Search results

While the steep increases in rates of incarceration seen in the United States in the late twentieth century have begun to level out, one form of incarceration has seen more drastic reductions in rates of use in the 2010s: long-term solitary confinement. Across the United States, prisons that once isolated prisoners for decades at a time stand hauntingly empty. The solitary confinement reform movement provides an important lens for examining what happens when an entrenched punitive practice faces widespread and sustained criticism and reveals the multiple paradigms through which reform operates – through politics, litigation, or charismatic leadership.

The decision whether admitted inmates should be placed in solitary cells or shared cells has to take place immediately after intake. This decision can have major impact on the occurrence of suicide in custody. The ‘Viennese Instrument for Suicidality in Correctional Institutions’ presented here is based on the results of a case‐control study examining suicide prevention in general and within the prison population in particular. The administration of this instrument helps the officers to decide about the accommodation without an immediate psychiatric or psychological assessment. The screening of newly admitted offenders to prison for suicidality is necessary to better estimate the suicide risk.

Youth in juvenile corrections settings have significant academic, behavioral, and mental health needs. Additionally, a disproportionate percentage of them are identified with a diagnosed disability, with Emotional Disturbance (ED) as the most common diagnosis. Despite these facts, appropriate education and intensive mental health care is often lacking in these settings. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that some facilities use methods such as disciplinary confinement as a response to behavioral infractions; a practice that is not only counterproductive to rehabilitation, but violates federal education law and established legal standards. This study examined the use of disciplinary confinement in a juvenile justice system and investigated factors associated with frequency of this practice and time spent in disciplinary confinement. Participants were 2,353 youth with and without identified disabilities at state-run juvenile corrections facilities. Results indicated that students with disabilities spent considerably more time in disciplinary confinement than students without disabilities. Students with ED spent considerably more time than students in other disability categories and students without disabilities. Additionally, Black students, Black students with ED, and Hispanic students with ED spent considerably more time in disciplinary seclusion than other groups. The authors discuss results with respect to disproportionate use of disciplinary confinement and provide subsequent recommendations including the reexamination of disciplinary confinement practices by leaders in juvenile corrections.

Supermaxes across the United States detain thousands in long-term solitary confinement, under conditions of extreme sensory deprivation. Almost every state built a supermax between the late 1980s and the late 1990s. This chapter examines the role of federal prisoners’ rights litigation in the 1960s and 1970s in shaping the prisons, especially supermaxes, built in the 1980s and 1990s in the United States. This chapter uses a systematic analysis of federal court case law, as well as archival research and oral history interviews with key informants, including lawyers, experts, and correctional administrators, to explore the relationship between federal court litigation and prison building and designing. This chapter argues that federal conditions of confinement litigation in the 1960s and 1970s (1) had a direct role in shaping the supermax institutions built in the subsequent decades and (2) contributed to the resistance of these institutions to constitutional challenges. The history of litigation around supermaxes is an important and as-yet-unexplored aspect of the development of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence in the United States over the last half century.

Although the reform of solitary confinement is underway in many jurisdictions around world, isolation remains in widespread use in many jails and prisons. The purpose of this paper is to discuss opportunities for reform in the USA that could also be applied globally.

A review of the evidence on solitary confinement policies and practices in the USA to develop recommendations for reform with global application.

Focusing on this evidence, the authors argue that solitary confinement is overused and recommend a multi-level approach available to correctional systems worldwide including: immediately limiting solitary confinement to only those cases in which a violent behavioral infraction has been committed for which safety cannot otherwise be achieved, ensuring the briefest terms of isolation needed to achieve legitimate and immediate correctional goals, prohibiting its use entirely for some populations, regularly reviewing all isolated prisoners for as-soon-as-possible return to general population, including the immediate return of those showing mental and physical health risk factors, assisting individuals who are transitioning out of isolation (either to the general population or to the community), and partnering with medical, public health, and criminal justice experts to develop evidence-based alternatives to solitary confinement for nearly all prisoners.

This paper provides an overview of the evidence supporting an overhaul of solitary confinement policy in the USA and globally where solitary confinement remains in wide use and offers recommendations for immediate steps that can be taken toward achieving evidence-based solitary confinement reform.

This study aims to characterize the June 2020 COVID-19 outbreak at San Quentin California State Prison and to describe what made San Quentin so vulnerable to uncontrolled transmission.

Since its onset, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and exacerbated the profound health harms of carceral settings, such that nearly half of state prisons reported COVID-19 infection rates that were four or more times (and up to 15 times) the rate found in the state’s general population. Thus, addressing the public health crises and inequities of carceral settings during a respiratory pandemic requires analyzing the myriad factors shaping them. In this study, we reported observations and findings from environmental risk assessments during visits to San Quentin California State Prison. We complemented our assessments with analyses of administrative data.

For future respiratory pathogens that cannot be prevented with effective vaccines, this study argues that outbreaks will no doubt occur again without robust implementation of additional levels of preparedness – improved ventilation, air filtration, decarceration with emergency evacuation planning – alongside addressing the vulnerabilities of carceral settings themselves.

This study addresses two critical aspects that are insufficiently covered in the literature: how to prepare processes to safely implement emergency epidemic measures when needed, such as potential evacuation, and how to address unique challenges throughout an evolving pandemic for each carceral setting.

This chapter calls attention to penal regime shifts, emphasizing the importance of comparing different periods of prison development. In particular, it examines different instantiations of prison across time.

I discuss three periods of prison development (1790–1810s, 1820–1860, and 1865–1920), focusing on the nature of prison diffusion across the United States. Specifically, I discuss the homogeneity and diversity of prison forms in each period.

I demonstrate that the first two periods were particularly homogenous, as most states that adopted prisons followed a single model, the Walnut Street Jail model (1790–1810s) and the Auburn System (1820–1860), respectively. By contrast, the post—Civil War period experienced the emergence of women’s prisons, adult reformatories, and distinctively Southern approaches to confinement. Using neo-institutional theory, I suggest this post-war proliferation of prison forms was only possible because the prison had become institutionalized in the penal landscape.

Scholars rarely examine multiple shifts in penal regime together, reducing their ability to make comparative insights. This chapter juxtaposes three historical periods of prison development, thereby illustrating the diversity of the third period and improving extant understandings of prison evolution.

Young offenders are disproportionately represented in the Irish Prison Service (IPS) and are a population with complex needs and highest risk of re-offending. Subsets of young offenders in IPS are placed on Protection for their own and/or other’s safety. There is limited research regarding the experiences of young offenders, and there is none on the subjective experiences of young offenders on Protection that could be identified. This study aims to address a limitation of a previous study on the experiences of young offenders in an Irish prison (Hughes et al., 2017) by providing insight into experiences of young offenders on Protection in Mountjoy Prison.

Using a non-experimental, qualitative, semi-structured interview design, a purposive sampling method was used, and six young offenders participated. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim with potentially identifiable information removed to ensure anonymity. An interpretative phenomenological analysis was applied to interpret the data.

Two superordinate themes provided an overview of the young offender’s experiences of Protection in an Irish prison: ‘Social Order on Protection’ and ‘Adjustment on Protection’.

Even though it is a relatively small sample size, this study contributes to existing literature and considers sentence management and clinical implications.

This study helps to address a gap in literature by providing insight into the overall experiences of young male offenders (aged 18–21) on Protection in an Irish prison. The findings are in line with most researches, which highlight additional negative consequences of “restrictive prisons regimes” such as Protection. This study provides information to prisons for the development of best practice guidelines and better sentence management and delivery of services to young offenders on Protection.

There are seven main characters of which five are women: Sindiswa, Mia, Susan, Thenjiwe and Nicky. The other two characters, Glen and Zaccaria, represent males from very different socio-economic and political backgrounds. The character of Dumasani, a young boy, is referred to in the play. What makes the play especially significant is that of a cast of seven, five are women. Throughout the play the character of Glen, a spy for the apartheid government, reveals the manipulative and deceitful manner in which the members of the South African police force and political informers carried out their work. He forms relationships with people about whom he professes to care; however, his only concern is that they are able to provide information that will secure financial reward for his spying activities for the apartheid government. Born in the RSA offers the audience an interesting exchange of ideas and thoughts about the political, economic and social situation in apartheid South Africa. Through the exploration of narratives and improvisation a landscape of violence is thrown open. A landscape of violence, that is not only physical, but also psychological. The play presents a complex situation in which violence does not only come from one source but from various sources such as the government, the youth, the opposition parties, the comrades, the private domestic space, subversive activities and political organisations. Any opposition to government policies results in harsher and more extreme violence by the apartheid regime strengthening their oppressive forces.