BRIEFING PAPER:

The Dangerous Overuse of
Solitary Confinement in the
United States
August 2014

ACLU Briefing Paper
The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United
States
© 2014 ACLU Foundation
Cover photograph “Isolation” courtesy of Derek Key/Flickr.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 2
What is solitary confinement? ........................................................................................................... 3
How does solitary confinement affect people? .................................................................................. 4
What is the impact of solitary confinement on people with mental illness? ....................................... 6
Who are the people placed in solitary confinement? ......................................................................... 8
Are children ever held in solitary confinement? ................................................................................. 8
Does solitary confinement make prisons safer? ................................................................................. 9
Is solitary confinement cost-effective? ............................................................................................ 11
Does solitary confinement make the public safer? ........................................................................... 10
Are there better alternatives? ......................................................................................................... 11
Federal Reforms .................................................................................................................................... 12
State Reforms........................................................................................................................................ 12
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 14

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 1

Introduction
Over the last two decades, corrections systems have increasingly relied on solitary confinement, even
building entire “supermax” prisons, where prisoners are held in extreme isolation, often for years or
even decades. Although supermax prisons were rare in the United States before the 1990s, today fortyfour states and the federal government have supermax units or facilities, housing at least 25,000 people
nationwide.1 But this figure does not reflect the total number of prisoners held in solitary confinement
in the United States on any given day. Using data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, researchers
estimated in 2011 that over 80,000 prisoners are held in “restricted housing,” including administrative
segregation, disciplinary segregation and protective custody—all forms of housing involving substantial
social isolation.2 The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the largest prison system in the United States,
reported in 2011 that it held about 7% of its population in solitary confinement.3
This massive increase in the use of solitary confinement has led many to question whether it is an
effective or humane use of public resources. Legal and medical professionals criticize solitary
confinement and supermax prisons as unconstitutional and inhumane, pointing to the well-known
harms associated with placing people in isolation and the rejection of its use in American prisons
decades earlier.4 Indeed, over a century ago, the Supreme Court noted that:
[Prisoners subject to solitary confinement] fell, after even a short confinement, into a
semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others
became violently insane; others still, committed suicide; while those who stood the
ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not recover sufficient
mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community.
In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 168 (1890).
Other critics point to the expense of solitary confinement. Supermax prisons typically cost two or three
times more to build and operate than even traditional maximum-security prisons.5 Yet there is little
evidence to suggest that solitary confinement makes prisons safer. Indeed, research suggests that
supermax prisons actually have a negative effect on public safety.6
Despite these concerns, states and the federal government continue to invest taxpayer dollars in
constructing supermax prisons and enforcing solitary confinement conditions. As new fiscal realities
force state and federal cuts to essential public services like health and education, it is time to ask
whether we should continue to use solitary confinement despite its high fiscal and human costs.

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 2

What is solitary confinement?
Solitary confinement is the practice of placing a person alone in a cell for 22 to 24 hours a day with little
human contact or interaction; reduced or no natural light; restriction or denial of reading material,
television, radios or other property; severe
constraints on visitation; and the inability to
“My mind began to slip. I suffered from
participate in group activities, including eating with
insomnia,
nightmares, hallucinations, and
others. While some specific conditions of solitary
emotional detachment, and often had
confinement may differ among institutions, generally
violent panic attacks.
the prisoner spends 23 hours a day alone in a small
cell with a solid steel door, a bunk, a toilet, and a sink.7
More than once, I completely lost control
Human contact is restricted to brief interactions with
and began screaming and beating at the
corrections officers and, for some prisoners,
walls of my cell until my knuckles bled.
occasional encounters with healthcare providers or
attorneys.8 Family visits are limited; almost all human
I started to realize that there was a slow
contact occurs while the prisoner is in restraints and
disintegration, really, of my personality, my
behind a partition.9 Many prisoners are only allowed
sense of who I was.”
one visit per month, if any.10 The amount of time a
person spends in solitary confinement varies, but
-Sarah Shourd, survivor
can last for months, years, or even decades.
Solitary confinement goes by many names, whether it occurs in a supermax prison or in a
unit within a regular prison. These units are often called disciplinary segregation,
administrative segregation, control units, security housing units (SHU), special
management units (SMU), or simply “the hole.” Recognizing the definitional morass, the
American Bar Association has created a general definition of solitary confinement, which it
calls “segregated housing”:
The term “segregated housing” means housing of a prisoner in conditions characterized by
substantial isolation from other prisoners, whether pursuant to disciplinary, administrative,
or classification action. “Segregated housing” includes restriction of a prisoner to the
prisoner’s assigned living quarters.11
The term “long-term segregated housing” means segregated housing that is expected to
extend or does extend for a period of time exceeding 30 days.12

In 2013, the Department of Justice employed a similar definition, noting that “the terms ‘isolation’ or
‘solitary confinement’ mean the state of being confined to one’s cell for approximately 22 hours per day
or more, alone or with other prisoners, … [with] limit[ed] contact with others. . . . An isolation unit means
a unit where all or most of those housed in the unit are subjected to isolation.” 13

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 3

Solitary confinement is used to punish prisoners who have violated rules, or to isolate those considered
too dangerous for general population. It is also sometimes used to “protect” prisoners who are perceived
as vulnerable—such as youths, the elderly, or individuals who identify as or are perceived to be lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex (LGBTI).

How does solitary confinement affect people?
Solitary confinement is widely recognized as painful and difficult to endure. “It's an awful thing,
solitary,” U.S. Senator John McCain wrote of his time in isolation as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. “It
crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of
mistreatment.”14 Senator McCain’s experience is reflected in the consensus among researchers that
the psychological harms of solitary confinement are great.15 Indeed, in a 2007 publication, a Red Cross
psychiatrist compared the practice to physical torture, noting that “[b]eing confined for prolonged
periods of time alone in a cell has been said to be the most difficult torment of all to withstand— a
comment made, moreover, by hardened prisoners used to rigorous conditions and abuse.”16 As a
California prison psychiatrist put it: “It’s a standard psychiatric concept, if you put people in isolation,
they will go insane. . . . Most people in isolation will fall apart.”17
International human-rights bodies have condemned the prolonged use of solitary confinement. The
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has urged member states to “adopt strong, concrete
measures to eliminate the use of prolonged or indefinite isolation under all circumstances;”18 the United
Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture called for a global ban on solitary confinement in excess of 15
days as well as on the segregation of juveniles and of those with mental disabilities;19 and the European
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment found
that solitary confinement conditions can amount to “inhuman and degrading treatment.” 20
Indeed, research shows that some of the clinical impacts of isolation can be similar to those of physical
torture.21 People subjected to solitary confinement exhibit a variety of negative physiological and
psychological reactions, including hypersensitivity to stimuli;22 perceptual distortions and
hallucinations;23 increased anxiety and nervousness;24 revenge fantasies, rage, and irrational anger;25
fears of persecution;26 lack of impulse control;27 severe and chronic depression;28 appetite loss and
weight loss;29 heart palpitations;30 withdrawal;31 blunting of affect and apathy;32 talking to oneself;33
headaches;34 problems sleeping;35 confusing thought processes;36 nightmares;37 dizziness;38 selfmutilation;39 and lower levels of brain function, including a decline in EEG activity after only seven days
in solitary confinement.40 The effects of isolation on the brain are further discussed in this Paper’s
“Science of Solitary” text box.
Case studies bear out the devastating human toll these conditions can take. Testifying in court, Dr. Stuart
Grassian, a board-certified psychiatrist who taught at Harvard Medical School for over 25 years and is
one of the nation’s leading experts on solitary confinement, described one prisoner who became
psychotic in solitary confinement. Although this prisoner had no documented history of psychotic
disorders before being subjected to conditions of solitary confinement at California’s Pelican Bay State
Prison, he became highly symptomatic after several months in solitary. Later, he became “overtly

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 4

psychotic and suicidal,” at one point writing a suicide note in his own blood. Dr. Grassian testified,
“Inmate E reported that he was ‘hearing voices’ and the examining doctor described him as ‘obviously
very psychotic.’” He also believed that he was receiving messages from a computer implanted at the
base of his neck. “I'm tired of people talking in my head,” Inmate E told Dr. Grassian. “I was mentally
clear before . . . sometimes I get so confused, I don't even know what's going on.”41
In addition to increased psychiatric symptoms generally, suicide rates and incidents of self-harm are
much higher for prisoners in solitary confinement. A February 2014 study in the American Journal of
Public Health found that detainees in solitary confinement in New York City jails were nearly seven times
more likely to harm themselves than those in general population, and that the effect was particularly
pronounced for youth and people with severe mental illness. In California prisons in 2004, 73% of all
suicides occurred in isolation units—though these units accounted for less than 10% of the state’s total
prison population.42 In the Indiana Department of Corrections, the rate of suicides in segregation was
almost three times that of other housing units.43
Recognizing these dangers, organizations including the American Psychiatric Association, Mental Health
America, the American Public Health Association, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, and the Society
of Correctional Physicians have issued formal policy statements opposing long-term solitary
confinement, especially for prisoners with mental illness.44
People in solitary confinement are also more likely to be subjected to excessive force and abuses of
power.45 Correctional officers often misuse physical restraints, chemical agents, and stun guns,
particularly when extracting prisoners from their cells.46 The fact that the solitary confinement cells are
isolated from the general population prisoners makes it more difficult to detect abuse. 47 Additionally,
the idea that “the worst of the worst” are placed in solitary confinement makes it more likely that
administrators will be apathetic or turn a blind eye to abuses.48

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 5

The Science of Solitary Confinement
Scientists are increasingly learning how solitary confinement can fundamentally alter the human brain.
“There are definitely physical consequences of these experiences,” University of Michigan neuroscientist
Huda Akil told colleagues at the American Association for the Advancement of Science 2014 annual
conference.
Although the insularity of prisons makes direct study of prisoners in solitary confinement difficult, key
elements of the conditions of solitary confinement are each, according to Dr. Akil, “sufficient to
dramatically change the brain,” and have been shown in experiments to have permanent physiological
effects. These elements include lack of interaction with the natural world, lack of touch and visual
stimulation, and lack of social interaction. Dr. Akil noted that factors like stress and depression can
literally shrivel areas of the brain, including the hippocampus, the region of the brain involved in memory,
spatial orientation, and control of emotions.
This emerging neuroscience perspective follows decades of experiments on humans and other mammals
that demonstrate the harms of isolation and sensory deprivation. In the 1960s, researchers at U.C.
Berkeley found that rats held in supermax-style cells had fewer neurological connections, and thinner
cerebral cortexes—the “grey matter” of the brain, which controls perception, language, planning,
movement, and social cues. In a 2002 study of human adults, epidemiologists at University College
London found that lonely people had higher levels of stress, indicated by increased levels of blood
proteins and white blood cells, which can in turn lead to other health problems, including stroke.
Recognizing the cruelty of isolation, Columbia University recently amended its ethical guidelines for
scientific experiments, strictly limiting the circumstances under which laboratory animals may be held
alone in cages.
See Nadia Ramlagan, Solitary Confinement Fundamentally Alters the Brain, Scientists Say, AAAS.org (Feb. 15, 2014),
http://www.aaas.org/print/4706; Joseph Stromberg, The Science of Solitary Confinement, Smithsonian (Feb. 19, 2014),
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-solitary-confinement-180949793/?no-ist; see also Shruti Ravindran, Twilight in
the Box, Aeon, http://aeon.co/magazine/living-together/what-solitary-confinement-does-to-the-brain/ (summarizing research on animals
in isolation and conditions of sensory deprivation); David Brooks, The Archipelago of Pain, N.Y. Times, Mar. 7, 2014,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/opinion/brooks-the-archipelago-of-pain.html?hpw&rref=opinion (describing and condemning the
psychological torment of long-term solitary confinement and referencing studies of animals in comparable conditions).

What is the impact of solitary confinement on people with mental illness?
Solitary confinement is psychologically difficult for even relatively healthy individuals, but it is
devastating for those with mental illness. When people with severe mental illness are subjected to
solitary confinement, they deteriorate dramatically. Many engage in bizarre and extreme acts of selfinjury and suicide. It is not unusual for prisoners in solitary confinement to compulsively cut their flesh,
repeatedly smash their heads against walls, swallow razors and other harmful objects, or attempt to
hang themselves. In Indiana’s supermax, the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility Secured Housing Unit
(SHU), a prisoner with mental illness killed himself by self-immolation; another man choked himself to
death with a washcloth.49

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 6

One of the leading experts on the mental health effects of solitary confinement explained the reasons
for the shattering impact of solitary confinement on prisoners, especially those with mental illness:
It is predictable that prisoners’ mental state deteriorates in isolation. Human beings
require at least some social interaction and productive activities to establish and sustain
a sense of identify and to maintain a grasp on reality. In the absence of social interactions,
unrealistic ruminations and beliefs cannot be tested in conversation with others, so they
build up inside and are transformed into unfocused and irrational thoughts. Disorganized
behaviors emerge. Internal impulses linked with anger, fear and other strong emotions
grow to overwhelming proportions . . . It is under these extreme conditions that
psychiatric symptoms begin to emerge in previously healthy prisoners. Of course, in less
healthy ones there is psychosis, mania or compulsive acts of self-abuse or suicide. We
know that the social isolation and idleness, as well as the near absolute lack of control
over most aspects of daily life, very often lead to serious psychiatric symptoms and
breakdown.50
The damaging effects of solitary confinement on people with mental illness are exacerbated because
these prisoners often do not receive meaningful treatment for their illnesses. While mental health
treatment in many prisons and jails is inadequate, the problems in supermax prisons and segregation
units are even greater because the extreme security measures in these facilities render appropriate
mental health treatment nearly impossible. For example, because prisoners in solitary confinement are
usually not allowed to sit alone in a room with a mental health clinician, any “therapy” will generally take
place at cell-front, often through an opening in a solid steel door, and necessarily at a high volume where
other prisoners and staff can overhear the conversation. Most prisoners are reluctant to say anything in
such a setting, not wanting to appear weak or vulnerable, so this type of “treatment” is largely
ineffective.
The shattering impacts of solitary confinement are so well-documented that nearly every federal court
to consider the question has ruled that placing people with severe mental illness in such conditions is
cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the U.S. Constitution; at least one state court judge has
also recently found the practice unlawful under state
constitutional law, and the United States Department of Justice
has found that the practice violates both the federal
“I haven’t had a good night’s
Constitution and federal statutory law.51 Additionally, in 2012,
sleep since I’ve been out. . . .
the American Psychiatric Association, the world’s largest
psychiatric organization and a leader in humane care and
I’m living amongst millions of
effective treatment, issued a formal position statement that
people out here, but I still feel
prisoners with serious mental illness should almost never be
alone. I cry at night because of
subjected to such treatment and in the rare event that isolation
these feelings.”
is necessary, they must be given extra clinical supports.52
- Anthony Graves, survivor

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 7

Who are the people placed in solitary confinement?
There is a popular misconception that all those in solitary confinement are violent, dangerous, and
disruptive prisoners, commonly referred to as the “worst of the worst.”53 But any prison system only has
a handful of prisoners that actually meet this description. If the use of solitary confinement was solely
restricted to the dangerous and predatory, most supermax prisons and isolation units would stand
virtually empty. The reality is that solitary confinement is misused and overused. One reason for this is
that elected officials pushed to build facilities for solitary confinement based on a desire to appear
“tough on crime,” rather than actual need as expressed by corrections professionals.54 As a result, many
states built large supermax facilities they didn’t need, and now fill the cells with relatively low-risk
prisoners.55
The vast majority of the tens of thousands of people who end up in solitary confinement are not
incorrigibly violent criminals; instead, many are severely mentally ill or cognitively disabled prisoners,
who find it difficult to function in prison settings or understand and follow prison rules. 56 For example,
Indiana prison officials admitted in 2005 that “well over half” of the state’s supermax prisoners suffer
from mental illness.57 On average, researchers estimate that at least 30% of prisoners held in solitary
confinement suffer from mental illness.58
Many others in solitary are the so-called “nuisance prisoners”—those who have broken minor rules,59
those who file grievances or lawsuits against the prison or otherwise attempt to stand up for their rights,
or those who simply annoy staff. These prisoners may present management challenges, but they do not
require the extreme security and isolation of supermax institutions or segregation units.
Vulnerable prisoners are also disproportionately housed in solitary confinement units. Unfortunately,
solitary confinement has become the default correctional management tool to protect LGBTI individuals
from violence in general population. Particularly for transgender women, who are routinely housed in
men’s facilities, entire prison sentences are often spent in solitary confinement.60 While correctional
officials often justify the use of solitary confinement as necessary protection for these prisoners, the
effects of such placements are devastating. In addition to the stigma of being isolated solely based on
one’s actual or perceived LGBTI status, LGBTI individuals in “protective” isolation experience the same
mental health deterioration that typically characterizes solitary confinement, may be denied access to
programs and medically necessary healthcare, and are at increased risk of assault and harassment from
officers.61 Though new regulations under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) impose limits on the
use of “protective custody,” correctional agencies continue to house LGBTI individuals in isolation almost
as a matter of course.62

Are children ever held in solitary confinement?
Sadly, yes. Thousands of children in both the adult and juvenile justice systems are routinely subjected
to solitary confinement.63 Despite the prevalence of youth under the age of 18 in adult facilities in the
United States—estimated at more than 95,000 in 2011—most adult correctional systems offer few

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 8

alternatives to solitary confinement as a means of protecting youth who cannot be housed with adult
prisoners in general population.64 Young people may spend weeks, months, even years in solitary. In
addition to “protective custody,” youth in adult facilities may also be isolated as punishment for violating
rules designed to manage adult prisoners. In many juvenile facilities, isolation is also used to punish
disciplinary infractions. These sanctions can last for hours, days, weeks, or longer.65
Children are even more vulnerable to the harms of prolonged isolation than adults. 66 Young people’s
brains are still developing, placing them at higher risk of psychological harm when healthy development
and social stimulation are impeded.67 One of the tragic consequences of the solitary confinement of
youth is the increased risk of suicide and self-harm, including self-mutilation. In juvenile facilities, more
than 50% of all suicides occur in isolation.68 For youth in adult jails, suicide rates in isolation are 19 times
those for the general population.69 At the same time, youth in isolation are often denied educational
opportunities, mental health treatment, and proper nutrition70—denials which directly affect their
ability to successfully re-enter society and become productive adults.71
These devastating consequences have led the U.S. Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children
Exposed to Violence to conclude that “nowhere is the damaging impact of incarceration on vulnerable
children more obvious than when it involves solitary confinement.”72 Internationally, the U.N. Special
Rapporteur on Torture has called for a global ban on the solitary
confinement of children under 18.73 And in June 2012, the
Department of Justice issued national standards under PREA, stating
“Being in a room over 21
that “the Department supports strong limitations on the
hours a day is like a waking
confinement of adults with juveniles,”74 and mandating that facilities
nightmare, like you want to
make “best efforts” to avoid isolating children.75
scream but you can’t.”

Does solitary confinement make prisons safer?

- Lino Silva, on her
experience in solitary
confinement as a child

No. There is little evidence or research about the goals, impacts or
cost-effectiveness of solitary confinement as a corrections tool. In
fact, there is no evidence that using solitary confinement or supermax institutions have significantly
reduced the levels of violence in prison or that such confinement acts as a deterrent. A 2006 study found
that opening a supermax prison had no effect on prisoner-on-prisoner violence in Arizona, Illinois and
Minnesota.76 The same study found that creating a supermax had only limited impact on prisoner-onstaff violence in Illinois, none in Minnesota and actually increased violence in Arizona.77 A similar study
in California found that supermax prisons have not only failed to isolate or reduce violence in the state
prison system, but in fact all measures of violence suggest it has increased. 78 Moreover, limiting the use
of solitary confinement has been shown to decrease violence in prison. A reduction in the number of
prisoners in segregation in Michigan has resulted in a decline in violence and other misconduct.79
Similarly, Mississippi saw a 70% reduction in violence levels when it closed an entire solitary confinement
unit.80

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 9

The justifications usually cited for building supermax prisons
and solitary confinement units rely on a general
“Our job in corrections is to protect
misconception that putting “the worst of the worst” in
the community, not to release
solitary confinement creates a safer general population
people who are worse than they
environment where prisoners will have greater freedom and
were when they came in.”
access to educational and vocational programs.81 Others
defend solitary confinement as a general deterrent that
- Rick Raemisch, Director, Colorado
reduces disruptive behavior throughout the prison.82
Department of Corrections
However, there is only anecdotal support for these beliefs.83
Indeed, contrary to the assumption that a few “worst of the
worst” prisoners cause violence in prisons, researchers have
shown that the levels of violence in American prisons may have more to do with the way prisoners are
treated and how prisons are managed and staffed than the presence of a few “super violent” prisoners.84

Does solitary confinement make the public safer?
No. Not only is there little evidence that the enormous outlay of resources for supermax prisons and
solitary confinement makes prisons safer, there is growing concern that such facilities are actually
detrimental to public safety.
The pervasive use of solitary confinement means that thousands of prisoners, many of them with severe
mental illness, return to their communities after months or years in isolation, emerging with diminished
social and life skills.85 In 2006, the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons raised concerns
regarding the practice of releasing prisoners directly from segregation settings to the community. 86 The
same year, a major psychiatric study of prisoners in solitary confinement noted that such conditions may
“severely impair . . . the inmate’s capacity to reintegrate into the broader community upon release from
imprisonment.”87 Since the vast majority of prisoners—at least 95%—will eventually serve their
sentences and be released, community reentry is an important element of a corrections department’s
mission.88
Unsurprisingly, release directly from isolation strongly correlates with an increased risk of recidivism.
Preliminary research from California suggests that rates of return to prison are 20% higher for solitary
confinement prisoners.89 In Colorado, two-thirds of prisoners released directly from solitary
confinement returned to prison within three years; by contrast, prisoners who first transitioned from
solitary confinement to the general prison population were 6% less likely to recidivate in the same
period.90 A 2001 study in Connecticut found that 92% of prisoners who had been held at the state’s
supermax prison were rearrested within three years of release, compared with 66% of prisoners who
had not been held in administrative segregation.91 Another study, in Washington State, tracked 8,000
former prisoners upon release and found that, not only were those who were released directly from
segregation more likely to reoffend, but they were also more likely to commit violent crimes.92
Significantly, prisoners released directly from segregation had much higher recidivism rates compared
to individuals who first transitioned from segregation to general population before their release (64%

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 10

compared with 41%).93 Findings like these, suggesting a link between recidivism and the debilitating
conditions in segregation, have led mental health experts to call for prerelease programs to help
prisoners held in solitary confinement transition to the community more safely.94

Is solitary confinement cost-effective?
No. Although there is little empirical evidence to support the efficacy of solitary confinement as a prison
management tool, there is ample evidence that it is the most costly form of incarceration. There are
several reasons for this. Supermax prisons are considerably more costly to build and operate, sometimes
costing two or three times as much as conventional facilities.95 Staffing costs are also much higher.
Prisoners are usually required to be escorted by two or more officers any time they leave their cells, and
work that in other prisons would be performed by prisoners (such as cooking and cleaning) must be done
by paid staff. For these reasons, solitary confinement or supermax housing represents an enormous
investment of limited criminal justice resources. In 2013, the U.S. Government Accountability Office
(GAO), an independent investigative agency of Congress, reported that the federal BOP does not
“regularly track or calculate the cost of housing inmates in segregated housing units,” but that these
units are significantly more expensive to operate than traditional maximum-security units where
prisoners are housed in general population. This disparity is largely due to the high staffing needs of
segregated housing units; at one federal prison, the GAO found, the prisoner-to-correctional officer ratio
in a secure housing unit is about a third of the ratio for high-security general population. A 2007 estimate
from Arizona put the annual cost of holding a prisoner in solitary confinement at approximately $50,000,
compared to about $20,000 for the average prisoner.96 In Maryland, the average cost of housing a
prisoner in segregation is three times greater than in a general population facility; in Ohio and
Connecticut it is twice as high; and in Texas the costs are 45% greater. 97

Are there better alternatives?
Yes. Respected national standards as well as proven successful reforms, offer guidelines for different
approaches to limiting the use of solitary confinement. The good news is that many state departments
of corrections and other detention systems around the country are beginning to reform the ways they
use solitary confinement.
The ABA’s Standards for Criminal Justice, Treatment of Prisoners provide helpful guidelines for systemic
reform of solitary confinement. The recommendations presented in the Standards address many aspects
of solitary confinement (the Standards use the term “segregated housing”), and represent a consensus
view of professionals from all segments of the criminal justice system.98 The Standards include
requirements for the provision of adequate and meaningful process prior to placing or retaining a
prisoner in segregation (ABA Treatment of Prisoners Standard 23-2.9 [hereinafter cited by number
only]); limitations on the duration of disciplinary segregation and the least restrictive protective
segregation possible (23-2.6, 23-5.5); allowing social activities such as in-cell programming, access to
television, phone calls, and reading material, even for those in isolation (23-3.7, 23-3.8); decreasing
The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 11

sensory deprivation by limiting the use of auditory isolation,
deprivation of light and reasonable darkness, and punitive
diets (23-3.7, 23-3.8); allowing prisoners to gradually gain
more privileges and be subject to fewer restrictions, even if
they continue to require physical separation (23-2.9);
refraining from placing prisoners with serious mental illness
in segregation (23-2.8, 23-6.11); and careful monitoring of
prisoners in segregation for mental health deterioration
and provision of appropriate services for those who
experience such deterioration (23-6.11).

Federal Reforms

“Humans cannot survive without
food, water, and sleep, but they
also cannot survive without hope.
Years on end in solitary . . . will
drain that hope from anyone,
because, in solitary, there is
nothing to live for.”
- Damon Thibodeaux, survivor

In June 2012, Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois held the first
ever congressional hearing on solitary confinement, and in February 2014 Senator Durbin held a followup hearing on the subject. In his closing remarks at the second hearing, Senator Durbin declared that
solitary confinement is overused across the country, and that children, pregnant women, and people
with serious mental illness should never be subjected to the practice.99
As a result of these hearings, the federal BOP has faced greater scrutiny of its solitary confinement and
isolation policies and practices. In May 2013, GAO issued a damning report on BOP’s use of solitary
confinement, finding that BOP has never assessed whether the practice contributes to prison safety. 100
The GAO report also criticized BOP for its failure to assess the psychological effects of long-term
segregation, although its own Psychology Services Manual notes that extended periods in segregation
“may have an adverse effect on the overall mental status of some individuals.”101 Facing mounting
scrutiny from Congress and the public, BOP has announced that it has reduced its segregated population,
and has agreed to a comprehensive and independent assessment of its use of solitary confinement. 102
More sweeping systemic reforms are also underway in another large federal system. In September 2013,
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) imposed monitoring requirements and substantive
limits on the use of solitary confinement. The directive, which applies to over 250 immigration detention
facilities, requires that any placement in solitary confinement for longer than 14 days receive field office
director approval; it also places substantive safeguards on “protective” segregation of vulnerable
individuals.103 Because ICE is comparable to BOP in many ways, including its extensive national network
of government-run and private contract facilities, the ICE directive sets a strong example of rigorous
monitoring and substantive requirements which BOP can and should follow.

State Reforms
Numerous states have taken steps to investigate, monitor, reduce, and reform their use of solitary. These
reforms have resulted from litigation, agency initiative, and legislative action. A growing number of state
corrections officials have taken direct steps to regulate the use of solitary confinement for prisoners
with mental illness. Responding to litigation that was settled in 2012, the Massachusetts Department of
Correction rewrote its mental health care policies to exclude prisoners with severe mental illness from

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 12

long-term segregation and designed two maximum security mental health treatment units to divert the
mentally ill out of segregated housing.104 In the Colorado prison system, as of December 2013, wardens
have been directed that prisoners with “major mental illness” are no longer to be placed in
administrative segregation; in 2014 both houses of the Colorado state legislature approved a law
reflecting this change and providing the necessary funding to make it permanent.105 By the end of 2013,
facing mounting public scrutiny of its overuse of solitary confinement, the New York City Department of
Correction had reassigned all detainees with mental illness in “punitive segregation” at Rikers Island jail
to units with more therapeutic resources.106 In 2007, a New York State solitary confinement law was
passed; the law excludes prisoners with serious mental illness from solitary confinement in state prison,
requires mental health monitoring of all prisoners in disciplinary segregation, and creates a nondisciplinary unit for prisoners with psychiatric disabilities where a therapeutic milieu is maintained and
prisoners are subject to the least restrictive environment consistent with their needs and mental
status.107
State correctional leaders have also undertaken more comprehensive reforms, focused on limiting
overall use of solitary confinement. In February 2014, the New York State Department of Corrections
and Community Supervision announced an agreement with the New York Civil Liberties Union to reform
the way solitary confinement is used in New York State’s prisons, with the state taking immediate steps
to remove youth, pregnant women, and the developmentally disabled and intellectually challenged
prisoners from extreme isolation.108 With the agreement, New York State becomes the largest prison
system in the country to prohibit the use of punitive solitary confinement on prisoners under 18.109 In
January 2013, Illinois shuttered its notorious supermax prison, Tamms Correctional Center, a move that
will reportedly save the state over $20 million per year.110 In November 2013, New Mexico’s corrections
secretary outlined a plan to move nonviolent prisoners out of segregation, and to relocate “protective
custody” prisoners to a separate general-population cluster, cutting the state’s segregation population
by half over the next year.111 Almost 10% of New Mexico’s 7,000 prisoners are currently held in
segregated housing, and a recent ACLU report condemned the state’s overuse of segregation.112 In 2012,
the Colorado Department of Corrections undertook an external review by DOJ’s National Institute of
Corrections; the resulting reforms led to the closure of a 316-bed supermax facility, and projected
savings of millions of dollars.113 And in Maine, tighter controls and approval requirements on the use of
SMUs, as well as expanded programming options, led to SMU population reductions of over 50%.114
Other states have also significantly reduced their solitary confinement populations in recent years,
including Mississippi115 and Michigan.116
Reforms to the use of solitary confinement in juvenile justice facilities are also underway. In June 2013,
the governor of Nevada signed into law new restrictions on the isolation of youth in juvenile facilities;
the law places reporting requirements on the use of isolation, and forbids holding a child in room
confinement for longer than 72 hours.117 In 2012, West Virginia’s governor signed into law an outright
ban on the use of punitive isolation in juvenile facilities.118
Lawmakers are also calling for studies to address the impact of solitary confinement. In May 2013, the
Texas legislature passed a bill requiring a comprehensive review of the use of solitary confinement in
adult and juvenile facilities across the state.119 In 2011, the Colorado legislature required a review of
administrative segregation and reclassification efforts for prisoners with mental illness or developmental
The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 13

disabilities.120 In 2011, the New Mexico legislature mandated a study on solitary confinement’s impact
on prisoners, its effectiveness as a prison management tool, and its costs. 121 Similarly, in 2012 the
Lieutenant Governor of Texas commissioned a study on the use of administrative segregation in the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, including the reasons for its use, its impact on public safety and
prisoner mental health, possible alternative prison management strategies, and the need for greater
reentry programming for the population.122 Similar efforts are ongoing in other states; in 2012, the
Virginia Senate passed and sent to the House a joint resolution mandating a legislative study on
alternative practices to limit the use of solitary confinement, cost savings associated with limiting its use,
and the impact of solitary confinement on prisoners with mental illness, as well as alternatives to
segregation for such prisoners.123

Conclusion
The United States uses solitary confinement to an extent unequalled in any other democratic country.
But this has not always been so. The current overuse of solitary confinement is a relatively recent
development that all too frequently reflects political concerns rather than legitimate public safety needs.
Based on decades of empirical research, we know that the human cost of increased physiological and
psychological suffering caused by solitary confinement, coupled with the enormous monetary cost, far
outweighs any purported benefits. Now, to build a fair, effective and humane criminal justice system,
we must work to limit its use overall and to ensure that mentally ill persons and youth are not subject to
its deprivations. 124

1

DANIEL P. MEARS, URBAN INST., EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPERMAX PRISONS 4 (2006).
Angela Browne, Alissa Cambier, Suzanne Agha, Prisons Within Prisons: The Use of Segregation in the United States, 24 FED’L
SENTENCING REPORTER 46 (2011).
3
See Reassessing Solitary Confinement: The Human Rights, Fiscal and Public Safety Consequences: Hearing Before the Sen.
Judiciary Subcomm. on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, 112th Cong. (2012) (statement of Charles E. Samuels
Jr., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons); Suzanne Kirchhoff, Economic Impacts of Prison Growth, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH
SERVICE REPORT FOR CONGRESS (2010) available at www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41177.pdf (p.11 of 39). BOP has recently claimed
that it has decreased the number of prisoners held in its Secure Housing Units (SHU) by 25%. See Statement of Charles E.
Samuels, Jr., Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations,
Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, Hearing on the Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, at 7
(Sept.
19,
2013),
available
at
http://www.fedcure.org/documents/SamuelsWitnessTestimonyHouseJudiciaryHearings19092013(c)FedCURE.pdf.
However, BOP has not publicly elaborated on these changes and on the conditions under which prisoners moved out of SHU
housing are now held.
4
In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 168 (1890) (“[Prisoners subject to solitary confinement] fell, after even a short confinement, into
a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others
still, committed suicide; while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in most cases did not
recover sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent service to the community.”).
5
MEARS, supra note 1, at ii.
2

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 14

6

See, e.g., KERAMET REITER, PAROLE, SNITCH, OR DIE: CALIFORNIA’S SUPERMAX PRISONS & PRISONERS, 1987-2007 47-51 (2010); MAUREEN
L. O’KEEFE, COLO. DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS, ANALYSIS OF COLORADO’S ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION 25 (2005).
7
Eric Lanes, The Association of Administrative Segregation Placement and Other Risk Factors with the Self-Injury-Free Time of
Male Prisoners, 48 J. OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION 529, 532 (2009).
8
Id.
9
Id.
10
Leena Kurki & Norval Morris, The Purposes, Practices, and Problems of Supermax Prisons, 28 CRIME AND JUST. 385, 389 (2001).
11
ABA CRIM. JUST. STANDARDS ON THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS, Standard 23-1.0(r) (2010), available at
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/policy/midyear2010/102i.pdf [hereinafter ABA STANDARDS].
12
Id. at Standard 23-1.0(o).
13
United States Department of Justice, Letter to the Honorable Tom Corbett, Re: Investigation of the State Correctional
Institution at Cresson and Notice of Expanded Investigation, May 31, 2013, at p. 5 (emphasis in original), available at
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/cresson_findings_5-31-13.pdf, citing also to Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S.
209, 214, 224 (2005), where the United States Supreme Court described solitary confinement as limiting human contact for
23 hours per day, and Tillery v. Owens, 907 F.2d 418, 422 (3d Cir. 1990), where the Third Circuit described it as limiting contact
for 21 to 22 hours per day.
14
Atul
Gawande,
Hellhole,
THE
NEW
YORKER,
Mar.
30,
2009,
available
at
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/03/30/090330fa_fact_gawande.
15
See, e.g., Stuart Grassian, Psychopathological Effects of Solitary Confinement, 140 AM. J. OF PSYCHIATRY 1450 (1983); R. Korn,
The Effects of Confinement in the High Security Unit at Lexington, 15 SOC. JUST. 8 (1988); S.L. Brodsky & F.R. Scogin, Inmates in
Protective Custody: First Data on Emotional Effects, 1 FORENSIC REP. 267 (1988); Craig Haney, Mental Health Issues in LongTerm Solitary and ''Supermax'' Confinement, 49 CRIME & DELINQUENCY 124 (2003); Holly A. Miller & G. Young, Prison
Segregation: Administrative Detention Remedy or Mental Health Problem?, 7 CRIMINAL BEHAV. AND MENTAL HEALTH 85 (1997);
HANS TOCH, MOSAIC OF DESPAIR: HUMAN BREAKDOWN IN PRISON (1992).
16
Dr. Hernàn Reyes, The Worst Scars Are in the Mind: Psychological Torture, 89 Int’l Rev. Red Cross 591, 607 (2007).
17
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, ILL-EQUIPPED: U.S. PRISONS AND OFFENDERS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS 149 n. 513 (2003).
18
Organization of American States [OAS], Annex to the Press Release Issued at the Close of the 147th Session: Situation of
Children and Adolescents and Situation of Persons Deprived of Liberty (Apr. 5, 2013), available at
http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2013/023A.asp
19
Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Interim Rep. of the Special
Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, ¶ 77, U.N. Doc. A/66/268 (Aug. 5,
2011) (by Juan Mendez) available at http://solitaryconfinement.org/uploads/SpecRapTortureAug2011.pdf.
20
EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR THE PREVENTION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT, 21ST GENERAL REPORT
OF THE CPT 76 (2011), available at http://www.cpt.coe.int/en/annual/rep-21.pdf.
21

Reyes, supra note 16; Metin Basoglu, et al., Torture vs. Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment: Is the Distinction

Real or Apparent? 64 Arch. of Gen. Psychiatry 277 (2007).
22
Stuart Grassian, Psychopathological Effects of Solitary Confinement, 140 AM. J. OF PSYCHIATRY 1450, 1452 (1983).
23
Id.; Craig Haney, Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and “Supermax” Confinement, 49 CRIME & DELINQ. 124, 130
(2003); see generally Richard Korn, The Effects of Confinement in the High Security Unit at Lexington, 15 Soc. Just. 8 (1988).
24
Grassian, supra note 22, at 1452-53; Haney, supra note 23, at 130, 133; Holly A. Miller, Reexamining Psychological Distress
in the Current Conditions of Segregation, 1 J. OF CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE 39, 48 (1994); see generally Stanley L. Brodsky &
Forest R. Scogin, Inmates in Protective Custody: First Data on Emotional Effects, 1 FORENSIC REP. 267 (1988).
25
Grassian, supra note 22, at 1453; Holly A. Miller & Glenn R. Young, Prison Segregation: Administrative Detention Remedy
or Mental health Problem?, 7 CRIM. BEHAV. & MENTAL HEALTH 85, 91 (1997); Haney, supra note 23, at 130, 134; see generally
HANS TOCH, MOSAIC OF DESPAIR: HUMAN BREAKDOWN IN PRISON (1992).
26
Grassian, supra note 22, at 1453.
27
Id.; Miller & Young, supra note 25, at 92.
28
Grassian, supra note 22, at 1453; Miller & Young, supra note 25, at 92; Haney, supra note 23, at 131.
29
Haney, supra note 23, at 130; see generally Korn, supra note 23.
30
Haney, supra note 23, at 131.
31
Miller & Young, supra note 25, at 91; see generally Korn, supra note 23.
32
Miller & Young, supra note 25, at 91; see generally Korn, supra note 23.
The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 15

33

Haney, supra note 23, at 134; see generally Brodsky & Scogin, supra note 24.
Haney, supra note 23, at 133.
35
Id.
36
Haney, supra note 23, at 137; see generally Brodsky & Scogin, supra note 24.
37
Haney, supra note 23, at 133.
38
Id.
39
Grassian, supra note 22, at 1453; Lanes, supra note 7, at 539-40.
40
Paul Gendreau, N.L. Freedman, G.J.S. Wilde & G.D. Scott, Changes in EEG Alpha Frequency and Evoked Response Latency
During Solitary Confinement, 79 J. OF ABNORMAL PSYCHOL. 54, 57-58 (1972).
41
Testimony of Stuart Grassian, M.D., Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146, 1225 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
42
See Homer Venters et al., Solitary Confinement and Risk of Self-Harm Among Jail Inmates, 104:3 AM. J. PUBLIC HEALTH 442,
442-447 (March 2014), available at http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301742; Expert Report of
Professor Craig Haney at 45-46 n. 119, Coleman v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 8697735 (E.D. Cal 2010) (No: Civ S 90-0520 LKKJFM P). Another study examined the impact of solitary confinement on the amount of time that passes between incidents in
which prisoners harm themselves and found that prisoners in solitary harm themselves on average 17 months earlier than
prisoners in general population. See Lanes, supra note 7, at 539-40.
43
Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Com'n v. Commissioner, Indiana Dept. of Correction, No. 1:08-CV-01317 TWPMJD, 2012 WL 6738517 at *16 (S.D. Ind. Dec. 31, 2012).
44
See AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, POSITION STATEMENT ON SEGREGATION OF PRISONERS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS (2012), available at
http://www.psych.org/File%20Library/Learn/Archives/ps2012 _PrisonerSegregation.pdf (“Prolonged segregation of adult
inmates with serious mental illness, with rare exceptions, should be avoided due to the potential for harm to such inmates.”);
AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE, POLICY NO. 201310 (2013), available at
http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1462 (detailing the public-health harms of solitary
confinement; urging correctional authorities to “eliminate solitary confinement for security purposes unless no other less
restrictive option is available to manage a current, serious, and ongoing threat to the safety of others” and asserting that
“[p]unitive segregation should be eliminated”); MENTAL HEALTH AMERICA, SECLUSION AND RESTRAINTS, POLICY POSITION STATEMENT 24
(2011), available at http://www.nmha.org/positions/seclusion-restraints (“urg[ing] abolition of the use of seclusion . . . to
control symptoms of mental illnesses”); NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS, PUBLIC POLICY PLATFORM SECTION 9.8, available at
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=NAMI_Policy_Platform&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cf
m&ContentID=38253 (“oppos[ing] the use of solitary confinement and equivalent forms of extended administrative
segregation for persons with mental illnesses”); SOCIETY OF CORRECTIONAL PHYSICIANS, POSITION STATEMENT, RESTRICTED HOUSING OF
MENTALLY
ILL
INMATES
(2013),
available
at
http://societyofcorrectionalphysicians.org/resources/positionstatements/restricted-housing-of-mentally-ill-inmates (“acknowledg[ing] that prolonged segregation of inmates with serious
mental illness, with rare exceptions, violates basic tenets of mental health treatment,” and recommending against holding
these prisoners in segregated housing for more than four weeks).
45
Kurki & Morris, supra note 10, at 409.
46
See, e.g., Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming a judgment for plaintiffs in an action alleging, among
other violations, that the overuse of chemical agents on prisoners with mental illness constituted a violation of the Eighth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution); Coleman v. Brown, No. 2:90-cv-00520-LKK-DAD, Doc. 5131 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2014) (in
a case involving extensive video evidence of corrections officers using pepper spray on prisoners with mental illness who had
committed minor rule violations such as refusing to come to their cell doors, ordering state officials to continue reforming
the ways force is used on California prisoners); see also CAROLINE ISAACS & MATTHEW LOWEN, AM. FRIENDS SERV. COMM., BURIED
ALIVE: SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARIZONA’S PRISONS AND JAILS 14 (2007).
47
Id. at 16.
48
Id.; see also Maureen L. O'Keefe, Administrative Segregation From Within: A Corrections Perspective, 88 THE PRISON J. 123,
126 (2008).
49
Karin Grunden, Man found hanging in cell at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, TERRE HAUTE TRIBUNE-STAR, Oct. 1, 2003.
50
Terry Kupers, Isolated Confinement: Effective Method for Behavior Change or Punishment for Punishment’s Sake?, in THE
ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL CRIME AND JUSTICE STUDIES 213, 215-16 (Bruce A. Arrigo & Heather Y. Bersot Eds., 2013).
See also Testimony of Terry A. Kupers, M.D., Jones El. v. Berge, No. 00-C-421-C (W.D. Wis. Sept. 20, 2001) (describing his
observations of psychosis and mental breakdown among prisoners with mental illness who are held in isolation).
51
Federal and state courts have repeatedly held that placing individuals with serious mental illness in such conditions is cruel
and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. See, e.g., Indiana Protection & Advocacy Services
34

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 16

Commission v. Commissioner, 2012 WL 6738517 (S.D. Ind., Dec. 31, 2012) (holding that the Indiana Department of
Correction’s practice of placing prisoners with serious mental illness in segregation constituted cruel and unusual treatment
in violation of the Eighth Amendment); Jones ‘El v. Berge, 164 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1101-02 (W.D. Wis. 2001) (granting a
preliminary injunction requiring the removal of prisoners with serious mental illness from “supermax” prison); Ruiz v.
Johnson, 37 F. Supp. 2d 855, 915 (S.D. Tex. 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 243 F.3d 941 (5th Cir. 2001), adhered to on remand,
154 F. Supp. 2d 975 (S.D. Tex. 2001) (“Conditions in TDCJ-ID’s administrative segregation units clearly violate constitutional
standards when imposed on the subgroup of the plaintiffs’ class made up of mentally-ill prisoners”); Coleman v. Wilson, 912
F. Supp. 1282, 1320-21 (E.D. Cal. 1995) (“defendants' present policies and practices with respect to housing of [prisoners with
serious mental disorders] in administrative segregation and in segregated housing units violate the Eighth Amendment rights
of class members “); Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146, 1265-66 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (holding prisoners with mental illness or
those at a high risk for suffering injury to mental health in “Security Housing Unit” is unconstitutional); Casey v. Lewis, 834 F.
Supp. 1477, 1549-50 (D. Ariz. 1993) (finding Eighth Amendment violation when “Despite their knowledge of the harm to
seriously mentally ill inmates, ADOC routinely assigns or transfers seriously mentally ill inmates to [segregation units]”);
Langley v. Coughlin, 715 F. Supp. 522, 540 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (holding that evidence of prison officials’ failure to screen out from
SHU “those individuals who, by virtue of their mental condition, are likely to be severely and adversely affected by placement
there” states an Eighth Amendment claim); T.R. et al. v. S.C. Dept. of Corrections, C/A No. 2005-CP-40-2925 (S.C. Ct. Comm.
Pleas 5th J. Cir. Jan. 8, 2014) (finding major deficiencies in the Department of Corrections’ treatment of prisoners with mental
illness, including solitary confinement, and ordering defendants to submit a remedial plan). See also Letter from Jocelyn
Samuels, Acting Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civil Rights Div. & David J. Hickton, U.S. Att’y, U.S. Att’y’s Office,
W.D. Penn. to Tom Corbett, Gov. of Pennsylvania, Re: Investigation of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ Use of
Solitary Confinement on Prisoners with Serious Mental Illness and/or Intellectual Disabilities (Feb. 24, 2014), available at
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/pdoc_finding_2-24-14.pdf (finding, after a system-wide investigation, that
state prisons across Pennsylvania “use[] solitary confinement in ways that violate the rights of prisoners with SMI/ID [serious
mental illness and intellectual disabilities],” citing “conditions that are often unjustifiably harsh,” and detailing a number of
other Eighth Amendment violations stemming from the practice of holding prisoners with serious mental illness in solitary
confinement); Letter from Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Att’y Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civil Rights Div. to Tom Corbett, Gov.
of Pennsylvania, Regarding the Investigation of the State Correctional Institution at Cresson (May 31, 2013), available at
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/cresson_findings_5-31-13.pdf; Response of the United States of America
to Defendants’ Motion in Limine No.4: To Exclude the Statement of Interest 2-5, Coleman v. Brown, Case No. 2:90-cv-0520
LKK DAD PC, Doc. No. 4919 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2013) (summarizing the United States government’s position on the applicability
of the Eighth Amendment to the placement of prisoners with serious mental illness in solitary confinement for prolonged
periods of time).
52
AM. PSYCH. ASSOC., POSITION STATEMENTS: SEGREGATION OF PRISONERS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS (2012), available at
http://www.psychiatry.org/advocacy--newsroom/position-statements.
53
Kurki & Morris, supra note 10, at 391.
54
Id. at 390-91.
55
Roy King, The Rise and Rise of Supermax: An American Solution in Search of a Problem?, 1 PUNISHMENT & SOC. 163, 177
(1999).
56
Haney, supra note 15, at 127.
57
See Howard Greninger, Suit Targets Carlisle Prison, TERRE HAUTE TRIBUNE-STAR, Feb. 4, 2005.
58
See, e.g., James Ridgeway & Jean Casella, Locking Down The Mentally Ill: Solitary Confinement Cells Have Become America’s
New Asylums, THE CRIME REP., Feb.20, 2010, http://www.thecrimereport.org/archive/locking-down-the-mentally-ill; MARY BETH
PFEIFFER, CRAZY IN AMERICA: THE HIDDEN TRAGEDY OF OUR CRIMINALIZED MENTALLY ILL (2007); JENNIFER R. WYNN, ALISA SZATROWSKI &
GREGORY WARNER, THE CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK, MENTAL HEALTH IN THE HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS: A STUDY OF MENTAL
HEALTH CARE IN NEW YORK STATE PRISONS 48 (2004). For a recent indictment of states’ and the federal government’s practices of
warehousing people with mental illness in prisons, see generally Nicholas Kristof, Inside a Mental Hospital Called Jail, N.Y.
TIMES, Feb. 9, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/inside-a-mental-hospital-called-jail.html (not
focusing on solitary confinement.
59
Kurki & Morris, supra note 10, at 411-12.
60
See, e.g., DiMarco v. Wyoming Dept. of Corrections, 473 F.3d 1334 (10th Cir. 2007) (overturning a judgment for the plaintiff
in an action alleging a due process violation for an intersex woman who had been housed in solitary confinement in a men’s
prison).

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 17

61

Sylvia Rivera Law Project, “Its war in here: A Report on the Treatment of Transgender and Intersex People in New York
State Men’s Prisons” 17-19 (2007), http://srlp.org/files/warinhere.pdf
62
National Standards to Prevent, Detect and Respond to Prison Rape, Docket No. OAG-131, (May 16, 2012) (to be codified at
28 C.F.R. pt. 115), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/pdfs/prea_final_rule.pdf.
63
See
ALONE
AND
AFRAID,
AMERICAN
CIVIL
LIBERTIES
UNION
(2013),
available
at
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Alone%20and%20Afraid%20COMPLETE%20FINAL.pdf (summarizing the issues related to
the use of solitary confinement in juvenile justice facilities); NO CHILD LEFT ALONE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (2013), available
at https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/toolkit_juvenile_solitary_briefing_paper_final.pdf (summarizing the issues related to
the use of solitary confinement of children in adult facilities).
64
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH & THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GROWING UP LOCKED DOWN: YOUTH IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN JAILS AND
PRISONS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, 132 (2012), available at http://www.aclu.org/growinguplockeddown; WASH. COAL. FOR THE JUST
TREATMENT OF YOUTH, A REEXAMINATION OF YOUTH INVOLVEMENT IN THE ADULT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN WASHINGTON: IMPLICATIONS OF
NEW FINDINGS ABOUT JUVENILE RECIDIVISM AND ADOLESCENT BRAIN DEVELOPMENT 8 (2009), available at
http://www.columbialegal.org/files/JLWOP_cls.pdf.
65
Sandra Simkins, et al., The Harmful Use of Isolation in Juvenile facilities: The Need for Post-Disposition Representation, 38
WASH.
U.
J.L.
&
POL’Y
241
(2012),
available
at
http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=wujlp; LINDSAY M. HAYES, NAT’L CTR. ON
INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES JUVENILE SUICIDE IN CONFINEMENT: A NATIONAL SURVEY 40 (2004).
66
AM. ACAD. OF CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY, POLICY STATEMENT ON SOLITARY CONFINEMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS (Apr. 2012),
available at http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policy_statements/solitary_confinement_of_juvenile_offenders; Simkins et al.,
supra note 65.
67
Jay N. Giedd, Structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Adolescent Brain, 1021 ANNALS N.Y. ACAD. SCI. 77 (2004),
available at http://intramural.nimh.nih.gov/research/pubs/giedd05.pdf; Laurence Steinberg, Cognitive and Affective
Development
in
Adolescence,
9
TRENDS
IN
COGNITIVE
SCI.
69
(2005),
available
at
http://www.temple.edu/psychology/lds/documents/CognitiveandAffectiveDEvelopmentTICS.pdf.
68
HAYES, supra note 65, at 28; Seena Fazel et al., Suicide in Prisoners: A Systematic Review of Risk Factors, 69 J. CLINICAL
PSYCHIATRY 1721 (2008); see CHRISTOPHER MUOLA, U.S. DEPT. OF JUST., SUICIDE AND HOMICIDE IN STATE PRISONS AND LOCAL JAILS 9 (2005),
available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/shsplj.pdf.
69
CAMPAIGN FOR YOUTH JUSTICE, JAILING JUVENILES: THE DANGERS OF INCARCERATING YOUTH IN ADULT JAILS IN AMERICA 10 (2007), available
at http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/documents/CFYJNR_JailingJuveniles.pdf.
70
Concerning Pretrial Detention of Juveniles Prosecuted as Adults: Hearing on HB 12-1139 Before the H. Comm. on Judiciary,
68th General Assem. (Colo. 2012) (statement of Peg Ackerman, County Sheriffs of Colorado), available at http://podcache101.granicus.com/pstore1/coloradoga/coloradoga_d0c9ed72-c055-4de2-8a9a-730e8104df44.mp4; see Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1450 (2004) (in which several provisions do not generally apply to disabled
children convicted as adults and incarcerated in adult prisons), available at http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.html;
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY GUIDELINES ADVISORY COMM., PHYSICAL ACTIVITY GUIDELINES ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT (2008) (recommending that
youth engage in moderate to vigorous physical exercise three to five times a week), available at
http://www.health.gov/PAguidelines/Report/pdf/CommitteeReport.pdf; U.S. DEPT. OF AGRIC., U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUM.
SERV., DIETARY GUIDELINES FOR AMERICANS (2010) (recommending diet management and increased physical activity to improve
public health), available at http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/PolicyDoc/PolicyDoc.pdf; David
E. Arredondo, Principles of Child Development and Juvenile Justice: Information for Decision-Makers, 5 J. CENTER FOR FAM., CHILD
&CTS. 127 (2004).
71
U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUM. SERV., EFFECTS ON VIOLENCE OF LAWS AND POLICIES FACILITATING THE TRANSFER OF YOUTH FROM THE JUVENILE
TO THE ADULT JUSTICE SYSTEM: A REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE ON COMMUNITY PREVENTIVE SERVICES 6-8 (2007),
available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5609.pdf; BARRY HOLMAN & JASON ZIEDENBERG, JUSTICE POLICY INST., THE DANGERS
OF DETENTION (2006), available at http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/06-11_REP_DangersOfDetention_JJ.pdf.
72
ATTORNEY GENERAL’S NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE, REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S NATIONAL TASK FORCE
ON CHILDREN EXPOSED TO VIOLENCE, DEFENDING CHILDHOOD: PROTECT, HEAL, THRIVE, 115, 125 (2012), available at
http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/cev-rpt-full.pdf.
73
The Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment, Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Human Rights Council on torture and other cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, delivered to the General Assembly, U.N. Doc. A/66/268 (Aug. 5, 2011) [hereinafter
Special Rapporteur]. See also HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH & THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, GROWING UP LOCKED DOWN: YOUTH IN
The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 18

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN JAILS AND PRISONS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, 132 (2012), available at
http://www.aclu.org/growinguplockeddown.
74
National Standards to Prevent, Detect and Respond to Prison Rape, Docket No. OAG-131, (May 16, 2012) (codified at 28
C.F.R. pt. 115), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/pdfs/prea_final_rule.pdf.
75
Id.
76
Chad S. Briggs, et al., The Effect of Supermaximum Security Prisons on Aggregate Levels of Institutional Violence, 41
CRIMINOLOGY 1341, 1341-42 (2006).
77
Id. at 1365-66.
78
REITER, supra note 5, at 44-46.
79
Jeff Gerritt, Pilot Program in UP Tests Alternatives to Traditional Prison Segregation, DETROIT FREE PRESS, January 1, 2012,
available at www.frep.com/fdcp/?unique=1326226266727.
80
See Terry A. Kupers et al., Beyond Supermax Administrative Segregation: Mississippi’s Experience Rethinking Prison
Classification and Creating Alternative Mental Health Programs, 36 CRIM. JUST. & BEHAV. 1037, 1041 (2009); John Buntin,
Exodus: How America’s Reddest State – And Its Most Notorious Prison – Became a Model of Corrections Reform, 23 GOVERNING
20, 27 (2010).
81
Kurki & Morris, supra note 10, at 391.
82
Id.
83
Id.
84
Id. at 416-17.
85
See, e.g., REITER, supra note 5, at 2 (noting that in California nearly 40% of segregated prisoners are released directly to the
community without first transitioning to lower security units); O’Keefe, supra note 5, at 23 (noting that Colorado also releases
about 40% of its supermax population directly to the community).
86
COMMISSION ON SAFETY AND ABUSE IN AMERICA’S PRISONS, CONFRONTING CONFINEMENT 55 (2006), available at
http://www.vera.org/download?file=2845/Confronting_Confinement.pdf (Hon. John J. Gibbons & Nicholas de B. Katzenbach,
Co-Chairs).
87
Stuart Grassian, Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement, 22 J. L. & POL’Y 325, 333 (prepared from a statement given to
the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons) (2006).
88
See, e.g., Timothy Hughes & Doris James Wilson, Reentry Trends in the United States, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statustics (2004), available at http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/reentry.pdf
(reporting that 95% of all state prisoners will eventually be released).
89
REITER, supra note 5, at 50.
90
O’KEEFE, supra note 5, at 25.
91
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE, RECIDIVISM IN CONNECTICUT 41 (2001).
92
COMMISSION ON SAFETY AND ABUSE IN AMERICA’S PRISONS, supra note 90, at 55.
93
Id.
94
Terry Kupers, What To Do with the Survivors? Coping with the Long-term Effects of Isolated Confinement, 35 CRIM. JUST. &
BEHAV. 1005 (2008).
95
ISAACS & LOWEN, supra note 47; Daniel P. Mears & Jamie Watson, Towards a Fair and Balanced Assessment of Supermax
Prisons, 23 JUST. Q. 233, 260 (2006).
96
ISAACS & LOWEN, supra note 47, at 4.
97
MEARS, supra note 1, at 20, 26, 33; Connecticut Department of Correction, Average Daily Expenditure Per Inmate, available
at http://www.ct.gov/doc/cwp/view.asp?a-1505&q=265600.
98
The ABA Criminal Justice Standards on the Treatment of Prisoners (2010) represent the product of a five-year drafting
process, approved by the American Bar Association House of Delegates in February 2010. They are based on constitutional
and statutory law, relevant correctional policies and professional standards, the deep expertise of the drafters who
represented all segments of the criminal justice system, as well as the comments of dozens of additional experts and groups
(among them heads and former heads of correctional agencies, prisoners’ advocacy organizations, and many professional
associations).
The
full
text
of
the
Standards
is
available
at:
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_treatmentprisoners.html
99
See Reassessing Solitary Confinement, DICK DURBIN: US SENATOR FOR ILLINOIS, ASSISTANT MAJORITY LEADER (Feb. 25, 2014),
http://www.durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/videos?ContentRecord_id=4aa1119b-582d-4b48-93c6-d8367d05b5e2.
100
See U.S. GOV’T ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, GAO-13-429, IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED IN BUREAU OF PRISONS’ MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF
IMPACT OF SEGREGATED HOUSING 2, 33 (2013) [hereinafter GAO REPORT ON SEGREGATED HOUSING]. “Segregated housing” refers to
The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 19

housing units in which prisoners are locked in their cells for approximately 23 hours a day, either alone or with a cellmate.
GAO REPORT ON SEGREGATED HOUSING, at 6.
101
Id. at 40.
102
Press Release, Office of Senator Durbin, Durbin Statement on Federal Bureau of Prisons Assessment of its Solitary
Confinement Practices (Feb. 4, 2013), available at http://durbin.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=072604834972-4720-8d43-8fc82a9909ac.
103
See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 11065.1: Review of the Use of Segregation for ICE Detainees (2013),
available at http://www.ice.gov/doclib/detention-reform/pdf/segregation_directive.pdf.
104
See Press Release, U.S. District Court Approves Settlement Reached in Five-Year Litigation Over Solitary Confinement of
Mentally Ill Prisoners, Bingham McCutchen (Apr. 12, 2012), available at http://www.dlc-ma.org/prisonsettlement/index.htm
(“As a result of the litigation, DOC already has implemented significant systemic reforms, including a mental health
classification system, a policy to exclude inmates with severe mental illness from long-term segregation, and the design and
operation of two maximum security mental health treatment units as alternatives to segregation.”); Settlement Agreement,
Disability Law Center, Inc. v. Massachusetts Department of Correction, et al., Civil Action No. 07-10463 (MLW).
105
See Memorandum from Lou Archuleta, Interim Director of Prisons, Colorado Department of Corrections, to Wardens,
Offender Services (Dec. 10, 2013) (directing wardens to no longer refer prisoners with “major mental illness” or “MMI
Qualifiers” to administrative segregation, reproducing the wording of a new administrative code section describing the policy,
and noting that the Department is “working to move” MMI prisoners out of administrative segregation), available at
http://acluco.org/sites/default/files/Memo%20Mental%20Health%20Qualifiers%20Ad%20Seg%20MEMO%20%282%29.pdf. See also
Restrictions on Solitary Confinement Pass Colorado House, Fox21 Continuous News Desk (Apr. 28, 2014),
http://www.fox21news.com/news/story.aspx?id=1036929#.U17XBle5LJY (reporting that Colorado SB 64, which will limit
solitary confinement for prisoners with serious mental illness, passed the house on April 28, 2014; the bill is expected to be
signed into law by the governor).
106
See Sean Gardiner, Solitary Jailing Curbed: New York City Department of Correction Stops Solitary Confinement for Mentally
Ill
Inmates
Who
Break
Rules,
WALL
ST.
JOURNAL,
Jan.
5,
2014,
available
at
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304617404579302840425910088?mod=rss_newyork_main.
107
See N.Y. MENTAL HYGIENE LAW § 45.07(z) (2011); N.Y. CORRECTION LAW §§ 137, 401, 401(a) (2008).
108
See Stipulation for a Stay with Conditions, Docket No. 11-CV-2694 (SAS), Peoples v. Fischer, (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2014),
available at http://www.nyclu.org/files/releases/Solitary_Stipulation.pdf.
109
See NYCLU Lawsuit Secures Historic Reforms to Solitary Confinement, NYCLU.org, Feb. 19, 2014,
http://www.nyclu.org/news/nyclu-lawsuit-secures-historic-reforms-solitary-confinement; Benjamin Weiser, New York State
to Limit Use of Solitary Confinement, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 19, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/nyregion/new-yorkstate-agrees-to-big-changes-in-how-prisons-discipline-inmates.html.
110
See Tamms Supermaximum Security Prison Now Closed, Amnesty International, Jan. 10, 2013,
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/latest-victories/tamms-supermaximum-security-prison-now-closed; Steve Mills,
Quinn’s Prison Plan Causes Stir, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, Feb. 23, 2012, available at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-0223/news/ct-met-illinois-state-budget-prisons-20120223_1_super-max-maximum-security-prison-maximum-securityinmates; Dave McKinney and Andrew Maloney, Gov. Pat Quinn: Close super-max downstate Tamms prison, CHICAGO SUN TIMES,
February 22, 2012, available at http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/10785648-418/gov-pat-quinn-close-super-maxdownstate-tamms-prison.html.
111
Associated Press, New Mexico Prisoner Segregation Under Review, LAS CRUCES SUN-NEWS, Nov. 24, 2013, http://www.lcsunnews.com/las_cruces-news/ci_24592049/new-mexico-prisoner-segregation-under-review.
112
NEW MEXICO CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY & ACLU OF NEW MEXICO, INSIDE THE BOX: THE REAL COSTS OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN NEW
MEXICO’S PRISONS AND JAILS (2013), available at http://nmpovertylaw.org/WP-nmclp/wordpress/WP-nmclp/wordpress/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/Solitary_Confinement_Report_FINALsmallpdf.com_.pdf
113
COLO. DEP’T OF CORR., REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION PLAN 1-2 (2012), available at
https://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/report-co-docs-implementation-administrative-segregation-plan; see also Denise
Maes, Guest Column: Solitary Confinement Reform is Welcome Sign of Progress, COLORADO SPRINGS GAZETTE, Jan. 27, 2012,
available at www.gazette.com/common/printer/view.php?db=colgazette$id=132524; News Release, Colo. Dep’t of Corr.,
The Department of Corrections Announces the Closure of Colorado State Penitentiary II (March 19, 2012), available at
http://www.doc.state.co.us/sites/default/files/Press%20release%20CSP%20II%20close%20%20Feb%201%202013.pdf.

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 20

114

See Lance Tapley, Reform Comes to the Supermax, PORTLAND PHOENIX, May 25, 2011, available at
http://portland.thephoenix.com/news/121171-reform-comes-to-the-supermax/.
115
The state of Mississippi saved $8 million annually and saw a 70% reduction in violence levels when it closed an entire
solitary confinement unit. See Kupers et al., supra note 81; Buntin, supra note 81.
116
In Michigan, new segregation parameters have led to fewer violent incidents. See Gerritt, supra note 80.
117
See Nev. SB 107, available at http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Reports/history.cfm?billname=SB107.
118
See Associated Press, W.Va. Ends Solitary Confinement for Juveniles, TIMES W.V., Apr. 26, 2012, available at
http://www.timeswv.com/westvirginia/x130096856/W-Va-ends-solitary-confinement-for-juveniles.
119
S.B.
1003,
Leg.
Session
83(R)
(Tex.
2013),
available
at
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/billlookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=SB1003#.
120
S. B. 176, 68th Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Colo. 2011).
121
H. Mem. 62, 50th Leg., 1st Sess. (N.M. 2011).
122
Press Release, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, Lt. Governor Dewhurst Issues Select Interim Charges Relating to
Transportation,
Homeland
Security
and
Criminal
Justice
(Jan.
13,
2012),
available
at
http://www.ltgov.state.tx.us/prview.php?id=337.
123
See S. J. Res. 93, 2012 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Va. 2012) (the bill was subsequently tabled in the Virginia House Rules Committee
and was not enacted into law); Study on Solitary Confinement, ACLU Virginia, available at http://acluva.org/8628/study-onsolitary-confinement/. In 2009, Maine’s legislature also considered a bill that would have required a study of the use of
solitary confinement in state prisons, as well as placing substantive limits on the practice. See L.D. 1611/H.P. 1139, Resolve
216 (Me. 2009) (signed in alternate form by the governor as a “resolve” requiring a review and report to the legislature).
124
Quotations in block quotes throughout this paper come from the following sources: Podcast: Sarah Shourd tells of Her 410
Days in Solitary Confinement, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, available at https://www.aclu.org/prisoners-rights/sarah-shourd410-days-solitary-confinement (Sarah Shourd was one of three American hikers captured by the Iranian government near the
Iraq-Iran border in 2009. Ms. Shourd was held captive in solitary confinement in Iran for 410 days); Oral Testimony of Anthony
Graves, Reassessing Solitary Confinement, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights
and Human Rights (June 21, 2012) (Graves is a death row exoneree who spent over a decade in solitary confinement on death
row as punishment for a crime he did not commit); ALONE & AFRAID: CHILDREN HELD IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT AND ISOLATION IN
JUVENILE DETENTION AND CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (2013), available at
https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Alone%20and%20Afraid%20COMPLETE%20FINAL.pdf; Rick Raemisch, My Night in
Solitary, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 20, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/21/opinion/my-night-in-solitary.html; Oral Testimony
of Damon Thibodeaux, Reassessing Solitary Confinement II, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights (Feb. 25, 2014) (Thibodeaux is a death row exoneree who spent 15 years in solitary
confinement as punishment for a crime he did not commit).

The Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement in the United States | 21

Appendix A:
Laws Limiting or Requiring Study of Solitary Confinement

State

Citation,
Title,
and Link

AK

Alaska
Delinq. R. 13
(2012).
Judge’s
Responsibili
ty
Concerning
Conditions
of
Detention.
http://court
s.alaska.gov
/del.htm#13
. But see
Alaska
Admin. Code
tit. 7 §§
52.900(16).

CO

SB 64
(2014). Use
of Isolated
Confinemen
t: Mental
Illness.
http://legisc
an.com/CO/
bill/SB064/2
014.

CO

SB 11-176
(2011).
Concerning
Appropriate
Use of
Restricted
Confinemen
t.
http://www.
leg.state.co.
us/clics/clics
2011a/csl.ns
f/fsbillcont3
/A88F4FFC7

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Law

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

Statutory ban on
“solitary
confinement for
punitive reasons”
for juveniles. (Note
admin. policies
define “secure
confinement” as
including isolation
“for the purposes
of safety, security,
or discipline.”)

Requires review
of all prisoners in
isolation and
removal of
prisoners with
serious mental
illness from
isolation, and
provides funding
to facilitate these
actions.

Requires removal
of all prisoners
with Serious
Mental Illness from
isolation, and
provides
appropriate
funding.

Requires annual
report to
legislature on
status of ad seg,
including
reclassification
efforts for
prisoners with
mental illness or
developmental
disabilities,
duration of stay,
reason for
placement, and
Appendix A: Page 1 | Laws Limiting or Requiring Study of Solitary Confinement

State

Citation,
Title,
and Link
95C5C79872
578080080E
624?open&f
ile=176_enr.
pdf.

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Law

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

number
discharged, plus
internal reform
efforts.

CT

Conn. Gen.
Stat. Ann. §
46b-133
(2012).
Arrest of
child ….
Admission
of child to
juvenile
detention
center.
http://www.
cga.ct.gov/2
013/pub/ch
ap_815t.ht
m#sec_46b133.

Applies to preadjudication
juvenile facilities:
Ban on
juvenile “solitary
confinement” of
youth held in
detention (but no
definition of the
term, allowing for
ambiguity in
agency policy).

CT

Conn. Gen.
Stat. Ann. §
17a-16(d)(1)
(2014).
Rights of
children and
youths
under the
supervision
of the
Commission
er of
Children
and
Families.
http://www.
cga.ct.gov/2
013/pub/ch
ap_319.htm
#sec_17a16. But see

Applies to postadjudication
juvenile facilities:
Places limits on
“seclusion” except
when youth is out
of control and/or
dangerous.
However, agency
regulation seems
to allow
disciplinary
seclusion.

Appendix A: Page 2 | Laws Limiting or Requiring Study of Solitary Confinement

People with
Mental Illness

State

Citation,
Title,
and Link

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Law

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

Conn.
Agencies
Regs. § 17a16-11
(2014).
ME

LD 1611
(2010).
State Prison
Solitary
Confinemen
t Review.
http://votes
mart.org/bill
/votes/2975
6#.U7VmlxB
dWAg.

ME

Me. Rev.
Stat. tit. 34A § 3032 (5)
(2006).
Disciplinary
Action.
http://www.
mainelegisla
ture.org/legi
s/statutes/3
4-A/title34Asec3032.ht
ml.

MI

Public Acts
of 2013: Act
No. 59
(2013).
Appropriati

Charged
corrections
officials with
reviewing due
process
procedures and
classification
policies for
“special
management”
prisoners.
Resulted in a
detailed study
and report to the
legislature, which
in turn coincided
with various
major reforms.
Prohibition on
disciplinary
“confinement to a
cell” and
“segregation”
(defined as
separation from
general population
for administrative
or punitive
reasons) as
punishment at
juvenile
correctional
facilities.
Forbids placement
of prisoners with
SMI in ad seg due
to mental illness.
Requires 12-hour
Appendix A: Page 3 | Laws Limiting or Requiring Study of Solitary Confinement

State

Citation,
Title,
and Link

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Law

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

ons Bill.
(Previously
SB 4328.)

medical checks on
SMI prisoners in ad
seg, and annual
DOC report to
legislature on
number of SMI
prisoners in ad seg,
and duration of
placement. Also
requires that
reports on prisoner
suicides include
whether prisoner
was in ad seg.

http://www.
legislature.
mi.gov/(S(bg
tjdl45aaluqf
55up52sziq)
)/mileg.aspx
?page=getO
bject&objec
tName=201
3-HB-4328.

NV

Nev. Rev.
Stat. §
62B.215
(2013).
Conditions
and
limitations
on use of
corrective
room
restriction
by certain
facilities for
detention of
children;
reporting
requiremen
t.
http://www.
leg.state.nv.
us/NRS/NRS
-062B.html.

NM

S. Mem. 40,
50th Leg.,
1st Sess.
(2011). A
Memorial

People with
Mental Illness

Juvenile solitary
confinement
requires special
approval and
extensive
monitoring and
reporting, is only
allowed after
alternatives have
been exhausted,
and may not last
longer than 72
hours.

Mandates a study
by a working
group appointed
by legislative
committee,
Appendix A: Page 4 | Laws Limiting or Requiring Study of Solitary Confinement

State

Citation,
Title,
and Link
requesting
…
information
regarding
the use of
solitary
confinemen
t in New
Mexico….
http://www.
sos.state.nm
.us/uploads/
files/Bills201
1/Memorial
s/SM40.pdf.

NY

N.Y. Cor.
Law Sec. 137
(2008).
Program of
treatment,
control,
discipline at
correctional
facilities.
http://asse
mbly.state.n
y.us/leg/?de
fault_fld=&b
n=S06422&t
erm=2007&
Text=Y.

OK

Okla. Stat.
tit. 10A, § 27-603(A)
(2013).
Rules,
policies and
procedures
required in
facilities.

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Law

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

reported to the
legislature, on the
impact of solitary
confinement on
prisoners, its
effectiveness as a
prison
management
tool, and its costs.

Requires that
prisoners with SMI
who face
disciplinary
segregation that
could exceed 30
days be diverted to
a residential
mental health
treatment unit
established by
statute for the
treatment of
prisoners who
suffer from mental
illness but do not
require
hospitalization.
Defines SMI.
Ban on
punitive juvenile
solitary
confinement;
defines solitary
confinement as
“involuntary
removal of a
juvenile from
Appendix A: Page 5 | Laws Limiting or Requiring Study of Solitary Confinement

State

Citation,
Title,
and Link

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Law

http://www.
oklegislature
.gov/osstatu
estitle.html.

TX

Tex. Sess.
Law Serv.
Ch. 1184
(S.B.
1003/HB
1266)
(2013). A
Review of
and Report
Regarding
the Use of
Adult and
Juvenile
Administrati
ve
Segregation
in Facilities
in this State.
http://www.
legis.state.tx
.us/tlodocs/
83R/billtext/
pdf/SB0100
3F.pdf.

WV

W. Va. Code
§ 49-5-16a
(1998).
Rules
Governing
Juvenile
Facilities.
http://law.ju
stia.com/co
des/west-

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities
contact with other
persons by
confinement in a
locked room,
including the
juvenile's own
room, except
during normal
sleeping hours.”

Amidst several
proposed
reforms, Texas
passed legislation
to review the use
of solitary
confinement.
Requires
formation of an
independent,
third-party task
force to “conduct
a comprehensive
review of
administrative
segregation and
seclusion policies
and practices” in
state adult and
juvenile facilities.
Requires a report
to the governor
and legislature.
Statutory ban on
punitive solitary
confinement of
juveniles and on
“lock[ing a youth]
alone in a room
unless that juvenile
is not amenable to
reasonable
direction and
Appendix A: Page 6 | Laws Limiting or Requiring Study of Solitary Confinement

People with
Mental Illness

State

Citation,
Title,
and Link
virginia/201
3/chapter49/article5/section49-5-16a/.
But see W.V.
Div. Juvenile
Serv., Pol’y
330.00,
Resident
Discipline,
Proc. 6 Cat. I
(permitting
up to 10
days room
confinement
as a
sanction for
certain
offenses).

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Law

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities
control.” (Note
that administrative
policy permits
room confinement
as a sanction).

Appendix A: Page 7 | Laws Limiting or Requiring Study of Solitary Confinement

People with
Mental Illness

Appendix B:
Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills

State

CA

CA

CA

Bill
Number
and Title,
Status, and
Link
AB 1652:
Inmates:
Prison
Gangs.
Refused
passage in
Assembly
vote
5/28/14.
http://bit.ly/
1lw5wq0.
SB 892:
State
Prisons. Rereferred to
Assembly
Committee
on
Appropriatio
ns 6/25/14.
http://leginf
o.legislature
.ca.gov/face
s/billNavClie
nt.xhtml?bill
_id=201320
140SB892.

Cal. S.B. 61:
An act to
amend . . .
the Welfare
and
Institutions

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Bill

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

Proposed reforms
to classification of
prisoners in
segregated
housing based on
gang affiliation

Among other
proposed
reforms, would
require due
process including
Inspector General
review prior to
SHU placement
due to alleged
gang affiliation;
review of
indefinite-term
SHU placements;
specialized
behavior plans to
promote
reintegration
from SHU back to
general
population; and
mental health
screening/assess
ment of SHU
prisoners.
Would ban juvenile
solitary
confinement
except in limited
cases (“immediate
and substantial risk

Appendix B: Page 1 | Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills

State

FL

Bill
Number
and Title,
Status, and
Link
Code,
relating to
juveniles.
Filed as
inactive
4/29/14;
Legislature
adjourned
without
further
action.
http://www.
leginfo.ca.go
v/cgibin/postque
ry?bill_num
ber=sb_61&
sess=CUR&h
ouse=B&aut
hor=yee_%3
Cyee%3E
SB 812/HB
959: Youth
in Solitary
Confinemen
t. House
hearing
3/18/13;
Legislature
adjourned
without
further
action.
http://www.
flsenate.gov
/Session/Bill
/2013/0812/
BillText/File
d/PDF.

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Bill

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

of harm to others
or to the security
of the facility, and
all other lessrestrictive options
have been
exhausted”),
address mental
health issues
related to behavior
problems, and
require transfer to
mental health
treatment facility
in some cases.

Would strictly
regulate the
isolation of youth
under 18 in jails and
prisons. 24-hour
max for “emergency
isolation,” only
permitted after
exhaustion of
alternatives, MH
eval after one hour,
72 hours max for
disciplinary reasons
after due process, 5
hours out of cell for
youth in protective
custody, among
other protections.
Also would require
data reporting.

Appendix B: Page 2 | Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills

State

MD

MA

Bill
Number
and Title,
Status, and
Link
SB0861/HB0
787:
Corrections
– Isolated
Confinemen
t Study.
Unfavorable
House and
Senate
Judiciary
Committee
Reports
2014;
Legislature
adjourned
without
further
action.
http://mgal
eg.maryland
.gov/webmg
a/frmMain.a
spx?pid=bill
page&stab=
03&id=hb07
87&tab=subj
ect3&ys=20
14RS.
Bill H.1486:
An Act
relative to
the
appropriate
use of
solitary
confinemen
t.
Hearing
scheduled
for 4/28/14
(no update).

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Bill

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

Requiring a thirdparty review of
correctional
facilities relating
to isolated
confinement;
requiring a
correctional
facility to provide
access to all data
necessary for the
review to the
independent third
party; requiring
the independent
third party to
develop specified
recommendations
.

Would require
segregated
housing to be the
briefest term and
under the least
restrictive
conditions
practicable.
Would require
prisoners placed
in segregated
housing to receive
notice and a

Appendix B: Page 3 | Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills

State

Bill
Number
and Title,
Status, and
Link
https://male
gislature.gov
/Bills/188/H
ouse/H1486
.

MA

SB 1133
(2013): An
Act relative
to the
appropriate
use of
solitary
confinemen
t.
Accompanie
d study
order
05/05/14;
Discharged
to
Ethics/Rules
Committee
(see S2117);
Legislature
adjourned
without
further
action.
https://male
gislature.gov
/Bills/188/S
enate/S1133
.

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Bill

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

hearing. Would
limit segregation
to a maximum of
six months
“except in the
most
extraordinary
circumstances”
and set minimum
standards for
humane
treatment.
Calls for
standards prior to
placing a prisoner
in solitary
confinement,
decreases
extreme isolation
conditions,
encourages
individualized
rehabilitation,
programming,
and close mental
health
monitoring.

Appendix B: Page 4 | Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills

State

Bill
Number
and Title,
Status, and
Link

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

MT

LC 2085/ HB
536:
Montana
Solitary
Confinemen
t Act. Died
in Standing
Committee
(House
Judiciary)
4/24/13.
http://open
states.org/m
t/bills/2013/
HB536/.

The bill would
regulate isolation
practices in
prisons,
reforming/
limiting the
isolation of youth
and adults.

NH

N.H. H.B.
480-FN:
Relative to
Solitary
Confinemen
t.
Introduced
1/3/13; Died
in chamber.
http://legisc
an.com/NH/
bill/HB480/2
013.
S1650:
Restricts
placement
of inmates
in certain
housing
units of
State
correctional
facilities.
Referred to
Senate Law

Would reform
several aspects of
solitary
confinement,
including
requiring mental
health screening
and 6-week limit
for disciplinary
seg.

NJ

Study Bill

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

The bill would
regulate isolation
practices in prisons,
reforming/ limiting
isolation of youth
and adults. Among
other reforms,
would prohibit the
prolonged solitary
confinement of
youth under 18, or
solitary
confinement for
more than 3
consecutive days in
a 30 day period.
Would establish
commission to
study solitary
confinement in
NH prisons.

Would place an
absolute ban on
solitary
confinement of
people younger
than 18.

Would place a ban
on solitary
confinement of
people with SMI or
“other significant
mental
impairment.”

Would permit
placement in a
single housing cell
in disciplinary
detention or
administrative
segregation only
when necessary
to protect the
prisoner or
another prisoner
from physical

Appendix B: Page 5 | Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills

State

Bill
Number
and Title,
Status, and
Link
and Public
Safety
Committee
3/17/14.
http://legisc
an.com/NJ/t
ext/S1650/i
d/990620.

NY

A08588/S06
466: An Act
to amend
the
correction
law, in
relation to
restricting
the use of
segregated
confinemen
t and
creating
alternative
therapeutic
and
rehabilitativ
e
confinemen
t options
(HALT
Solitary
Confinemen
t Bill).
Amend/reco
mmit to
Crime
Victims,
Crime and
Correction
(Senate) and

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Bill

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

harm. Would
forbid such
placement for any
other purpose,
including
disciplinary or
administrative.
(Would not,
however, apply to
double-celling.)
Would restrict the
use of segregated
confinement and
create alternative
therapeutic
and rehabilitative
confinement
options; would
limit the length of
time a person
may
be in segregated
confinement and
exclude certain
persons from
being placed in
segregated
confinement.

Appendix B: Page 6 | Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills

State

Bill
Number
and Title,
Status, and
Link

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Bill

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

Correction
(Assembly)
4/23/2014.
http://asse
mbly.state.n
y.us/leg/?de
fault_fld=&b
n=S06466&t
erm=2013&
Summary=Y
&Actions=Y
&Votes=Y&
Memo=Y&T
ext=Y.
NY

A 9286: An
Act to
amend the
correction
law, in
relation to
requiring
structured
out-of-cell
programmin
g for
adolescents
in
segregated
disciplinary
confinemen
t. Referred
to
correction
committee
4/7/14.
http://asse
mbly.state.n
y.us/leg/?de
fault_fld=&b
n=A09286&t

Would amend
existing law to
add a category of
exclusion to the
statute governing
disciplinary
confinement;
would ban
punitive isolation
and placement in
adult segregation
units for prisoners
under 21 (except
for up to 15 days
in emergency
situations
presenting
“unacceptable
risk”); and would
provide that
prisoners under
21 in segregated
confinement must
be given out-ofcell programming

Appendix B: Page 7 | Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills

State

TX

TX

Bill
Number
and Title,
Status, and
Link
erm=2013&
Summary=Y
&Actions=Y
&Votes=Y&
Memo=Y&T
ext=Y.
SB 1517:
Relating to
the
collection of
data
regarding
the
placement
of a child in
disciplinary
seclusion in
a juvenile
facility.
Placed on
House
General
State
Calendar
5/21/13;
Legislature
adjourned
without
further
action.
http://legisc
an.com/TX/
drafts/SB15
17.

HB 686/SB
1802:

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Study Bill

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

and physical
exercise.

The bill would have
regulated
disciplinary
isolation practices
in juvenile
facilities. The
provisions of this
bill would: limit the
use of disciplinary
isolation to four
hours, except in
cases of assault,
escape, or
attempted escape
(but places no time
limits on its use in
such cases);
require that a
youth places in
disciplinary
isolation for more
than one hour
complete a
therapeutic selfanalysis
assignment; and
mandate that
administrators
report data about
the use of
disciplinary
isolation.

Bill would have
required a report

Appendix B: Page 8 | Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills

State

Bill
Number
and Title,
Status, and
Link

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Relating to
the
reporting of
certain
information
regarding
inmates and
the use of
administrati
ve
segregation
by the Texas
Department
of Criminal
Justice. Left
pending in
House
Criminal
Justice
Committee
4/17/13;
Legislature
adjourned
without
further
action.
http://www.
legis.state.tx
.us/tlodocs/
83R/billtext/
pdf/SB0180
2I.pdf#navp
anes=0.

TX

SB 1357:
Relating to
the use of
administrati
ve
segregation
or seclusion

Study Bill

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

on the number of
people in solitary
and the status of
mental health
referrals.

Would have
regulated Ad Seg
in county jails,
established
commission to set
standards for
appropriate use

Would restrict
duration of some
segregation of
youth under 18 in
county jails.

Appendix B: Page 9 | Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills

State

Bill
Number
and Title,
Status, and
Link
in county
jails. Read
and referred
to Senate
Criminal
Justice
Committee
3/18/13;
Legislature
adjourned
without
further
action.
http://www.
legis.state.tx
.us/tlodocs/
83R/billtext/
pdf/SB0135
7I.pdf.

Fed.

H.R. 4618
Solitary
Confinemen
t Study and
Reform Act
of 2014
(Sponsor:
Rep.
Richmond).
Introduced
5/8/14.
https://ww
w.govtrack.
us/congress
/bills/113/hr
4618.

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

of Ad Seg or
seclusion in
county jails. Prior
to placement in
Ad Seg, would
require
consideration of
less-restrictive
measures, mental
health evaluation,
sheriff or
designee
approval, medical
staff review. After
24 hours in
segregation, jail
would develop a
behavioral plan.
Would restrict
duration of some
segregation of
youth under 18.
Would also
require reporting.
Would establish a
commission to
study the practice
of solitary
confinement and
recommend best
practices for
reform; would
require DOJ
to issue
regulations on
best practices
that would bind
federal facilities
and incent
changes in
behavior in state

Study Bill

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

Would establish a
commission to
study the practice
of solitary
confinement and
recommend best
practices for
reform; would
require DOJ
to issue
regulations on
best practices
that would bind
federal facilities
and incent
changes in
behavior in state

Appendix B: Page 10 | Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills

State

Bill
Number
and Title,
Status, and
Link

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

and local prison
systems
Fed.

Fed.

H.R. 4124 –
Protecting
Youth from
Solitary
Confinemen
t Act
(Sponsor:
Rep.
Cardenas).
Referred to
House
Subcommitt
ee on Crime,
Terrorism,
Homeland
Security,
and
Investigatio
ns 4/16/14.
http://beta.
congress.go
v/bill/113thcongress/ho
usebill/4124/te
xt.
S. 2567 –
REDEEM Act
(Sponsors:
Sens.
Booker and
Paul);
Introduced
and referred
to Senate
Committee
on the
Judiciary
7/8/14;

Study Bill

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

and local prison
systems
To ensure that
juveniles
adjudicated in
Federal
delinquency
proceedings are
not subject to
solitary
confinement while
committed to
juvenile facilities.
Would require
reporting of the
most recent data
regarding the rate
at which juveniles
are subject to
solitary
confinement and
the trends
demonstrated by
the data.

Among other
comprehensive
federal criminal
justice reforms,
would limit solitary
confinement of
federally
adjudicated youth
convicted to
temporary,
emergency
situations to
prevent immediate

Among other
comprehensive
federal criminal
justice reforms,
would limit solitary
confinement of
federally
adjudicated youth
convicted to
temporary,
emergency
situations to
prevent immediate

Appendix B: Page 11 | Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills

State

Bill
Number
and Title,
Status, and
Link

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Introduced
in House
7/18/14.
https://beta
.congress.go
v/bill/113thcongress/se
natebill/2567.

Fed.

US S 162:
Justice and
Mental
Health
(Sponsor:
Sen.
Franken).
Placed on
Senate
Legislative
Calendar
under
General
Orders
6/20/13;
Legislature
adjourned
without
further
action.
http://thom
as.loc.gov/cg

Would enhance
screening and
treatment/service
s for prisoners
with mental
illness, medical
needs, substance
abuse, and “social
needs”, including
alternatives to
solitary
confinement and
treatment for
those in solitary
confinement.
Would also train
employees in
identifying and
responding to
mental health
issues.

Study Bill

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

harm to the youth
or others. Would
ban solitary
confinement of
youth for
discipline/punishme
nt or administrative
reasons. Also places
a 3-hour limit on
solitary
confinement of
youth in most cases.
(Youth in the
federal system are
convicted of adult
crimes but generally
held in juvenile
facilities.)

harm to the youth
or others. Would
ban solitary
confinement of
youth for
discipline/punishm
ent or
administrative
reasons. Also
places a 3-hour
limit on solitary
confinement of
youth in most
cases. (Youth in
the federal system
are convicted of
adult crimes but
generally held in
juvenile facilities.)

People with
Mental Illness

Would enhance
screening and
treatment/services
for prisoners with
mental illness,
medical needs,
substance abuse,
and “social needs”,
including
alternatives to
solitary
confinement and
treatment for
those in solitary
confinement.
Would also train
employees in
identifying and
responding to
mental health
issues.

Appendix B: Page 12 | Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills

State

Fed.
(DHS)

Bill
Number
and Title,
Status, and
Link
ibin/bdquery
/z?d113:S16
2:@@@L&s
umm2=m&.
US S 744:
Opportunity
, and
Immigration
Modernizati
on Act
(Sponsor:
Sen.
Schumer).
Passed
Senate
6/27/13;
Legislature
adjourned
without
further
action.
https://ww
w.govtrack.
us/congress
/bills/113/s7
44#summar
y.

Subject Matter
Comprehensive
Reforms

Among other
provisions related
to DHS custody,
would limit the
use of solitary
confinement,
including
prohibiting such
confinement for
persons younger
than 18 years old.

Study Bill

Youth in Adult
Facilities

Youth in Juvenile
Facilities

People with
Mental Illness

Among other
provisions related
to DHS custody,
would limit the use
of solitary
confinement,
including
prohibiting such
confinement for
persons younger
than 18 years old.

Appendix B: Page 13 | Pending or Recently Proposed (2013 or 2014) Solitary Confinement Reform Bills