THE UNITED STATES TORTURES BEFORE IT KILLS:
AN EXAMINATION OF THE DEATH ROW EXPERIENCE FROM A
HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE

A Position Paper by the Center for Constitutional Rights

Prepared for the 9th Annual World Day Against the Death Penalty
October 10, 2011

THE UNITED STATES TORTURES BEFORE IT KILLS:
AN EXAMINATION OF THE DEATH ROW EXPERIENCE FROM A
HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE
I.

Factual Overview1
According to recent figures, there are approximately 3,250 prisoners on death row

in the United States.2 The vast majority of these men and women will serve years in
solitary and crippling conditions, awaiting execution. Conditions on death row are bleak,
characterized by “rigid security, isolation, limited movement, and austere conditions.”3
Of the 34 states which impose the death penalty, at least 25 hold death row inmates in
solitary confinement 23 hours or more a day.4 All but two states (Missouri and
Oklahoma) hold prisoners on death row in solitary cells for at least 16 hours a day.5
Contact with family members is minimal. Seventeen out of 34 states do not allow
prisoners any physical contact with family or friends for the duration of their time on
death row, other than on the weeks leading up to execution.6 Most death row prisoners
have extremely restricted access to non-contact visits, books, telephones, and
programming, limited showers and exercise, and are not removed from their cells without
1

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the
United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys
who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational
organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change. If you have any
questions regarding this paper, please feel free to contact Rachel Meeropol, Staff Attorney at the Center for
Constitutional Rights, at rachelm@ccrjustice.org.
2
Death Penalty Information Center, Death Row Inmates by State, available at:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row-inmates-state-and-size-death-row-year.
3
Lombardi G, Sluder RD, Wallace D. 1997, Mainstreaming death-sentenced inmates: the Missouri
experience and its legal significance, Federal Probation 61: 3.
4
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row USA, April 1, 2010 available at
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/DeathRowConditions.xls.
5
Id.
6
Id.

2

shackles and a waist chain.7 Only two states allow for any access to educational
programming, and three more allow only limited occupational training or opportunity.8
Sensory deprivation is prevalent. One scholar described a relatively new Texas
death row facility, where hundreds of condemned men are isolated in 60 square foot,
single-person, solid-front cells for 23 hours a day. These men exercise alone for one hour
each day. Meals are served through a locking metal flap in the cell door. There are no
work or group recreation programs. Nor can the prisoners speak to each other through
the solid cell walls and door. All visits are non-contact.9
Time on Death Row
Death row prisoners in the United States spend decades in these dehumanizing
conditions. Of the 52 people executed in the United States in 2009, the average length of
time on death row was 169 months – over fourteen years.10 Many spend even longer. In
Thompson v. McNeil, for example, the United States Supreme Court declined to review
the case of William Thompson, who had been on death row in Florida. Thompson spent
23 hours a day locked in a solitary 6-by-9-foot cell for 32 years.11 He had twice come
within hours of execution, only to receive last minute stays.
The details of these prisoners’ experiences are instructive. In their evenhanded
analysis of death row syndrome, explained below, Dr. Karen Harrison and Anouska

7

Andrea D. Lyon & Mark D. Cunningham, “Reason Not the Need:” Does the Lack of Compelling State
Interest in Maintaining a Separate Death Row Make it Unlawful?, 33 Am. J. Crim. L. 1, 2 (2005).
8
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row USA, April 1, 2010 available at
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/DeathRowConditions.xls.
9
Id. at 15.
10
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment 2009, Statistical Tables, at Table 12, available at
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cp09st.pdf
11
Thompson v. McNeil, 129 S. Ct. 1299, 1299-3000 (2009), quoting People v. Anderson, 6 Cal. 3d 628,
649 (1972) for the proposition that “the process of carrying out a verdict of death is often so degrading and
brutalizing to the human spirit as to constitute psychological torture.”

3

Tamony describe the experience of a Virginia death row prisoner in his tenth year of
solitary confinement:
The inmate spends approximately 23 hours a day in his 7 x 9 feet cell, with one
hour of solitary exercise, followed by the opportunity to shower. The only human
contact experienced, apart from being taken to and from the exercise yard, is
when his meals are delivered on a plastic food tray, which is pushed through a
small portal in the cell door. Visitation rights include one hour of family noncontact, to be taken at weekends and one face-to-face meeting every three
months; although for this particular prisoner his only visits are from his legal
representatives. When a visit is arranged, he is led out of his cell by a leash, hands
shackled behind his back and ankles bound together.
Everything, apart from a metal sanitation unit, is grey concrete; including the bed,
stool and walls. There is one slim window but this provides so little natural light
that the cell is illuminated by strip lighting. Although the prisoner spoke about
conditions being sometimes eerily silent, he also described how it could also be
unbearably noisy; the sound of keys rattling, toilets flushing, pipes gargling and
prisoner’s voices echoing through the labyrinth of cells…
Since living on death row, the prisoner has shown increasingly severe mental
health problems, including symptoms of chronic depression and active psychosis.
Whilst, it cannot be categorically proven that he would not have suffered such
deterioration in any event, his mental health team think this is unlikely; with them
stating that his condition has been exacerbated by the psychological effects of the
sensory and social deprivation which solitary confinement causes. Psychological
and psychiatric professionals have noted how his behavior has become
increasingly bizarre, including paranoid delusions and hallucinatory thoughts. A
clinical psychologist describes his speech as tangential and rambling, his manner,
at times, as intensely subdued, and at others as, manic and disorganized….12
While relatively few women are held on death row, their experiences mirror those
of men sentenced to die. The attorney for one such woman described her conditions:
My client is held in a small area isolated from the rest of the prison. She is only
allowed to see one prisoner …. She is allowed out of her cell for a 15 minute
shower each day and one hour outside (alone) five days per week, weather
permitting. … [T]wo guards sit in front of her cell 24 hours each day, seven days
a week. There is also a video camera on her at all times. 13
12

Dr. Karen Harrison and Anouska Tamony, Death Row Phenomenon, Death Row Syndrome and their
Affect on Capitol Cases in the US, 2010 Internet J. Cri m., available at
www.internetjournalofcriminology.com
13
The ACLU & American Friends Service Committee, The Forgotten Population: A Look at Death Row in
the United States Through the Experiences of Women, Dec 2004, at 12-13.

4

Coming Close to Death, Again and Again
The intensity of the death row experience is not solely the result of abnormally
prolonged solitary confinement. It is also based on the knowledge of one’s impending,
but uncertain, execution and the intense strain of repeatedly coming within hours or days
of execution.14 As anecdotes from just the last year show, it is not uncommon for a death
row prisoner to come within hours of being killed, only to receive a temporary stay or
reprieve, soon followed by a new execution date.15 Cleve Foster, currently on death row
in Texas, has already faced death three times. On September 20, 2011, he was granted a
temporary reprieve two hours before he was scheduled to be executed. Months earlier, in
January of 2011, he came within six hours of his scheduled execution. Hank Skinner,
also on death row in Texas, was scheduled to be executed on February 24, 2010. That
date was changed to March 24, due to a clerical error. He was finishing his last meal,
thirty-five minutes before his scheduled execution on March 24th, when he again
received a stay. He now anticipates execution on November 9, 2011. Jeffrey Matthews
was sentenced to die in Oklahoma. He was given an execution date of June 17, which
was stayed until July 17, 2010. Less than a week before his date of execution, he
received another stay, until August 17, 2010. He received yet another stay, until October
16, 2010, so the State could seek permission to use a new drug to carry out the lethal
injection. The date was continued once again, until November 20. He was finally
executed on January 11, 2011.

14

Though important, an exploration of the means of execution, and its concomitant physical pain and
suffering, is beyond the scope of this paper. However, a death row prisoner’s anticipation of this pain,
along with his/her fear of death, must be considered in analyzing the experiential component of life on
death row.
15
The following information is compiled from reports of execution stays in 2010 and 2011 available at
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/upcoming-executions.

5

Recently, in late September, Troy Davis was executed by the state of Georgia
despite global protest on his behalf and significant evidence of his innocence. While the
details of Troy Davis’ underlying prosecution became common knowledge to his legions
of supporters, few knew that he had already come within minutes of execution before his
final eleventh-hour ordeal. In 2008, Davis came within 90 minutes of execution – he was
already strapped down on the gurney when the Supreme Court granted his stay. Later that
year, he again came within three days of an execution date. In 2007, he came within a
day of execution.
Perhaps most disturbingly, on July 25, 2010, the Florida Supreme Court stayed
the execution of Manuel Valle, scheduled for August 2, less than two weeks later. The
execution date was rest for September 6. He received another stay, only to be killed on
September 28, 2011. Valle had spent 33 years on death row in Florida, and had watched
69 other prisoners walk by his cell to the execution chamber to die.16
Death Row Phenomenon & the Psychological Impact
of Prolonged Solitary Confinement
Decades in isolation without access to programming, family, other prisoners, or
any other form of intellectual or social stimulation, along with the constant knowledge of
one’s impending, but uncertain, death, combine to create “death row phenomenon.” The
phenomenon can be broken down into three elements: (1) a temporal component based
on the length of time between sentencing and execution; (2) a physical component based
on the punishing conditions in which the condemned prisoner is held; and (3) an

16

Clive Stafford Smith, Manuel Valle’s Excruciating 33-year Execution, Guardian.co.uk, Sep. 29, 2011.
Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/29/manuel-valle-executionbreyer?newsfeed=true.

6

experiential component, based on the meaning of living under sentence of death.17
“Death row syndrome,” in turn, refers to the significant negative psychological impacts
of prolonged detention on death row. In a definitive and much-cited literature review,
clinical psychologists Mark Cunningham and Mark Vigen summarized relevant research
regarding conditions on death row and the impact of these conditions on prisoners facing
execution.18 In-depth interviews of 35 out of 37 prisoners on Alabama’s death row in
1979, for example, uncovered “four adverse psychological processes… pervading the
experience of death row inmates: (1) a sense of helplessness and defeat; (2) a sense of
widespread and diffuse danger with an accompanying perception of helpless
vulnerability; (3) emotional emptiness characterized by loneliness and a deadening of
feelings for self and others; and (4) a decline in mental and physical acuity.”19 The
prisoners experienced “chronically unstable, fluctuating moods and recurrent depression”
along with severe deterioration in mental capability including slowness, confusion,
forgetfulness, and lethargy.20 The Alabama researchers “compared this deterioration to
senility, describing the death row inmates as writing rambling correspondence,
misplacing objects within a small cell, and expressing disconnected thoughts.”21
While not yet recognized by the American Psychological Association, there has
long been international recognition of death row syndrome Indeed, the serious mental
health impact of prolonged solitary confinement, in itself, is extraordinarily well
documented.
17

Amy Smith, Not “Waiving” but Drowning: the Anatomy of Death Row Syndrome and Volunteering for
Execution, 17 B.U. Pub. Int. L.J. 237, 240 (2008); see also Death Penalty Information Center, Time on
Death Row, available at http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row.
18
Mark D. Cunningham & Mark P. Vigen, Death Row Inmate Characteristics, Adjustment and
Confinement: a Critical Review of the Literature, 20 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 191 (2002).
19
Id. at 204.
20
Id.
21
Id.

7

One of the most common psychological effects of prolonged solitary confinement
is a persistent and heightened state of anxiety. For example, a 2003 study of prisoners in
California’s Pelican Bay Supermax facility by Dr. Craig Haney found that 91% of
inmates suffered from abnormal levels of what Haney termed anxiety or “nervousness.”22
Similarly, a 1983 study by Dr. Stuart Grassian in the American Journal of Psychiatry
found that 71% of inmates in his sample complained of “massive free-floating anxiety.”23
This anxiety and nervousness is reported by all accounts of those familiar with prolonged
solitary confinement; frequently, it inspires a severe paranoia in inmates. In a 2006 paper
summing up his findings from two different extensive studies, Grassian found that nearly
half of the prisoners suffered from “paranoid and persecutory fears.”24 It is not
uncommon for this paranoid mindset to persist long after prisoners are released from
solitary confinement or incarceration.25
Another extremely common result of prolonged solitary confinement is the
emergence of severe headaches. In the aforementioned Haney study, 88% of prisoners
complained of recurring headaches, while a study by Danish psychiatrists found that 53%
of prisoners held in solitary confinement for only two months suffered similarly.26 A
2003 Norwegian study reported 40% of prisoners with the same complaint.27

22

Craig Haney, Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and “Supermax” Confinement, 49 Crime &
Delinquency 124, 2003.
23
Stuart Grassian, Psychopathological Effects of Solitary Confinement, 140 Am. Psychiatric Ass. 1450,
(1983).
24
Stuart Grassian, Prison Reform: Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons: Psychiatric
Effects of Solitary Confinement, 22 J.L. & Politics 325 (2006)
25
Vince Beiser, A Necessary Evil, L.A.Times, Oct. 19, 2003
26
Andersen, Henrik Steen, Tommy Lillebæk, and Dorte Sestoft. 1997. Efterundersøgelsen - en
opfølgningsundersøgelse af danske varetoegtsarrestanter. Copenhagen: Schultz.
27
Stang, Jan, Jens Moe, Inge Arne Teigset, Bjørn Østberg, and Tron Anders Moger, Fanger i
sikkerhetscelle - en utfordring, 123 Tidsskrift for Den norske Lægeforening, 1844–46 (2003).

8

Haney’s 2003 study also found 88% of prisoners in his sample suffered from
ruminations, irrational anger, and “intrusive thoughts.”28 Grassian, too, reported finding
prisoners suffering in this manner at a rate of nearly 1-out-of-2.29 Grassian describes
prisoners experiencing “the emergence of primitive aggressive fantasies of revenge,
torture, and mutilation of the prison guards,” and in every instance, prisoners described
such thoughts as “unwelcome, frightening and uncontrollable.”30 While often difficult to
measure scientifically, such disturbing, unsettling thoughts are reported throughout the
literature on prolonged solitary confinement. Sixty-one percent of Haney’s 2003 study
participants reported “violent fantasies.”31
Both Grassian and Haney found that an extremely high percentage of prisoners in
their sample suffered from oversensitivity to stimuli. Eighty-six percent of Haney’s
study were thusly impaired, while Grassian reported nearly half of his sample similarly
affected.32
It is extremely common for prisoners in prolonged isolation to find their ability to
concentrate significantly impaired. Haney’s 2003 study reported 84% of participants
experiencing an “extreme state of confusion,” and Grassian has repeatedly found this to
also be the case in his studies. In his 2006 paper, Grassian quotes a prisoner stating,
“Your mind is narcotized,” and Grassian reports that one prisoner “slashed his wrists
during such a state.” Often, prisoners descend into this state to the point that they are no
longer able to read.33
28

See supra, note 22, at p. 134.
See supra, note 24.
30
Id. at 7.
31
See supra, note 22.
32
Id; supra note 24.
33
Smith, Peter S, The Effects of Solitary Confinement on Prison Inmates: A Brief History and Review of the
Literature, 34 Crime and Justice 441-528 (2006).
29

9

Grassian concludes that nearly one-third of prisoners he worked with “described
hearing voices,” while others reported “noises taking on an increasing meaning and
frightening significance.” Haney’s 2003 study found that 41% of his sample experienced
hallucinations, 44% experienced perceptual distortions, and 56% suffered from frequent
bouts of dizziness. Sixty-three percent reported frequently talking to themselves. Grassian
also links “overt psychosis” to especially bad cases of paranoia.34 In this state, prisoners
lose touch with reality, frequently falling into paranoid fantasies that lead them to selfmutilation. It should be noted that in much of the non-clinical literature on solitary
confinement, prisoners report losing themselves for days in hallucinatory fantasies.
Sometimes this is described as a good thing (the fantasies are positive, pleasant,
frequently sexual); other times, the experience is far more harrowing.
While it is clear that prisoners in prolonged solitary confinement suffer from a
decreased ability to control their impulses, this is one of the hardest areas to measure
scientifically, as the line between different, co-mingling pathologies becomes rather
blurred. Without a doubt, there is a shockingly high frequency of prisoners responding to
prolonged isolation by becoming violent against others and themselves. But it is hard to
determine whether a prisoner’s behavior is due to diminished impulse control,
hallucinations, confusion, irrational anger, or, most likely, a combination of these factors.
Generally, researchers tend to classify instances of self-mutilation as examples of weak
impulse control. Grassian, for example, reports a prisoner, upon cutting himself, saying,
“[E]very time I did it, I wasn’t thinking – lost control – cut myself without knowing what

34

See supra, note 25 at p 7.

10

I was doing.” Smith links a lack of impulse control to prevalence of suicidal thoughts, of
which 27% of Haney’s Pelican Bay Prison sample experienced.35
Grassian states that “well over half” of the inmates he interviewed described
“severe” panic attacks while in solitary confinement. Haney doesn’t use the term panic
attack but, in his 2003 study, 70% of participants report a sense of an “impending
nervous breakdown,” while 67% suffer from “overall deterioration.”
As destructive as each of these individual harms are, on their own, to inmates in
solitary confinement, the true malignant nature of the practice cannot be understood by
looking at its consequences piecemeal. It is not just because prolonged isolation causes
prisoners to feel paranoid or confused that it is so horrible. It is because prolonged
isolation causes prisoners paranoia and confusion, while annihilating their ability to
concentrate – thus denying them the escape of reading or watching television – and
simultaneously denying them the ability to sleep, digest, communicate, or even dream.
Indeed, the effects of solitary confinement do not harm prisoners like individual
blows – this is not the psychological equivalent of a beating. Rather, prolonged isolation
debilitates prisoners as if it were a far-ranging disease of the mind. In this vein, both Drs.
Grassian and Haney have presented a more holistic view of prolonged solitary
confinement’s detrimental nature. Grassian considers the confluence of symptoms that
those held in prolonged isolation experience to be so unique and rare that it is best
understood as what he calls an “acute organic brain syndrome,” or “a delirium.”
This medical research backs up what should be obvious to us all: a human being
cannot live without human interaction, intellectual and sensory stimulation, and hope. To
deny all three denies the basic humanity of the individual.
35

See supra, note 22; note 16.

11

II.

Legal Discussion
It is widely accepted that the death penalty constitutes cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment.36 Through this analysis, we seek to determine
whether the conduct that forms an integral part a death sentence in the United States,
which constitute the “death row phenomenon” discussed above – prolonged solitary
confinement, sensory deprivation, dehumanizing conditions for extended periods of time
and a form of mock execution37 – also constitutes torture, thus rending the death penalty
in the United States a form of torture. Particularly in light of the UN Special Rapporteur
on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’s recent
statement that he would be examining the death penalty and prolonged solitary
confinement38 and the theme of this year’s World Day Against the Death Penalty, we
consider such an inquiry necessary and instructive.
We conclude that the course of conduct employed by the United States, from
sentence, to just before execution, constitutes torture.
36

See, e.g., Soering v. United Kingdom, 11 Eur. Hum. Rts. Rep. 439 (1989), para. 104 (finding that the
facts used to determine whether the death penalty violates the prohibition on torture or inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment including “[t]he manner in which it is imposed or executed, the
personal circumstances of the condemned person and a disproportionality to the gravity of the crime
committed, as well as the conditions of detention awaiting execution” are present due to inter alia “death
row phenomenon” existing in Virginia); Pratt and Morgan v. The Attorney General of Jamaica, 3 SLR
995, 2 AC 1, 4 All ER 769 (Privy Council 1993) (en banc).
37
As noted above, the means and methods of execution are beyond the scope of this policy paper. It is
worth noting, however, that the UN Committee Against Torture expressed concern “at the fact that
substantiated information indicates that executions in the State party can be accompanied by severe pain
and suffering,” in its 2006 report on the United States compliance with CAT. See Consideration of Reports
Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Conclusions and recommendations of the
Committee against Torture, United States of America, CAT/C/USA/CO/2, July 25, 2006, para. 31.
38
Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment, Juan E. Méndez, A/HRC/16/52, Feb 3, 2011, para. 70: “The Special Rapporteur recognizes
that the question as to whether the death penalty, as well as some health and drug policies, prolonged
solitary confinement, some treatments for mental disability, and domestic violence constitute per se cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has given rise to much debate and discussion in the Human
Rights Council. ... The Special Rapporteur will look more deeply into these issues and also suggests that
they be the subject of further research by the Human Rights Council and its mechanism.” Available at
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A.HRC.16.52.pdf

12

Torture Defined under International Law
The United States ratified the Convention Against Torture (CAT) on October 21,
1994. Article 1, para. 1, of CAT, provides a definition of torture:
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which
severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a
third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he
or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed,
or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is
inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence
of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.39
Numerous other international treaties also prohibit torture.40
Torture constitutes a crime against humanity, war crime, and violation of
the Geneva Conventions, as reflected in the statutes of the International Criminal
Court, the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and the International
39

Article 1 further provides that torture “does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.” This provision does not allow for a party to CAT to establish sanctions, or a
regime for implementing sanctions “that defeat the object and purpose of the Convention Against Torture
to prohibit torture.” The former Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, and another international
law expert, recently clarified that this provision was related to “certain disciplinary measures below the
threshold of corporal punishment” including solitary confinement. See Manfred Nowak and Elizabeth
McArthur, The United Nations Convention Against Torture - A Commentary, (Oxford University Press
2008) (“Nowak and McArthur Commentary”), pp. 79-80. C.f., 8 C.F.R. 1208.18 (Implementation of the
Convention Against Torture) provides “Torture does not include pain or suffering arising only from,
inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. Lawful sanctions include judicially imposed sanctions and
other enforcement actions authorized by law, including the death penalty, but do not include sanctions that
defeat the object and purpose of the Convention Against Torture to prohibit torture.”
40
See, e.g., International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 7; European Convention on Human
Rights, Art. 3; Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, Art. 5; African Charter on
Human and Peoples Rights, Art. 5. See also U.S. definition of torture, 18 U.S.C. § 2340:
Definitions: As used in this chapter—(1) “torture” means an act committed by a person acting
under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering
(other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his
custody or physical control;(2) “severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental
harm caused by or resulting from—(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe
physical pain or suffering; (B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or
application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the
senses or the personality; (C) the threat of imminent death; or (D) the threat that another person
will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or
application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the
senses or personality.

13

Tribunal for Rwanda, among other sources. Over the last fifteen years, a
substantive body of jurisprudence has developed setting forth the elements of
torture under customary international law, which largely reflects the definition of
torture under CAT.41 Torture has been found to be “a violation of personal
dignity and is used for such purposes as intimidation, degradation, humiliation
and discrimination, punishment, control or destruction of a person.”42
Of particular relevance here, torture is not limited to physical acts; the
infliction of severe mental pain or suffering with the requisite intention and
purpose is sufficient to constitute torture. There is not a particular threshold that
must be crossed for pain or suffering to constitute “severe” mental harm; it is
assessed in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the “nature,
purpose and consistency of the acts committed.”43 Factors related to the alleged
victim, including their “age, sex, state of health and position of inferiority” are
relevant for assessing harm.44
The Course of Conduct for Administration of the Death Penalty
in the United States Constitutes Torture
As discussed above, prolonged solitary confinement, sensory deprivation,
and dehumanizing conditions for extended periods of time are all aspects of the
death penalty. Furthermore, the preparation for death followed by a temporary
reprieve only to be followed by a later execution date can be said to constitute a
mock execution. Each of these acts has been examined, either in isolation or

41

See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Mucic, et al. (Čelebići Case), Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgement, para. 494 (Nov.
16, 1998); Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Judgement, para. 111(July 21, 2000).
42
Prosecutor v. Bradjanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement, para. 485 (Sept. 1, 2004).
43
Id. at para. 484.
44
Id.

14

together, by United Nations bodies, international tribunals, legal experts, and nongovernmental organizations, and found to constitute torture.
Most notably, the Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Méndez, recently
issued a report on solitary confinement, in which he concluded that “where the
physical conditions and the prison regime of solitary confinement cause severe
mental and physical pain or suffering, when used as a punishment, during pre-trial
detention, indefinitely, prolonged, on juveniles or persons with mental disabilities,
it can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and even
torture.” 45
The Special Rapporteur examined the conditions of solitary confinement,
prolonged or indefinite solitary confinement, as well as the psychological, physiological,
and latent effects of solitary confinement. In relation to the conditions, the Special
Rapporteur highlighted the physical conditions, including the small cell size, the presence
or absence of windows, and the stark appearance and dull colors; the prison regime,
including access to outdoor exercise, meaningful human contact, and contact with the
outside world; and social isolation. As for what constitutes “prolonged” solitary
confinement, after observing that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found
that detention for three years in solitary confinement constituted a violation of the
prohibition against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,46 and that

45

Report to the General Assembly, A/66/268, August 5, 2011 (“Special Rapporteur Report on Solitary
Confinement”), Summary (emphasis added). See also id. at para. 80 (Conclusions): “Depending on the
specific reason for its application, conditions, length, effects and other circumstances, solitary confinement
can amount to a breach of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and to an act
defined in article 1 or article 16 of the Convention against Torture”
46
A.B. v. Russia, Application No. 1439/06, European Court of Human Rights, para. 135 (2010).

15

prisoners in the United States have been kept in solitary confinement for up to 40 years,
the Special Rapporteur concluded that confinement exceeding 15 days is prolonged.
In his report, the Special Rapporteur provides an overview of international
practice. This survey leads to the conclusion that prolonged solitary confinement, under
the conditions applied to many persons on death row in the United States, constitute
torture. For example, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that “prolonged
isolation and deprivation of communication are in themselves cruel and inhuman
treatment, harmful to the psychological and moral integrity of the person, and a violation
of the right of any detainee to respect for his inherent dignity as a human being.”47 The
Court went further in its 2000 decision in Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru, when it found that
the conditions of solitary confinement, including being kept is a small cell with no
ventilation or natural light, for up to 23 ½ hours a day, without being allowed physical
contact with family members, constitutes torture.48 The ECHR has found that “complete
sensory isolation, coupled with total social isolation, can destroy the personality and
constitutes a form of inhuman treatment which cannot be justified by the requirements of
security or any other reason.”49 Two United Nations bodies have also issued
authoritative findings on solitary confinement. In examining Article 7 of the ICCPR (the
prohibition on torture and cruel treatment or punishment), the Human Rights Committee
47

Special Rapporteur Report on Solitary Confinement, para. 37, citing Velázquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras,
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C, No. 4, para. 156.
48
Special Rapporteur Report on Solitary Confinement, para. 38, citing Cantoral-Benavides v. Peru, InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, Series C, No. 69, paras. 62 and 104 (2000).
49
Special Rapporteur Report on Solitary Confinement, para. 55, citing Ilaşcu and others v. Moldova and
Russia, Application No. 48787/99, European Court of Human Rights (2004), para. 432. See also Krocher
v. Switzerland, 34 Eur. Comm’n H.R. Dec. & Rep. 24, 53, P 62 (1982) for the same proposition. As noted
in a recent report by Committee on International Human Rights of the Association of the Bar of the City of
New York, solitary confinement has rarely been used in Europe since the 1992 Krocher decision. New
York City Bar, Committee on International Human Rights, “Supermax Confinement in U.S. Prisons,”
September 2011, p. 20, available at: http://www2.nycbar.org/pdf/report/uploads/20072165TheBrutalityofSupermaxConfinement.pdf.

16

found in 1992 that “prolonged solitary confinement of the detained or imprisoned person
may amount to acts prohibited by article 7.”50 The Special Rapporteur also observed that
the Committee against Torture “has recognized the harmful physical and mental effects
of prolonged solitary confinement” and “has recommended that the use of solitary
confinement be abolished … or at least that it should be strictly and specifically regulated
by law (maximum duration, etc.) and exercised under judicial supervision, and used only
in exceptional circumstances.”51
The Special Rapporteur made numerous conclusions related to solitary
confinement, which bear directly on the nature of the death penalty in the United
States and its qualification as a form of torture:
• Given its severe adverse health effects, the use of solitary confinement
itself can amount to acts prohibited by article 7 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, torture as defined in article 1 of
the Convention against Torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
punishment as defined in article 16 of the Convention. (para. 70)
• Solitary confinement, when used for the purpose of punishment, cannot be
justified for any reason, precisely because it imposes severe mental pain
and suffering beyond any reasonable retribution for criminal behaviour
and thus constitutes an act defined in article 1 or article 16 of the
Convention against Torture, and a breach of article 7 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (par. 72)
• Where the physical conditions of solitary confinement are so poor and the
regime so strict that they lead to severe mental and physical pain or
suffering of individuals who are subjected to the confinement, the
conditions of solitary confinement amount to torture or to cruel and

50

General Comment 20, 44th Session, 1992, para. 6, available at:
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/6924291970754969c12563ed004c8ae5?Opendocument.
51
Special Rapporteur Report on Solitary Confinement, para. 31. (citations omitted). See also Consideration
of Reports Submitted by States Parties under Article 19 of the Convention, Conclusions and
recommendations of the Committee against Torture, Mongolia, CAT/C/MNG/CO/1, Jan. 20, 2011, para.
16 (“The Committee is particularly concerned by reports that death row prisoners are detained in isolation,
kept handcuffed and shackled throughout their detention and denied adequate food. Such conditions of
detention were described by the Special Rapporteur as constituting additional punishments which can only
be qualified as torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention”).

17

inhuman treatment as defined in articles 1 and 16 of the Convention, and
constitute a breach of article 7 of the Covenant. (para. 74)
• The adverse acute and latent psychological and physiological effects of
prolonged solitary confinement constitute severe mental pain or suffering.
Thus the Special Rapporteur concurs with the position taken by the
Committee against Torture in its General Comment No. 20 that prolonged
solitary confinement amounts to acts prohibited by article 7 of the
[ICCPR], and consequently to an act as defined in article 1 or article 16 of
the Convention. For these reasons, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that,
in his view, any imposition of solitary confinement beyond 15 days
constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, depending on the circumstances. (para. 76)
• Considering the severe mental pain or suffering solitary confinement may
cause when used as a punishment, during pretrial detention, indefinitely or
for a prolonged period, for juveniles or persons with mental disabilities, it
can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that where the physical
conditions and the prison regime of solitary confinement fail to respect the
inherent dignity of the human person and cause severe mental and
physical pain or suffering, it amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment. (para. 81)
Solitary confinement is not the only condition of U.S. death row inmates that has
been found to constitute torture. Severe isolation combined with sensory deprivation or
overstimulation constitute torture under international legal standards. The Committee
Against Torture expressly stated its concern about the publication of the revised United
States Army Field Manual’s authorization of questionable interrogation techniques,
including sensory deprivation methods.52 The Committee Against Torture has also
concluded that holding prisoners in conditions of sensory deprivation and isolation
consisting of an almost complete prohibition of communication caused “persistent and
unjustified suffering which amounts to torture.”53 Similarly, the Special Rapporteur on

52

See United Nations Committee Against Torture, 36th Session, Geneva, CAT/C/USA/Q/2, Feb. 8, 2006,
para. 52.
53
See UN Doc A/56/44, Report of the Committee Against Torture, para. 186, 2001: Peru.

18

Torture has enumerated acts severe enough to constitute torture, including exposure to
excessive light or noise, prolonged denial of rest or sleep, and total isolation and sensory
deprivation, and simulated executions.54
Mock executions have also been found to violate international law. In a 1992
decision, the Human Rights Committee found that a mock execution set up by prison
wardens constituted cruel and inhuman treatment.55 The Appeals Chamber of the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found that mental suffering
associated with telling individuals that they would be put before a firing squad violated
international law.56 In addition, waterboarding – a form of mock execution employed
recently by the United States – has long been found to amount to torture.57
III.

Conclusion
As the above analysis makes clear, thousands of prisoners on death row in the

United States face decades in isolation, haunted by the approach of their execution. This
phenomenon gives rise to a pattern of significant psychological harm, amounting to
severe mental pain and suffering. The international consensus is clear that such suffering
amounts to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; but a growing consensus also defines
this phenomenon, appropriately, as torture.

54

See Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Report of the Special
Rapporteur, Mr. P. Kooijmans, appointed pursuant to Commission on Human Rights res. 1985/33
E/CN.4/1986/15, 19 Feb. 1986, para. 119 (emphasis added). In their report on
55
See Linton v. Jamaica, Commc’n No. 255/1987(1992), para. 8.5
56
See Prosecutor v. Natelić and Martinović, Judgement, Case No, IT-98-34-A, May 3, 2006, para. 292. See
also para. 300 (“telling prisoners falsely that they will be executed, in a ‘brutal context’ that makes the
statement believable, can amount to willfully causing great suffering”).
57
See, e.g., G. SOLIS, THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT: INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AT WAR 461466 (Cambridge University Press 2010) (surveying jurisprudence and collecting statements by international
bodies and experts that waterboarding constitutes torture); Transcript of Confirmation Hearing for Eric
Holder as Attorney General of the United States, Jan. 16,2009, available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/us/politics/16text-holder.html?_r¼1&pagewanted¼all; See also E.
Wallach, Drop by Drop: Forgetting the History of Water Torture in U.S. Courts, 45 Colum. J. Transnat’l L.
468 (2007).

19

Beyond the legal analysis, we must each undertake our own ethical and moral
analysis. Did anyone who closely followed Troy Davis’ execution, and his temporary
reprieve from the Supreme Court, doubt that the hours leading up to his execution, the
hope and then betrayal, amounted to torture? Is there any significant difference between
mock executions, long recognized as torture by the international community, and Mr.
Davis’s last-minute brush with death in 2008? And can we conceive of thirty years in a
small gray cube, without access to another human being beyond the hands of the guard
who slides your food tray through the slot in your solid cell door, as anything but torture?

20