Ethical Violations Related to Long-Term Solitary Confinement in Prison

Ethical Violations Related to Long-Term Solitary Confinement in Prison
Name
Institution
Due Date
Ethical Violations Related to Long-Term Solitary Confinement in Prison
Introduction
Solitary confinement is by far one of the most controversial topics of debate in the American prison system. The Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) defines it as the action of detaining “an inmate alone in a cell for over 22 hours a day” (2022). According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), solitary confinement is quite common in American prisons (2015). Statistics from BJS reveal that 20% of prison inmates happen to be placed in solitary confinement while serving their terms. Further, BJS reveals that a significant percentage of inmates, about 10%, end up accumulating more than 30 days in solitary confinement (2015). As common a practice as it might seem, solitary confinement has been known to have detrimental effects on inmates. For example, BJS indicates that a majority of inmates diagnosed with mental health issues, including psychological distress, are said to have spent time in solitary confinement (2015). The statistics paint a damning picture of the situation, indicating that 25% of prison inmates who spend more than 30 days in solitary confinement succumb to serious psychological distress. With the above statistics, one is forced to examine the ethical standing of solitary confinement and whether it is a necessary deterrent approach. Further, one is forced to question the mandate of prisons, which on paper are meant to be rehabilitative but appear to be causing more harm than help. Provided herein is a discussion of whether solitary confinement violates professional ethics, whether it violates criminal law and the steps to be taken to help revamp solitary confinement.
Is Solitary Confinement a Violation of Professional Ethics?
Solitary confinement is a violation of professional ethics because it exposes prisoners to a myriad of mental health issues. According to Metzner and Fellner (2010), the psychological stress prisoners are exposed to while in solitary confinement is similar to the distress one goes through while undergoing physical torture. As it stands, prisoners are in a more vulnerable position to be diagnosed with mental health issues compared to the general public (Walker et al., 2013). Therefore, being kept in solitary confinement only enhances their prevalence and susceptibility to mental health issues. According to Doshi (2020), solitary confinement leads to sensory deprivation for the inmates, opening doors to hallucination episodes, distorted reality, and de-realization. Eventually, these open doors for conditions like Schizophrenia and Ganser syndrome, which further impact prisoners. Doshi (2020) offers further explanation noting that while in solitary confinement, the brain is forced to fill gaps and form perceptions through hallucinations. While in a crowd, the brain has the luxury of getting stimulated by the events surrounding an individual, however, while in solitary confinement, the brain is forced to fill such with imagined states. In the end, prison ends up damaging people and negating the purpose for which prisons were established in the first place.
Secondly, the subjectivity in the decision-making process, especially with regard to the infractions committed, also brings about ethical concerns. Further, there is the issue of prison inmates having to be placed in solitary confinement even after committing minor infractions. According to the American Friends Service Committee (2022), inmates are at times placed on solitary confinement because of minor issues like vulgar language and talking back to the prison guards. Shames, Wilcox, and Subramanian (2015) echo similar sentiments adding that a significant number of inmates who happen to face solitary confinement happen to have committed minor infractions. The researchers note that in a state like Pennsylvania, 85% of inmates were segregated because of failing to obey orders. The vagueness of the excuse calls to question the powers of the decision-makers. In the Sostre v. McGinnis case, Schwartz (1972) notes that sanctioning of indefinite confinement by the courts “until the inmate’s attitude improves” further fuels the debate of ethics on the issue at hand. Schwartz adds that the subjectivity of the issue at hand lies in giving the prison administrator to determine a prisoner’s change of attitude. Further, such decisions are never reviewed, and prison administrators can leave a prisoner in solitary confinement for as long as they want (Shwartz, 1972). With courts unwilling to intervene in prison matters, especially prison internal disciplines, major decisions are left in the hands of prison administrators (Prisoner’s Constitutional Rights, 1972).
Aside from the above, inmates are missing the privileges of being attended to by doctors and psychiatrists while in solitary confinement. Even with the many mental health issues identified, little appears to be done to help inmates overcome or even avoid being victims of mental health issues. Metzner and Fellner (2010) note that isolating prisoners is psychologically harmful, and the severity of the harm caused is dependent on whether inmates have access to certain privileges, like books, group therapy, or access to sunlight. However, for a majority of prisons, these privileges are rescinded when inmates are placed in solitary confinement. The withdrawal of these privileges often limits the services offered by mental health professionals who are forced to limit checkups with such inmates to making stops at the doors of cells (Metzner and Fellner, 2010). Any form of therapy, from individual therapy to group therapies, and life-skill activities, are rescinded, and inmates are forced to remain by themselves for days. It is crucial to mention that such treatment is inclusive of all inmates, including the ones who have been diagnosed with mental health illnesses. In the end, an inmate’s stay in prison ends up being more destructive than rehabilitative.
It is crucial to mention that solitary confinement is not limited to inmates who cause infractions. At times, solitary confinement is mandated for inmates who are in danger. For example, if an inmate is pregnant or is a member of the LGBTQ community, the chances are high that they will be kept away from the rest of the inmates for their protection. However, even when done for the sake of the inmate, solitary confinement is still flawed. Shalev (2016) notes that solitary confinement, even for the inmate’s safety, has some long-lasting effects. She indicates that these effects, at times, manifest in social settings and influence people’s interpersonal relationships long after serving their sentences. Some inmates will show heightened levels of intolerance to social gatherings and will have a tough time reintroducing themselves to society. In the end, the benefit thought to accrue through solitary confinement results in permanent damage on the inmates’ part.
Violation of the Criminal Law
Long-term solitary confinement in prison may constitute a criminal law violation. The Eight Amendment of the Constitution can be used to demonstrate that long-term solitary confinement constitutes a violation. The Eighth Amendment prohibits any form of cruel and unusual punishment. The US Supreme Court held that the same standard applies to prison conditions, including solitary confinement. However, no court has established that solitary confinement violates the Eighth Amendment. It is important to note that while prisoners lose various rights on getting to the prison gate, the full protection of the Eighth Amendment remains in force (Shalev, 2011). This is based on the premise that prisoners should not be treated any less than human beings. While some fundamental rights may be stripped because of the institutional environment, prisoners do not lose their Constitutional protection (Shalev, 2011). T...