Tagged: solitary confinement

Kafka’s Penal Colony and Solitary Confinement Debate in the US

We are very excited to feature Prof. Michael B. Mushlin’s latest law review article in which he compares Kafka’s fictitious world of punishment to the current state of solitary confinement in the United States. Prof. Mushlin has extensive experience in the field of prisoner’s rights work and specific issues such as solitary confinement.

POST WRITTEN BY:  Erica Danielsen (’16), J.D. Pace Law School

Franz Kafka lived in the Austria-Hungarian empire, in what is now Czech Republic, and wrote fiction stories in German during the 20th century. In 1914 Kafka wrote In the Penal Colony, a story describing a torture and execution device used in a mythical prison’s operation system. The machine would carve the sentence of a condemned prisoner on his skin before killing him over the course of twelve hours. The use of this machine only came to an end when a “Traveler,” an outsider invited to the penal colony, condemned its use by expressing, “I am opposed to this procedure.” Without the Traveler having been allowed to enter and observe what occurred in the penal colony no change to the system would have taken place.

For the 100th Anniversary of Kafka’s work, Prof. Muslin wrote, “I Am Opposed To This Procedure:” How Kafka’s In the Penal Colony Illuminates the Current Debate About Solitary Confinement and Oversight of American Prisons. The article, which is published in the Oregon Law Review, compares the use of the penal colony’s machine to the current use of solitary confinement in American prisons. Both the penal colony’s machine and solitary confinement inflict great psychological and physical pain on the people subjected to it. Additionally, both are seen as essential to the operation of the prison system yet neither would see change without an outside perspective into its use.

This article first recounts Kafka’s story In the Penal Colony and describes how Kafka’s professional life as an attorney might have influenced his story. It then provides a description of the American prison system focusing on two important aspects: the massive use of solitary confinement and the lack of meaningful oversight. The article is then brought together with a discussion of how Kafka’s profound insights, so powerfully set out in In the Penal Colony, can help society today understand why prison doors must be opened to outside scrutiny and why the rampant use of solitary confinement in the United States must end just as the penal colony’s machine was put to an end.

Related Readings:

Correctional Association Report on Women in NYS Prisons

POST WRITTEN BY: Michael B. Mushlin, Professor of Law at Pace Law School, Scholar, and Renowned Expert on Prisoners’ Rights.

Following an exhaustive five year investigation the Correctional Association of New York has just released a ground- breaking study of the treatment of women in New York state prisons. The report entitled Reproductive Injustice: The State of Reproductive Health Care for Women in New York State Prisons tells a distressing tale about how female prisoners are denied basic rights essential for women including substandard gynecological care and insufficient supplies of feminine hygiene products and toilet paper. Chillingly, the report describes the horrible practice of shackling pregnant women during labor, delivery, and postpartum recovery, in apparent violation of the state’s 2009 law barring such practices, as well as throwing some of these women into solitary confinement, which could have serious consequences for the mental health of the mothers and for the health of their unborn children.

The Correctional Association of New York is a 170 year old non-governmental organization with the legal authority to visit New York’s prisons and report to the public and to the Legislature its findings. It is one of only two such organizations in the country. The author of this important study, Tamar Kraft-Stolar, director of the Correctional Association’s Women in Prison Project, will visit Pace Law School on April 1st to speak at a PILSO Sponsored forum open to the public and also to speak at the law school’s Prisoners’ Rights Course.  More details about this event will be forthcoming.

NYC Board of Corrections Issues Restrictions on Solitary Confinement

POST WRITTEN BY: Michael B. Mushlin, Professor of Law at Pace Law School, Scholar, and Renowned Expert on Prisoners’ Rights. 

Continuing a national trend the New York City Board of Correction yesterday unanimously voted sweeping changes to the use of solitary confinement in New York City Jails. The reforms eliminate the use of solitary confinement entirely for anyone under the age of 18, for anyone 18 to 21 years old (this goes into effect in 2016), and for anyone with serious mental or serious physical disabilities or conditions. Terms in solitary for all others cannot exceed 30 consecutive days for a single infraction,  and more than 60 days in any six month period. Due process protections are also expanded under these rule changes which will help limit the imposition of solitary on persons who did not break rules.

The changes voted by the Board of Correction address the major justification offered by opponents of solitary reform who have argued that solitary is necessary to contain the “worst of the worst,” inmates who are so violent that they cannot be safely confined in the general prison population. To deal with inmates who have acted in violent ways and who might pose a threat, the rules adopted by the Board of Correction allow for the creation of “Enhanced security Housing.” This housing allows the department to separate inmates who are violent without imposing solitary confinement on them. In these units inmates will be given services including psychological and mental health treatment to help them cope with violent tendencies and will not be locked into their cells 23 hours a day.

In the words of the Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union the changes approved yesterday demonstrates that

New York City has taken an important stand for basic human rights and reaffirmed its commitment to the safety of prisoners, prison staff and our communities.

The reforms are a critical step in the national movement to end the shameful practice of solitary confinement in our nations penal institutions.

Related Readings:

Colorado Proposes Bill Limiting the Use of Solitary Confinement for Mentally Ill

The State of Colorado is taking steps to restrict the use of solitary confinement for those with a serious mental illness. Colorado Senate Bill 14-064, A Bill for an Act Concerning Restricting the Use of Long-Term Isolated Confinement for Inmates with Serious Mental Illness, has passed through the second regular session reading and would require

the department of corrections to review the status of all offenders held in long-term isolated confinement within 90 days after the effective date of the bill.

According to the bill, if such review concludes that an inmate is suffering from a serious mental illness, the correction facility would be required to move the inmate to a mental health unit, prison hospital or other form of housing that would not include long-term solitary confinement. Further, this bill would require that any inmate would go through a mental evaluation prior to being placed in isolation.

Colorado isn’t the first state revising this long-established and controversial practice of placing inmates in solitary confinement for prolonged periods of time. In 2013, Massachusetts introduced a Bill S. 1133, An Act Relative to the Appropriate Use of Solitary Confinement, requiring that the decision to place an inmate in segregation be reviewed within 15 days of such placement and at 90 day intervals thereafter and that an inmate shall receive a written notice, a hearing at which inmate has the opportunity to dispute such placement, and a final written decision on the matter.

In California, Senator L. Lee introduced SB Bill 970 that would limit the use of solitary confinement on minors at state and county juvenile correctional facilities. This bill would

prohibit a minor or ward who is detained in, or sentenced to, any juvenile facility or other secure state or local facility from being subject to solitary confinement, unless the minor or ward poses an immediate and substantial risk of harm to others or to the security of the facility, and all other less-restrictive options have been exhausted.

And more recently on May 8, 2014, Rep. Cedric Richmond from 2d District of Louisiana, introduced H.R. 4618, Solitary Confinement Study and Reform Act of 2014, intended to develop and implement national standards for the use of solitary confinement in the Nation’s prisons, jails, and juvenile detention facilities. The recommendations include:

  • Limiting the use of segregation to only extreme and specifically defined situations;
  • Ensuring that prior to being placed in segregation, an inmate is entitled to a meaningful hearing on the reasons for and duration of the confinement;
  • Ensuring that indefinite sentencing of an adult inmate to long-term isolation will not be allowed;
  • Ensuring that inmates are afforded a meaningful review of the confinement at least once every 30 days;
  • Ensuring that prisoners and juvenile detainees diagnosed with a serious mental illness shall not be held in long-term solitary confinement;
  • Limiting the use of solitary for the purpose of protective custody only; and more.

This bill was co-sponsored by 22 other representatives from California, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Arizona, Colorado, D.C, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York, and Texas, and on May 8, 2014 it was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Related Readings:

Boxing Up Our Rights: The CJS Tackles Solitary Confinement

Criminal Justice Society at Pace hosted a Spring 2014 event dedicated to discussing solitary confinement. The event was well attended leaving the attendees with a lot to think about. Our first year students who attended this event shared some of their thoughts with us below.

POST WRITTEN BY: Alexandria Capaccio (’16), Ashley Kersting (’16), and Jake B. Sher (’16)

Loneliness is very much like pain.  It has evolved over time to change our behavior so that we reconnect with others, which is necessary for our survival. … Being ignored is so painful it’s better to be treated badly by someone than ignored….

John Cacioppo, Social Neuroscientist, City of Chicago

These words from National Geographic’s “Lonely Prisoners” Program served as the opening gambit for The Pace Criminal Justice Society’s discussion on solitary confinement, entitled Thinking Outside the Box.  The panel brought attention to the serious issues of solitary confinement in prisons. Pace’s Professor Michael B. Mushlin engaged three panelists: Sarah Kerr, Staff Attorney in the Prisoners’ Rights Project at The Legal Aid Society; Five Mualimm-ak, a solitary confinement victim and prison reform activist; and Leah Gitter, whose family member with mental illness has been held in solitary confinement at a number of prisons including Rikers Island. The panelists drove home the central issue that the current method of solitary confinement is not working; it is both inhumane and counter-productive.

Over 80,000 prisoners in this country are living 23 hour days alone in their cells deprived of any meaningful stimulation. The panelists referred to these extreme conditions as “torture.” A former inmate, Five changed his first name to memorialize the five of his twelve years of incarceration that he spent in solitary confinement.  Five was placed in solitary confinement not as a punishment for the crime he committed or any violent behavior, but instead for minor disciplinary violations he allegedly committed while incarcerated.

Five explained that even minor disciplinary violations, such as possessing too many pencils or t-shirts, frequently subject a prisoner to an indefinite period of time in the “box.”  There are no governing time limitations or regulations on the time spent in the “box,” instead the decision about the duration of this type of confinement is left to the discretion of prison officials.

Collectively, the panel agreed with the goal of the prison system to protect, reform and rehabilitate inmates, but took the position that subjecting mentally ill prisoners to solitary confinement does not further those goals.  Instead, solitary confinement is unnecessary and inflicts further psychological damage on inmates.

The panelists stressed that contrary to the common belief that solitary confinement is used to protect other prisoners from other dangerous, violent, or gang affiliated members, the majority of prisoners spending time in the “box” are there due to the prison’s inability to deal with the inmates’ mental and physical disabilities.  These harsh living conditions remove inmates from human sensory stimulation and contact; and as such, they are directly attributable to the high recidivism rates of inmates subjected to such confinement.

The public’s attention on issues of solitary confinement tends to focus on the question of whether prisoners are serving time because they are guilty.  This focus, however, obfuscates the actual problem that solitary confinement poses to the liberty of prisoners and law-abiding citizens alike. In the seminal case on the issue, the Supreme Court held: “Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.”  Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974).  New York’s Appellate Division has held Wolff to mean that inmates charged with violating disciplinary hearings are entitled to minimal due process protections that do not include the right to counsel or to confront or cross-examine witnesses. Laureano v. Kuhlmann, 550 N.E.2d 437, 439 (N.Y. 1990) (emphasis added). Courts are divided as to the evidentiary standard used for disciplinary proceedings between “some evidence” and “substantial evidence” – both standards well below the preponderance of the evidence standard used in civil litigation (to say nothing of “beyond a reasonable doubt”).

American citizens who retain their “full panoply of rights” would never tolerate the loose evidentiary standard that is used when determining whether an inmate should be placed in solitary confinement.

Perhaps a better way of considering the problem revolves around Professor Mushlin’s haunting statement that some former victims of solitary confinement may be – or are – our neighbors; they are either released after their prison terms have ended, as Five was, or worse, they are exonerated innocents.  They are our fellow citizens’ cousins, friends, spouses, or parents.  If we would not tolerate the trampling of our own rights under the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments, we should not tolerate theirs, either; the slope is slippery, and we are much closer to their plight than we would prefer to believe.