The unjust nature of solitary confinement

In prison systems, solitary confinement is often used as a punishment for violent or disorderly behavior. Though intended as a last resort, the punishment is unfortunately handed out both freely and frequently. This results in some staggering statistics, such as the fact that on any given day, 8% of prisoners in the US federal prison system are in some sort of solitary confinement. 

This is an issue reflected upon by Brettschneider as well, who mentions that "isolation creates conditions of mental illness, not civic reflection" (145). Indeed, solitary confinement was originally envisioned by legal philosophers as a means for those who have done wrong to "repent" and "reflect" on their actions. However, what should ideally be the case is not oftentimes an accurate reflection of what really is the case. Those in solitary confinement are overwhelmingly more likely to develop mental health issues, and due to the structure of the prison system, would find it extremely difficult to get mental support. What this means is that because they now have an untreated mental illness, it is more likely for them to break prison rules, thus resulting in them being sent back to solitary confinement and making this a cyclical issue. 

This is especially pertinent in the United States because the prison system has become the largest caretaker of the mentally ill in the country. Many states actually rely upon the prison system as the primary caretaker for the mentally ill, seeing as deinstitutionalization efforts under the Kennedy administration had abolished many mental institutions. However, the prison system is obviously not designed for this purpose. It is designed to punish. Furthermore, the use of solitary confinement and other disciplinary measures often result in giving prisoners mental illnesses, rather than alleviating them. This then brings upon the question of whether or not solitary confinement could be considered cruel and unusual punishment (using the phrasing of the Constitution). The fact that mental illnesses have become so prevalent in the prison system, while simultaneously being scantily reported upon goes to show the extent to which our society had become numb to this issue. This therefore leads many to still hold on to the antiquated idea that solitary confinement is an opportunity for "reflection", making those in it better civic participants. However, reality has shown us that not only is this not the case, but it actually serves to worsen the prisoners' mental state, making them less likely to be able to both reflect on their crimes and ultimately be useful members of our society. Thus one could reasonably make the argument that solitary confinement by its very nature is a cruel, and unjust punishment. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Does the social reality imply a natural reality?

I’m very interested in understanding where the boundary between what we might consider the (or a) ‘natural’ reality and our ‘social’ reality occurs. Professor Toole offers a compelling account of how the ideology of the ruling class shapes the body of knowledge and the conceptual tools available to understand social reality. Professor Toole’s account seems to imply the impossibility of social structures as being ‘natural.’ That is, the term natural social structure or formation would be an oxymoron. She writes, “social structures are…constituted by our choices and actions,” (4) which seems to indicate that social structures are the result of human choices and actions, and so they cannot exist in the absence of them. This also seems to suggest a division between our ‘social’ reality exclusively defined by and dependent on human action and choice and a ‘natural’ reality of things not affected by humans, say the ocean and uranium. I am interested in the boundary and relationship between t...
Read more

Is cancel culture democratic (with a small "d" even though it is also Democratic with a big "D")?

Regarding Kara's Post: I want to try and tease out how Kara's blog post fits the college into Anderson's image of a private government. It seems like Kara's suggesting that the college itself is the private government. The professors are the governors and the students are the governed. The college constitutes a government because a government "exists wherever some have the authority to issue orders to others, backed by sanctions" (Anderson 42). Professors can issue orders by assigning tasks students must perform, and professors can sanction students who fail to complete these tasks or fail to do them successfully by giving them poor or failing grades in courses. The college is a private government because the "governed are kept out of decision-making" (45). The students do not, for the most part, come up with their own assignments or come up with grading rubrics for those assignments.  I agree with Kara, based on the image of the college as a private...
Read more

Better Model?

     On page 54, Beitz says that human rights are like natural rights in that they are "critical standards" not determined by legal rules, but unlike natural rights in that they do not presuppose one view about their justification. He seems to be basing this off of Maritain's conclusion that human rights are a common ground for action despite different reasons for justification for different people. He uses this to say that human rights are not "out there" as natural rights are and continues the argument on 57. He argues that there seems to be no good reason for why we should  conceive of human rights as natural ones.      Beitz points to natural rights theorists like Locke, conceived of natural rights " formulate constraints on the use of a government’s coercive power in circumstances of religious and moral diversity" (57). While I suspect that Locke would argue that he had other reasons for posing these as natural rigthts and this was a just a desira...
Read more