Prisons Within Prisons: The Use of Segregation in the United States

Abstract

Since the 1980s, departments of corrections have sharply increased the use of segregation as a discipline and management tool. In effect, segregation is a secondary sentence imposed by the correctional facility—one that follows long after and usually is unrelated to the conviction for which the person is incarcerated. The consequences of holding an individual in these conditions over time may include new or exacerbated mental health disturbances, assaultive and other antisocial behaviors, and chronic and acute health disorders. In fact, studies show that prisoners who are released from segregation directly to the community reoffend at higher rates than general-population prisoners. Policy changes that will reduce the use and long-term impact of segregation will benefit not only the staff and prisoners in these units but also ultimately the well-being of facilities, systems, and the community.

Public Health and Solitary Confinement in the United States

“…18,19 Nowadays, solitary confinement is typically used either to punish prisoners for violating rules (known as disciplinary segregation), remove prisoners from the general prison population who are thought to pose a safety risk (known as administrative segregation), or protect vulnerable individuals believed to be at risk in the general prison population. 20 Pelican Bay, the first highsecurity (supermax) prison built solely to house prisoners in segregation, opened in California in 1989. In supermax prisons, all prisoners are held in high levels of confinement in cells designed to restrict visual and tactile contact with others, typically for long periods.…”

Ensnarement During Imprisonment

“…At no point do we recommend endangering staff and inmates to avoid the recidivistic effects of within‐prison ensnarement. First, consistent with prior scholarship (e.g., Arrigo and Bullock, ; Browne et al., ; Henderson, ; Lucas and Jones, ), theoretical reasoning from the ensnarement hypothesis would suggest that limiting the frequency and severity of within‐prison sanctions could provide more favorable recidivism outcomes upon release. Considering that both the frequency and severity of negative life events could result in ensnarement within the antisocial lifestyle, correctional departments could limit ensnarement, and potentially recidivism, by avoiding the use of frivolous or harsh sanctions.…”

“…Nevertheless, although the scholarship has been informative, the theoretical explanations and policy implications have been generally limited, unclear, and primarily focused on reducing or removing practices that are perceived to deprive inmates of social freedoms (Mears, ). Furthermore, the policies generated from deprivation theory often disregard the existence of alternative theoretical explanations for the association between within‐prison sanctioning and recidivism (e.g., Arrigo and Bullock, ; Browne, Cambier, and Agha, ; Henderson, ; Lucas and Jones, ). In an effort to address the limitations of the prior literature, the current article offers a re‐conceptualization and reexamination of the empirical association between within‐prison sanctioning and recidivism in an effort to develop policy implications that are not dependent on deprivation theory and are suitable to a wide variety of correctional departments.…”

Supermax Prisons

“…Descriptive and historical accounts of supermaxes have proliferated over the past decade (see, e.g., Browne, Cambier, and Agha, ; Bruton, ; King, ; Kurki and Morris, ; Mears, ; Neal, ; Rhodes, ; J. I. Ross, ; Shalev, ; Smith, ; U.S. Government Accountability Office, ; Ward and Werlich, ). These accounts typically have highlighted that the idea, or the design, of supermax incarceration originates with the Walnut Street Jail in the late 1700s; Eastern State Penitentiary and Auburn Prison in the early to mid‐1800s; Alcatraz in the mid‐1900s; and, most recently, the Marion, Illinois, federal facility.…”