by Lynn McDonald, CM, PhD, LLD (hon), professor emerita
Solitary confinement: where did it come from and why?
Solitary confinement originated as a reform measure in the late 18th century, when criminal punishments featured hanging, whipping and transportation to Australia or Tasmania. The intent was benevolent: solitude to reflect and repent, removal of the bad influences of other criminals and visits from upright citizens from a prison society. Prison reformer John Howard (c1726-90) was an advocate.
The term “penitentiary” reflects the original purpose, but penitence unhappily was not the result. It was soon found that many inmates went mad and some committed suicide.
The model proposed in 1791 by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, the Panopticon, was never built. It featured the ultimate in solitary: rows of cells radiating out from a centre where a guard could observe in all directions, hence “panopticon.”
Bentham’s model was not built, but some of its features were adopted in many countries. The effective model for the world became the “Philadelphia System,” when the Philadelphia Penitentiary opened in 1821, with workspace and an exercise yards attached, and visits from members of the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons. A modification called the “Silent System” was put in place in other prisons.
The famous novelist Charles Dickens visited solitary the Philadelphia, and other solitary prisons while on tour in the United States and Canada in 1842. He gave a full chapter to “Philadelphia and its solitary prison,” calling the “the dull repose and quiet that prevails … awful.” In those melancholy, “dreary places” every inmate wore a black hood, not removed until the sentence was over. He saw a mad man who threw himself around, from “his horrible fancies.” “What monstrous phantoms, bred of despondency and doubt and born and reared in solitude, have stalked upon the earth, making creation ugly and darkening the face of Heaven!” Solitary was a “slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain,” which he judged to be “immeasurably worse” than bodily torture, though not visible in scars. It was a “secret punishment which slumbering humanity is not roused to stay” (Dickens, American Notes for General Circulation, Chapter 7). Dickens also visited Kingston Penitentiary, but it had not gone fully over to the solitary system and he judged it to be well run.
Dickens’s comments in 1842 on the psychological distress caused would be echoed in reports ever since. Self harm, suicide and suicide attempts would become common in solitary confinement. Only later would neurological scientists be able to explain them through changes in brain functioning, detectable by electroencephalogram (EEG).
In Canada, Kingston Penitentiary became the model solitary system, described by Michael Ignatieff in A Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution:
It was designed to be a punishment that was severe but humane, rational and ultimately transformative. “In the silence of their cells, superintended by authority too systematic to be evaded, too rational to be resisted, prisoners would surrender to the lash of remorse” (p 78).
There were opponents to solitary from the start. For example, in An Inquiry concerning Political Justice, 1793, the political philosopher William Godwin held that it brutalized feelings no less than physical punishments, inflicted pain, albeit psychological. He held that no one could ever be reformed in solitude, but that reformation required a social process, with persuasion and example rather than force (Ignatieff, pp 117-18).
The consequences of solitary confinement: research reports
Research has been accumulating from anecdotal observations by famous visitors like Charles Dickens and Hans Christian Anderson, through a great range of psychiatric and psychological studies, some experiments, and many analyses of quantitative data on prison inmates. A major meta study concluded:
Nearly every scientific inquiry into the effects of solitary confinement over the past 150 years has concluded that subjecting an individual to more than 10 days of involuntary segregation results in a distinct set of emotional, cognitive, social and physical pathologies (Smith,“The Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prison Inmates”).
Physiological consequences from solitary include severe headaches; heart palpitations, increased pulse, over sensitivity to stimuli, noise, pains in neck and back; digestion problems and weight loss. Psychological consequences are confusion, impaired concentration, memory loss, hallucinations, paranoid ideas, hearing voices, fantasizing, depression, poor impulse control, violent reactions, self-mutilation (frequent), lethargy, debilitation; sleeping problems and suicidal tendencies (pp 488-93).
There is much material also from studies based on actual behaviours, like self-mutilation, suicide and attempted suicide.
Researchers in the New York Department of Health and Mental Hygiene analyzed records of inmates 2010-2012, comparing self-harm by those in solitary with those not. While only 3% of admissions included any stay in solitary, 53% of acts of self-harm and 45% of potentially fatal self-harm were in that group. They concluded that the data supported “the need to reconsider the use of solitary confinement as punishment in jails, especially for those with serious mental illness and adolescents” (Kaba, et al., “Solitary Confinement and Risk of Self-Harm Among Jail Inmates”). In fact, the results led to new programming in New York jails.
American psychiatrist Stuart Grassian, formerly of the Harvard Medical School, and a frequent expert witness in court cases, has reported research from interviews with more than 200 solitary inmates. He concluded that solitary confinement can cause a specific psychiatric syndrome, such as hyper-responsitivity to external stimuli, perceptual distortions, illusions and hallucinations, panic attacks, difficulties with thinking, concentration and memory, intrusive obsessional thoughts, overt paranoia and problems with impulse control (Grassian, pp 335-6). He noted that people with at least average intelligence and healthy personality functioning were better able to withstand the deprivation of isolation, but that those with “borderline or psychopathic functioning” were “especially at risk for severe psychopathologic reactions to such isolation,” the more usual inmate. He found that “severe and prolonged restriction” of environmental stimulation of solitary confinement, is “toxic to brain functioning” (Grassian, 349).
Grassian noted the accumulation of similar results from over a century of observations on solitary. He noted research that showed that “even a few days of solitary confinement will predictably shift the electroencephalogrm (EEG) pattern toward an abnormal pattern characteristic of stupor and delirium” (Grassian, p 331). The absence of stimulation in solitary, “sensory deprivation,” makes a person hyperresponsive to stimulation when it occurs, which becomes noxious and irritating, prompting withdrawal.
The Canadian history of abuse
There is a long, sorry, history of the use of solitary confinement in Canadian prisons, federal (for prisoners sentenced to 2 years or more), provincial and territorial (under 2 years), juvenile and immigration/refugee cases being processed.
Solitary confinement is usually called “segregation” by correctional authorities. Under whatever name, it comes in several legal forms: “disciplinary,” a penalty for an infraction in prison, and “administrative,” at the discretion of the warden, which can be for reasons of the safety of the inmate, other inmates, staff and the prison. Other terms used for solitary/segregation are “protective custody” and “special needs units.” There is solid documentation of the harm of solitary confinement in Canadian prisons, notably, Jackson’s two books, Prisoners of Isolation and Justice behind the Walls: Human Rights in Canadian Prisons.
Justice Louise Arbour, in a report on “events” at the Kingston Prison for Women, an attempted escape, resulting in prolonged solitary confinement for the ringleaders, found that the impact of solitary was “seriously harmful.” Specific harms included “perceptual distortions, auditory and visual hallucinations, flashbacks, increased sensitivity and startle response, concentration difficulties and subsequent effect on school work; emotional distress due to the extreme boredom and monotony; anxiety, particularly associated with leaving the cell (Arbour, p 140).
Patterns of discrimination have long been obvious. The recent report (Sapers) on Ontario showed that black inmates are consistently overrepresented in administrative segregation, and aboriginal inmates “continue to have the longest average stay in segregation compared to any other group.” A large number of inmates have mental health problems, even more in solitary. It is well known that solitary makes mental health worse (Ontario, 2017). These are the chief reasons that the Ontario Human Rights Commission has advocated a ban on solitary (OHRC).
Spectacular cases of suicide in Canadian prisons have resulted in much information emerging from inquests and subsequent inquiries. Several examples are:
(1) Eddie Nolan, who committed suicide in 1974 after 2 weeks of segregation at Millhaven; Prisoners’ Justice Day dates to his death, on August 10;
(2) Ashley Smith, a 14-year old convicted in 2003 of trivial offences, who eventually spent years in prison amassing new offences and self-harming. She was frequently transferred, until she committed suicide in 2007, while under “suicide watch” at an Ontario adult prison for women.
(3) Edward Snowshoe, an indigenous man from Ft McPherson, committed suicide in 2014 after 162 days solitary, in a Manitoba prison far from home.
(4) Adam Capay, an indigenous man on remand, was effectively lost in the system, held in solitary for years.
(5) Bobby Lee Worm (1996-) a Cree woman from Saskatchewan was held at the Fraser Valley Institution, spent 23 out of 24 hours in her cell for months at a time. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association took her case, case settled out of court 2017.
Alternatives to solitary confinement, some examples
There are now a number of examples of experiments on the replacement of solitary confinement with other kinds of regimes, such as a therapeutic community or a cottage system, some with new programs introduced into existing prisons. Brief mention only can be made, but these examples should serve to indicate that alternatives are feasible, at varying levels of cost.
In New York state, after a comprehensive review of the harm of solitary confinement (Kaba, et al.) an alternative program was brought in, CAPS, or Clinical Alterative to Punitive Segregation. It entailed a full range of therapeutic activities, individual and group, art, medication, counselling and community meetings (Glowa-Kollisch, et al., “From Punishment to Treatment”). Increased staff resulted in increased costs, but the program was deemed “effective,” with reduced rates of injury and self-harm.”
A British women’s prison, Styal, stopped isolating prisoners who harmed themselves or others, but instead brought in volunteer councilors and mental health specialists. “Situations that previously led to segregation now resulted in increased human interaction and assistance.” (Lupick, “Correctional Service Canada ignores repeated calls for reform on solitary confinement”).
A women’s prison in B.C., for several years adopted a healing model, with substantial use of First Nations healers. It became unusual for a woman to be sent to segregation.
Arbour, in her 1996 report, flagged alternatives developed in other prisons, notably the provision of safe space for inmates to deal with rage and other emotions more appropriately. She noted the use of peer support groups, an inmate committee, native sisterhood and elders and a citizens advisory committee (187). She urged that we “break the mind set which assumes the inevitability of segregation” (189).
In Germany, solitary cannot exceed 4 weeks in a year for an inmate, in the Netherlands 2 weeks. In Scandinavia countries, prisons are to mirror the conditions outside as much as possible; going to prison is the punishment.
Dr Ruth Elwood Martin, in evidence to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, spoke on the need for health services, that most women incarcerated were there from crimes “due to their disordered health and social lives,” and saw improved health as key to their successful reintegration into society. She was clear, from her 16 years of experience, that “The use of solitary confinement does not enhance an individual’s mental health, it worsens it, especially among those with pre-existing mental health difficulties.”
A retired warden from the Alouette Women’s Prison stated that she had “not seen any benefit from isolating an individual from support, comforts and human contact for extended periods of time. If anything, this procedure tends to escalate problem behviours.” Instead, what had benefited inmates was “not isolation, but rather extra staff or contractors to engage with them and close attention from health professionals.” (House of Commons, 2010).
The case against solitary confinement has been made so well that it can be justified only as a punishment, with no pretence of rehabilitation. However, many experts who know the serious consequences of solitary confinement hold out the prospect of its reform: minimal standards, independent review of cases and limits to terms. Jackson’s Model Segregation Code: MIchael Jackson, in Prisoners of Isolation, discussed the argument (not advocating it) that prisons themselves should be abolished, rather than solitary confinement within them.
In the U.S., then President Obama ended solitary confinement for juveniles in federal prisons, however that involved only a small number. He cited the “devastating lasting psychological consequences” found from solitary, that it made inmates “depressed, anxious, socially withdrawn, paranoid and more likely to lash out.”
The (Ontario) Sapers report recommendations
The Ontario government in 2016 commissioned the then federal Correctional Investigator, Howard Sapers, to conduct a study of the use of segregation in Ontario. His 194-page report, released in May 2017, gives a thorough review of the existing system and its abuses. The minister promptly agreed to their implementation.
Key recommendations would:
* end the use of solitary for mentally ill, medical conditions, chronic self-harming behaviour;
* establish base conditions for 5 categories of inmate, substantially reducing the “sensory deprivation’ aspects of segregation as now practised.
1. Disciplinary Unit (for offences in prison, and when waiting for adjudication on serious misconduct)
2. Protective custody (for those requesting it)
3. Stabilization (for inmates with mental illness or self-harm, to reintegrate)
4. Behavioural management (where an inmate poses a threat to safety or security of the institution), by accommodation in smaller groups, not solitary
Medical units (where specialized housing required for health needs)
The overall limit would be 15 days per stay, a 60-day maximum in a 365 day period. However, it could be longer, even indefinite, with the consent of the minister.
Sapers gave appropriate, serious, attention to health conditions, to make specific recommendations for the provision of fresh air and natural light, and adequate darkness for sleep at night (lights on 24-7 is standard in Canadian solitary). He called for best practice standards in the provision of health care and medical needs.
What’s wrong? It is known that the harm caused by solitary confinement begins with very short stays, 48 hours or a few days; 15 days and 60 days are long. Indefinite solitary would still be possible, but would require the minister’s signature.
Solitary would still be available as a “disciplinary” measure.
Many of the recommended changes would require significant expenditure, for the renovation of current buildings and building of new facilities, staff increases and increased training.
The Sapers report also related useful examples of jurisdictions that have radically reduced the use of segregation. In Colorado, for example, inmates in solitary declined from 7% of prisoners to 1%, 2011 to 2015; in the case of women the number declined from 39 in 2011 to zero by 2015.
What about emergencies, prison riots and escape attempts?
We can see the need to isolate inmates for short periods of time in such cases, but this means hours, not days or weeks, pending the restoration of charges. Where criminal offences have been committed (or deemed to be), criminal penalties are available for serious culprits, the loss of privileges for less serious. Sensory deprivation should not be a penalty.
Inmates threatening suicide or self-harming should not be placed in solitary. Inmates needing protection from other inmates need protection, but again sensory deprivation should not be the price of it. As per the recommendations of Sapers, programs should be available to such inmates, and various forms of human contact facilitated, by prison visitors, family members, indigenous elders and chaplains.
For a cooling-off period, while alternative plans are being made for an inmate, a minimal form of segregation may be advisable, which should have a maximum of 24 or 48 hours.
The Ontario government is at least committed to substantial improvements. No other province or territory has given any indication of serious change.
The Campaign for the Abolition of Solitary Confinement
The Campaign for the Abolition of Solitary Confinement is a voluntary organization, formed in May 2017, with abolition the goal, federally and provincially, for adults and juveniles. Our members include social scientists, retired judges (current judges cannot take a partisan position), criminologists, practising lawyers and former MPs.
There is wide support in Canada for the abolition of solitary confinement for juveniles, the mentally ill, pregnant women and new mothers. However, most organizations concerned with civil liberties and prisoners’ welfare have gone no further than to call for an end to ban on use for specific categories of people, and limits in terms, often with a call for judicial or other independent oversight.
Our initial focus for action was on the federal government, which has so far indicated no firm proposal for change. The minister,when the group was formed, the Hon Ralph Goodale, seemed unsure even that legislative reform is needed, which we consider essential. The Corrections and Conditional Release Act gives unlimited discretion for the use of solitary, vaguely calling for it to be used only when there is “no reasonable alternative,” the inmate to be released at the “earliest appropriate time” (section 31). Neither stipulation has prevented inmates, especially indigenous and the vulnerable, from incarceration in solitary even for years at a time.
The federal Youth Criminal Justice Act should be amended by adding a prohibition of the use of solitary confinement.
The time has come!
Canada has abolished capital punishment, flogging, hard labour in prisons, bread and water diets. We seek this next reform. Rehabilitation is the goal of our prison system, and most prisoners will be released at some point.
We note that societies have recognized the need for basic reform in other respects: slavery, child labour. At some point, the call changed from reducing the abuses (less flogging, reduced work hours) to outlawing the act itself. We say the time has now come for Canada to end the use of solitary confinement.
References
Arbour, Louise. Commission of Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston. Ottawa: Government 1996. (major source on what is wrong in Canadian federal system, with investigation of incidents at Kingston Prison for Women)
College of Family Physicians of Canada. Prison Health, Community of Practice in Family Medicine. Position Statement on Solitary Confinement. August 7 2016. (Official position for abolition of solitary confinement, medical arguments)
DAWN/RAFH. Disabled Women’s Action Network. Women with Disabilities in Canada, Report to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on the Occasion of the Committee’s Initial Review of Canada, February 2017)
Dickens, Charles. American Notes for General Circulation. London: Chapman & Hall 1842. (Observations on visits to solitary prisons)
Glowa-Kollisch, Sarah, et al. “From Punishment to Treatment: The ‘Clinical Alterative to Punitive Segregation’ (CAPS) Program in New York City Jails.” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 13,2 (2016) (example of clinical treatment as replacement of solitary in New York prisons)
Godwin, William. An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice. Dublin: Luke White 1793.
Grassian, Stuart. “Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement.” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy. 22 (January 2006):325-83. (Major source on mental health effects, mainly US)
Ignatieff, Michael. A Just Measure of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution 1795-1850. New York: Pantheon 1978. (Good source on history of prisons and isolation)
Jackson, Michael. Prisoners of Isolation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press 1983 (history of solitary in U.K., U.S. and Canada, court cases on, model code for administrative segregation)
— Justice behind the Walls: Human Rights in Canadian Prisons. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre 2002. (Canadian solitary confinement, with later material)
Kaba, Fatos, et al., “Solitary confinement and risk of self-harm among jail inmates.” American Journal of Public Health 104,3 (2014):442-7. (study of New York prisoners shows association of self-harm with solitary)
Lupick, Travis. “Correctional Service Canada ignores repeated calls for reform on solitary confinement.” Georgia Straight. March 13 2014.
Martin, Ruth Elwood; Korchinski, Mo; Fels, Lynn and Leggo, Carl, eds. Arresting Hope: Women Taking Action in Prison Health Inside Out. Toronto: Iguana 2014. (Canadian women’s prison; examples of alternatives)
Ontario. Community Safety & Correctional Services. Segregation in Ontario: Independent Review of Ontario Corrections. Queen’s Printer. March 2017 (Sapers report, 194 pages of good data and detailed recommendations for limits for Ontario)
Ontario Human Rights Commission. Submission of the OHRC to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services Provincial Segregation Review. May 28 2015. (Advocates elimination of solitary confinement)
Smith, Peter Schariff. “The Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prison Inmates: A Brief History and Review of the Literature.” Crime & Justice 34,1 (2006):441-528. (Meta study, across many countries, of a large number of reports on the consequences of solitary)
A final point and a poem:
Howard Sapers, as the then federal Correctional Investigator, in 2015 called Solitary confinement, which he termed “significantly over used,” “the most austere and depriving form of incarceration that the state can legally administer in Canada.”
I cannot tell to those in hell
The dreams I send above
Nor how the shrill of whistles kill
Each passing thought of love.
Within these walls that never fall
The damned all come to know
The rows of cells–the special hell
Called Solitary Row
(Jack McCann, cited in Jackson, Prisoners of Isolation)
website: Www.abolishsolitary. email: info@abolishsolitary.ca