shower and shave around three times per week. Interestingly enough, they also have access to a hairdresser if necessary, (Mèndez et. al., 43) which is not often accounted for in other countries. Overall the United States expresses that conditions must “meet or exceed the standards for healthy and humane treatment” (Mèndez et. al., 42). 

Physical restraints, like many other countries, are able to be used for transportation and for inmates who may be thought to harm themselves (Mèndez et. al., 45). 

An aspect for the prisoners' health that is worth noting is that medical exams are required for both disciplinary and non-disciplinary uses of segregation preemptive to admission. This is to make sure they are fit to be in solitary. In addition these exams are also performed periodically to check that the inmate is still safe to continue the use of isolation (Mèndez et. al., 41). 

Oversight of Solitary: United States

The United States has become increasingly progressive in the process of determining solitary confinement. While the different processes may vary from state to state there are consistencies throughout all those surveyed in this United Nations Report. The federal prisons as well as half the states surveyed required a hearing for admission for disciplinary purposes. Over half of the states also required it for non-disciplinary (Mèndez et. al., 29). 

In many states some form of legal assistance is given to the inmate during the proceedings so that they can advocate for themselves fairly. The U.S. federal rules state that an inmate is entitled to have a staff representative before a disciplinary hearing officer, however they are not entitled to representation by legal counsel (Mèndez et. al., 29). In the states of Pennsylvania and California a prisoner will receive assistance from a non-attorney. In Pennsylvania specifically, if they cannot understand English enough to read and know what they are being charged for there will be a certified specialist provided to them. This specialist will assist them in preparing for their court date and help determine if the charge being brought forth was necessary in the first place (Mèndez et. al., 30). 

On the other hand in California, and some other states, there is a committee who oversee the administrative appeals and who have final say in decisions regarding the solitary confinement process. In California it is called the Institution Classification Committee (ICC). California also provides that a staff member will appear in court if the inmate cannot, will not, or can’t understand the process the ICC goes through or the charges brought forth against them (Mèndez et. al., 30). Unfortunately, in certain states like Colorado, Florida, and New York any legal representation is purposely excluded from the proceedings (Mèndez et. al., 29). 

Regardless of issues centered around legal representation, inmates often do still receive help from outside advocacy groups, they may even fund legal representation that the prisoner is not given because they cannot afford it (Mèndez et. al., 35). Throughout the actual process the United States does allow inmates to voice complaints and evidence to prove their sides, which not all countries permit. Concerned parties may also make complaints on an inmate’s behalf, this is often the case in Pennsylvania with civil action groups typically fighting for these prisoners (Mèndez et. al., 32). The United States does not have any periodic administrative review (Mèndez et. al., 41), so like everything else in this country, due to states rights protected under the tenth amendment, what internal appeals are allowed and how they are presented may vary from state to state.

Conclusion: United States

While this country may have been one of the most exploitive with their practices in the past, they are rapidly becoming the region with the most improvements. The United States has recognized its downfalls and has begun making steady progress in order to become more humane. The U.S. can now be considered to be fairly middle of the road with their approaches and while this is still not ideal, the direction being taken is an encouraging one. One of the greatest improvements is the lessening of reasons an inmate can be sentenced to solitary for, by reducing this it leads to diminished use of segregation. By using solitary less the U.S. is beginning to see positive impacts specifically regarding mental health.

Solitary Confinement in China

China is a commanded and closed society with a single party institution and very strong censorship specifically centered around their government and governmental systems. This can lead to inconsistency between the official position on a subject and the “on the ground” reality. Regardless of this, even on the surface their practices do not appear to be promising. On top of that, what should be remembered is that due to this censorship and lack of reporting in certain areas the humanity of China’s practices cannot be fully analyzed. There is significant anecdotal evidence that suggests isolation tactics may be used for political purposes and to “reducate” dissidence.

Policy of Solitary: China

In China the usage of solitary confinement is a lot more extensive than the United Nations or other progressive countries would suggest. Inmates are placed in solitary for reasons as minimal as slacking off at work, refusing to improve after a warning from a prison officer, or even praying (depending on the prison). While the way to end up in isolation is largely due to infractions against an officer, the officers themselves are not free from these punishments either. In China, police officers who violate law enforcement procedures may fall to the same fate.. They can be placed in segregation for speaking out against the government or going on strikes/demonstrations that go against the interests of the People’s Republic of China. Even traffic police can be admitted for issuing registration certificates, approving installations of alarm sirens, or anything else that goes against the statutory requirements (Mèndez et. al., 24). Like an officer who speaks against the government, any person who exposes or is thought to have exposed government secrets of any kind can be sentenced to two-eight years in isolation. 

In this country supposedly the initial punishment of solitary should not exceed thirty days but it can be extended upon review or if there is a need to “keep order” in the prison (Mèndez et. al., 39). If someone is put into segregation there is little account in this country for their physical or mental state. In China there are no rules prohibiting juveniles, the mentally disabled, the physically disabled, or members of the LGBTQ+ community from being put in solitary confinement (Mèndez et. al., 39). Overall China’s policies tend to be a lot less clear cut than other countries. They tend to leave discretion up to each individual prison rather than creating laws and regulations for all to follow. By doing this more inhumane treatment is allowed because of how each prison varies their practices.

Physical Aspects of Solitary: China

In China's prison systems there are some requirements centered around solitary confinement for the sake of those in the cells. It is statutory that within the penitentiary there is a sectioned off area dedicated solely to solitary. 

The cells themselves must be a minimum of three square meters. They also must be ventilated and heated with sufficient lighting. (Mèndez et. al., 43). Most enclosures also must meet basic living requirements and are equipped with a sink, bed, toilet, furniture, and include special security measures (Mèndez et. al., 42). Keeping in mind there is a minimum of three meters squared for each cell, when thinking of all of what is considered necessary to live, that leaves very little space left over. For prisoners inside of these cells they may begin to feel increasingly more restrained as they may not even have enough space to perform a singular pushup. Seeing that they are locked inside of these cells for around twenty-three hours a day, conditions like these cause mental health issues to flourish, especially if they were already present. 

Furthering the idea of restraint, physical restraints may also be used, whether that means handcuffs or a complete straight jacket, for transportation, self-harm prevention purposes, or for prisoners on death row. The use of these restraints typically have to be approved by a supervising person or authority (Mèndez et. al., 45), unlike other countries China does not seem to have a clear limit set on how long these restraints may be used for. Based on the fact that these tactics are used on people who are on death row suggests it is possible for these to be used for prolonged periods of time. 

Another requirement for inmates is that they have access to adequate medical and hygiene facilities. China necessitates that each institution sets up its own set of hygiene rules as well, but again because it is not regulated across the country who is to say the cleanliness and humanity that varies from prison to prison. 

Oversight of Solitary: China

China does not seem to have the best oversight when it comes to the process of placing someone in solitary. It is possible that the inmate may not even be informed of their sentencing before they are restricted. Their answers to the United Nations survey were not specific enough to determine if a prisoner was informed in advance of the event (Mèndez et. al., 31). China has no formal procedures or appointed people to determine whether or not the punishment is deserving of solitary confinement, similarly there is no way of internal administrative appeals (Mèndez et. al., 34). So not only is there no real way of determining whether the punishments are fair or not, but the prisoners have little to no say in the process or ability to advocate for themselves. Following this trend it also appears that this country does not provide a real defense counsel or any form of interpreters during trial. Due to the fact China also has no periodic administrative review, discretion in almost everything is left up to each individual prison (Mèndez et. al., 41). This leads to an opportunity for rife abuse in China’s prisons, and because China is also one of three nations that do not allow appeals of solitary to be heard in higher courts (Mèndez et. al., 34) it is essentially impossible for any mistreatment to be discovered.

Conclusion: China

China is in the category of nations where their solitary confinement practices are a cause for significant concern. There seems to be few improvements on the way and it is also apparent that what is reported is likely the tip of the iceberg. Countries like China are the ones who need to progress the most as they fall short in nearly every category, leading to large overuse of solitary often for the most petty reasons. This leads to lasting mental health issues within their inmate population.

Solitary Confinement in Austria

When it comes to isolation tactics Austria is fairly progressive with their practices on the United Nations standards compared to other countries. Austria appears to go a little beyond most areas in regards to certain accommodations, whether that be physical or legal ones. The United Nations Report Seeing into Solitary: a review of the laws and Policies of certain nations regarding Solitary confinement of detainees suggests that Austria is very neoteric specifically around the actual trial process the inmates go through to be placed in these special cells.

Policy of Solitary: Austria

Like many other places Austria may implement these tactics in order to protect an inmate. This can mean anything from protection because they are receiving threats of violence or actively being harmed by another prisoner to protection from themselves if they are displaying any self-harming/suicidal tendencies. This country has a specific security measure set out in a statue for those who are a risk to themselves. This statute mandates that they be placed into a secured and segregated cell which is free of any items which they might use to hurt themselves with. These restrictive cells are supposed to be used if a detainee’s mental state is deemed to be poor enough, but Austrians try to avoid it if they can. The statute that mandates this is called Strafgesetzbuch [StGB][Penal Code] § 103.2.4 (Austria) (Mèndez et. al., 24). Someone may also be placed in confinement for disease prevention purposes, this is warranted under the same code as previously mentioned. This only occurs if medical personnel justifies its use (Mèndez et. al., 24). 

Solitary is also used as discipline, as it is in most to all other areas. In Austria, however,  there are exceptions to those who can be placed in confinement. Juveniles may be admitted as long as it will not prove to be harmful to them. The maximum punishment for juveniles is two weeks but there are strong efforts to reduce that to one week by amending the Juvenile Court Act (Mèndez et. al., 47). Inmates with physical or mental disabilities are also not allowed to be placed in segregation if it would injure the inmate or exacerbate their condition (Mèndez et. al., 38). 

As far as time limits indefinite administrative confinement is possible, it may continue to be extended but it is not preferable. Austria, unlike China and America, has nationwide rules for solitary confinement which can allow wrongful prisons to be held accountable for inhumane tactics. 

Physical Aspects of Solitary: Austria

The physical aspects of the cells in Austria is another place where their progressiveness shines. Similar to some European countries, they wish to preserve the humanity of the inmate and to make them feel less like a caged animal. These cell blocks also must be separated from the rest of the prison facility and solely dedicated to the purpose of isolation. 

The minimum requirement for a single cell is eight and a half square meters, and each must have adequate lighting inside of it (Mèndez et. al., 43). Although eight and a half square meters is still small it is significantly better than China’s three as well as many other countries who may be smaller or not have a minimum size at all. With this extra space these prison cells are equipped with more items to make an inmate feel a little more human. These “one-man-detention-rooms” as they call it go a step further than the basic living requirements. They of course have a bed, desk, and certain sanitary fixtures but in addition they also have a television in there too. The inmates are permitted to organize their rooms “according to their own ideas” meaning they can decorate as they wish as long as it meets the safety standards (Mèndez et. al., 42). These extra pieces restore fragments of sanity. While many countries leave their prisoners with little space and activities to perform, Austria allows their inmates to be treated like people which results in diminished health risks of confinement compared to other countries. 

Physical restraints may also be used in Austria upon approval from a supervising person or authority, they are able to use straight jackets or handcuffs for transportation or for self-harm prevention purposes (Mèndez et. al., 45). There does not seem to be a specific time limit set out for these restraints. 

Austria, as mentioned before, has nationwide requirements which includes sanitary requirements and different medical practices. The sanitary fixtures are required to be clean, well-equipped, and well kept with the toilet facilities being separated from the cells (Mèndez et. al., 44). While it may seem strange to have toilets detached from the cell it can actually be beneficial. In other countries, like the United States, it has been observed that some inmates will flood their toilets in protest or harm themselves using them. By taking that temptation away it can avoid certain behavioral issues that could result in prolonged incarceration in these blocks. In Austria it is also required that all inmates placed into confinement for a disciplinary or non-disciplinary offense must be subject to a medical exam which is part of a solitary confinement regime within the country (Mèndez et. al., 31). 

Oversight of Solitary: Austria

Austria’s oversight of the process of detention is much further along than most countries. Everything within their processes are widespread across the country and not left up to the individual prison. This allows for those who mistreat inmates to be held accountable for their actions. In most other countries prison’s authorize the process of admission, however, here judges or impartial committees are utilized for both disciplinary and non-disciplinary detainments (Mèndez et. al., 29). 

Throughout the trial process legal aid and interpreters are provided for all who cannot afford it so that their arguments can be heard no matter what (Mèndez et. al., 29+30). Inmates are also heard through their ability to submit written extensions of internal complaints. If they believe they were mistreated by an officer they can give written explanations of what happened to be heard in the decision making process. They have three to fifteen days to submit these, although this procedure is viewed to be much more informal than a traditional appeal to a judiciary (Mèndez et. al., 33). During the time of trial in Austria a judge can rule that solitary confinement is suspended during the time that the inmate is making their appeals, this is unlike most countries who typically keep them in isolation until a decision is reached. This is only reported to occur in two countries, Austria being one and Argentina being the other (Mèndez et. al., 34). 

This country also has neutral bodies that drop in to make unannounced visits of administrative inspection. They are looking for mistreatment and are monitoring enforcement as well as general conditions of each institution (Mèndez et. al., 41).

Conclusion: Austria

Austria is a nation which falls under the more progressive category, while improvements can always be made for the most part it stacks up fairly well to the United Nations’ standards. They preserve humanity more than most do and recognize the effects that poor conditions can have on an inmate. They attempt to use it much less than other regions and as a result their overall prison practices have led to better outcomes for the inmates and for society as a whole.

Comparative Analysis (United States, China, and Austria)

Each country has its strengths and weaknesses with their implementation of solitary confinement. Through research, using the United Nations Report on solitary confinement as a strong unbiased source, the differences and similarities of these countries can be seen on an equal playing field. Specifically regarding the three countries of the United States, China, and Austria comparisons can be drawn globally from countries that touch upon three separate continents. Analyzing what certain countries do that is right and wrong is the first step in understanding the contexts of where solitary may be used correctly and where it is completely inhumane.

Policies of the Countries

From a standpoint of policies out of these three countries Austria is the most progressive and humane to their inmates. They have policies nationwide which is unlike both China and the United States. China is the strictest regarding discipline, as stated above, someone can be placed into solitary confinement because they were praying or if they were not working to the level an overseeing officer deems that they should be. With the use of segregation to punish political prisoners, China utilizes isolation more extensively than the other two countries. 

The United States and Austria also both have limitations on the use of isolation on the mentally and physically disabled as well as juveniles. China on the other hand has no rules to prohibit any of these groups from receiving isolation treatment. Something China has that the other two do not, is the ability to hold officers accountable using the same treatment. This is up for debate as to if it is beneficial or not. On one side they are held responsible for their actions but on the other this just leads to more people in solitary confinement. 

 Austria and the United States have policies around medical/hygiene practices that China does not seem to specify. Both countries have regimes that mandate that prisoners be in safe and healthy conditions, however, the United States allows the states to differ their practices due to the nature of our Constitution and lack of periodic administrative review. While Austria may have the best practices by the standards of the United Nations, it is fair to say that the U.S. is improving their practices the most in order to become more humane.

Physical Aspects of the Countries

All three countries are better than most in this particular category. They all have their cells meet a basic standard of living as they each define it. They all have beds, sinks, and sanitary requirements but Austria does include more to preserve the humanity of inmates. The United States also goes a little beyond on the sanitary side of things. Cells in China must also be ventilated and heated, while Austria requires adequate lighting, but nothing of this nature is explicitly stated for the United States. 

All countries require sectioned off areas for solitary confinement and they all use physical restraints for various reasons. 

The one area where all of these places differ, however, is centered around the minimum size requirements of their cells. China’s is much smaller than the rest and Austria has the largest by a narrow margin above the United States. It is important for an inmate to have adequate space for their own sanity. Being in isolation is dangerous enough for the psyche, then when you take into account lack of space resulting in inadequate areas to perform physical activities, the practice becomes evidently more cruel.

Oversight of the Countries

Not surprisingly Austria is also the most progressive in this category with America following suit as they are improving their systems and becoming more aware of the damages of solitary confinement. Due to the fact that in Austria there are rules regarding the process of admission into solitary that apply universally to all prisons across the nation there is no room for mistreatment. While because the United States and China do not have periodic administrative review this is not the case, and treatment varies across their nations. 

Austria has dedicated unbiased committees who perform the proceedings, there is a full trial where an inmate receives interpreters and legal aid. This is somewhat similar to America as trials are required there too, but inmates are not entitled to legal assistance or interpreters nationwide (in some states they may). 

The other difference that sets Austria apart from the rest is their process of internal appeals, or simply the fact that they allow them. While in the United States there are ways to file complaints of mistreatment, it is not adequately laid out. In some states internal appeals or complaints are not even allowed. Contrary to the strides in the right direction made by Austria and the United States, in China an inmate may not even be informed of their sentencing before a trial or even have a trial at all. In this country discretion is left entirely up to individual prisons with no formal procedures, this allows for abuse and mistreatment to continue. China also allows no appeals to higher courts so essentially anything goes. The absence of an appeals process, whether that be internally or to higher courts, leaves inmates unable to speak up for themselves or to seek redress.

Conclusion

Solitary confinement as a practice can become increasingly damaging and dehumanizing depending on how it is used. Many countries call little to no attention to the problem. It does not tend to be high on the political radar as people give little thought to the treatment of prisoners. The United Nations report used in this paper surveyed twenty-six countries and thirty-five jurisdictions around the world, covering a representative survey of States in Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, and South and Central America which included the three countries cited in this essay. Out of the three nations, the United States, China, and Austria, Austria had the most progressive practices with the United States continuing improvements in order to become more humane. China on the other hand, like many other nations in the world, does not pay as much attention to those suffering in these cell blocks. 

The use of isolation tactics across the world is in need of great reform. The idea of it is to separate harmful prisoners from the general population to improve their behavior, however, the exact opposite tends to happen. There was a study done in the 1950’s by Dr. Harry Harlow on monkeys who had been socialized with each other from birth to examine the possible psychological effects solitary confinement could have on the human brain (Frontline, 45:47). Inmates, like these monkeys, have been socialized from birth so when they put the monkeys into the equivalent of a isolation chamber the effects were able to be seen. Throughout this experiment the monkeys were seen to be rocking back and forth visibly distressed. Once they were taken out of these cages and re-socialized they were mentally damaged beyond the point of return. They were frightened and hid from each other while also having sudden outbursts of aggression and attacking one another. Overall they were exhibiting abnormal behavior (Frontline, 46:24). This was then compared to humans and their reactions when taken out of confinement, they too exhibited equally abnormal behavior. They became hypersensitive to their surroundings, these detainees would either hide in their rooms because they could not take the sudden stimulus or they would become violent from paranoia and end back up in isolation (Frontline, 47:03). The recidivism rates from those who are in solitary has demonstrated that an inmate who underwent the treatment is statistically much more likely to reoffend once released than someone who spent their jail time in the general population (Frontline, 48:37). To further support the mental damages solitary causes, a study done from the Balkan Conflict exemplifies it best. They looked at these prisoners who had been released from confinement and examined their brainwaves, many of which now exhibited hyper-responsive reactions to visual stimuli. The researchers compared these findings to victims of semi starvation, beatings, and lengthy prison sentences. They found that only two groups had these intense reactions; these groups were those who had experienced lead trauma to the point of unconsciousness and those placed in solitary confinement (Frontline, 48:01).

By looking at the irreversible effects of solitary confinement it is self-evident that reform is needed. While it is nearly impossible to eradicate the practice it is not impossible to shorten sentencing and improve conditions to preserve the sanity of these inmates. Solitary confinement does have a role to play under very controlled circumstances. Without it those prisoners who have demonstrated behavior totally incongruent to the prison population could cause untolled damage. There are few inmates who fall under this category, but anecdotal evidence shows that some detainees have no intention of causing anything but harm as some are psychopaths/sociopaths. These specific people have no need or want of complying to any guards requests and will continue their unbridled harm unless completely secluded from the rest of the population. This is what solitary should be used for, it is a last resort for those who refuse to behave in a non harmful way. The common use of isolation as a practice for punishment, often minor infractions, has been shown through numerous studies to cause more harm than good. The harm may manifest itself in mental deterioration and/or a higher rate of recidivism which is why solitary confinement in general is both impractical and inhumane.

Work Cited

"MIL-OSI USA: Walker Stands up for the Humane Treatment of Inmates with Solitary

     Confinement Reform Legislation." Psychology eCollection,

     ForeignAffairs.co.nz, 26 Sept. 2019, go.gale.com/ps/

     i.do?p=GPS&u=mlin_s_monomoy&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA600739473&inPS=true&linkSource=

     interlink&sid=GPS. Accessed 12 Nov. 2019. 

"Civil Rights Groups Challenge Unconstitutional Use of Solitary Confinement,

     Denial of Mental Health Care in Sacramento County Jails." Psychology

     eCollection, 1 Mar. 2019, go.gale.com/ps/

     retrieve.do?tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&sea

     rchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=6&docId=GALE%7CA581174907&docType=Article

     &sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZEDU-MOD1&prodId=GPS&contentSet=GALE%7CA581174907&

     searchId=R1&userGroupName=mlin_s_monomoy&inPS=true. Accessed 15 Nov. 2019. 

"Isolated Facts: Solitary Confinement Has Been Outlawed in Canada, yet the

     Practice Persists in Our Prisons. How Did We Get Here?" Psychology

     eCollection, The Magazine, 1 Mar. 2019, go.gale.com/ps/

     retrieve.do?tabID=T003&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&searchResultsType=SingleTab&sea

     rchType=BasicSearchForm¤tPosition=4&docId=GALE%7CA582098044&docType=Chronol

     ogy&sort=Relevance&contentSegment=ZGPP-MOD1&prodId=GPS&contentSet=GALE%7CA5820980

     44&searchId=R1&userGroupName=mlin_s_monomoy&inPS=true. Accessed 12 Nov.

     2019. 

Grassian, Stuart. "Psychopathological Effects of Solitary Confinement." .

     Nmlegis, www.nmlegis.gov/handouts/

     CCJ%20102716%20Item%203%20Dr%20Grassian%20Psychopathological%20Effects%20of%20Sol

     itary%20Confinement.pdf. Accessed Nov. 1983. Originally published in

     Effects of Solitary Confinement, vol. 40, no. 11. 

Skibba, Ramin. "The Hidden Damage of Solitary Confinement." Knowable Magazine,

     22 June 2018, www.knowablemagazine.org/article/society/2018/

     hidden-damage-solitary-confinement. Accessed 12 Nov. 2019. 

Weir, Kristen. "Alone, in 'the hole.'" American Psychological Association, May

     2012, www.apa.org/monitor/2012/05/solitary. Accessed 9 Oct. 2019. 

California State, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee

     on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights Hearing on Solitary

     Confinement. Testimony of Craig Haney. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on

     the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights Hearing on Solitary

     Confinement, www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/

     12-6-19HaneyTestimony.pdf. Accessed 9 Oct. 2019. 1971 Legislature. 

Dingfelder, Sadie. "Psychologist testifies on the risks of solitary

     confinement." American Psychological Association, Oct. 2012, www.apa.org/

     monitor/2012/10/solitary. Accessed 9 Oct. 2019. 

Nolan, Dan, and Chris Amico. "Solitary by the Numbers." Frontline, PBS, 18 Apr.

     2017, apps.frontline.org/solitary-by-the-numbers/. Accessed 24 Jan. 2020. 

"A Brief History of Solitary Confinement." Longreads, longreads.com/2016/02/09/

     a-brief-history-of-solitary-confinement/. Accessed 24 Jan. 2020. 

Méndez, Juan E., et al. Seeing into Solitary. Weil, www.weil.com/~/media/files/

     pdfs/2016/un_special_report_solitary_confinement.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan.

     2020. 

Casella, Jean, et al. Hell Is a Very Small Place: Voices from Solitary Confinement. New Press, 2018.