Assignment 16- Katie Demos

For the past two and half years of our education here as high schoolers, the importance and stress of the constitution as the “supreme law of the land” has been reiterated time and time again in our heads. The vagueness and occasional modern day irrelevance of some of the amendments frequently offer themselves up as substance for banter between “loose” and “strict” interpreters of the constitution. Of course, as any amendment, the 8th amendment lends itself up to debate and dissent as well.

Even when trying to read between the lines of the 8th amendment, the restrictions against “cruel and unusual punishment” aren’t clearly implied and allow for various, differing interpretations. The 8th amendment and its implications were recently brought to light in the popularity of controversy surrounding Guantanamo Bay. Although the matter ended up being more of an issue with international recognition of human rights, the public latched onto the horror stories of waterboarding, sexual humiliation, and forced drug injections. Similarly, death penalty sentences and death row seem to captivate the media and news headlines. It all circles back to one harped-on debate. How do we define what is “okay” punishment and what is not? In light of action to make certain kinds of of execution illegal, as well as protests against torture deemed inhumane, a less recognized method of abuse sticks out: solitary confinement.

What is solitary confinement? Solitary confinement is forced segregation of inmates within prisons, employed to correct troublesome behavior, whether it be posing a threat to other inmates or violating rules. Prisoners are locked up, away from all other people for 22 or more hours each day for weeks, months, and sometimes even years. As the US incarcerates the highest rates of its citizens in the world, it also holds just over 80,000 criminals in solitary. Conditions of confinement itself differ from place to place, but typically entail small rooms, around 8 x 10 ft, equipped with basic, necessary facilities, sometimes just a toilet and a cot. Usually one hour is devoted to exercise time, which typically takes place in fenced in areas or caged exercise rooms. Rarely are prisoners exposed to sunlight, instead just bright fluorescent lights. If it sounds less than ideal, it’s because it is.

But as with any topic of speech, it’s important that we consider one question-- why should we be concerned? Why is this important for us to talk about? The most obvious case against solitary confinement is its potential array of detrimental psychological consequences. On top of that is the argument that solitary confinement does little to help actually discipline criminals and prevent law breaking behavior, alongside the exorbitant costs to keep someone in solitary. In order to evaluate the overarching judgement as to whether or not solitary confinement should be truly constitutional, it’s important to seriously consider each aspect of the issue.

It’s not too hard to imagine what being alone, away from human contact and regular comforts, can do to mess up someone’s brain. However the experience itself is unreplicable unless you endure it personally. Some consequences of solitary confinement include generalized hypersensitivity to external stimuli; perceptual distortions, hallucinations, and derealization experiences; ideas of paranoia; and problems of impulse control. Additionally, the lack of natural light in most cells can lead to disrupted sleep cycles and irregular circadian rhythm. The sensory deprivation of solitary confinement poses an array of psychological risks.

Solitary confinement doesn’t come without a hefty price tag. It’s been estimated that a year of solitary for one person can cost taxpayers up to $75,000. In 2003 at the Ohio State Penitentiary, the cost of providing for a regular prisoner was less than half of what it took to provide for a prisoner in solitary. Due to the extreme construction and staffing costs, solitary confinement racks up big fees for an already detrimental process.

It’s also easy to forget that the goal of prisons is ultimately to correct behavior and to make it safe to release prisoners back into society as law abiding citizens. Ultimately, prisons aim to decrease recidivism-- the likelihood that a former inmate will commit a crime. The main argument in support of solitary claims that the confinement helps improve the lives of other inmates as well as fixing the behavior of the troublesome prisoner themselves.Yet solitary confinement fails to accomplish this goal, with a study at Florida State University finding that 24.2 percent of inmates held in solitary committed a violent crime 3 years after they were released, compared to 20.5 percent of inmates not kept isolated. If solitary fails to achieve the big-picture goal of prisons, what is it good for?

With the question ultimately concerning constitutionality, it’s not surprising that the case of solitary confinement has been discussed in court. In Madrid v. Gomez, 1995, federal judge Thelton Henderson acknowledged the extremity of confinement, comparing the placement of mentally ill persons in solitary confinement to placing an asthmatic in a place with little air. In 2001 in Ruiz v. Johnson, the federal judge declared that solitary confinement seeded illness in sane prisoners, and worsened the illnesses of those suffering from mental issues. But in each case it was deemed that solitary confinement didn’t reach cruel punishment under the eighth amendment, as it doesn’t branch unreasonably far from sentences already at hand.

Allowing solitary confinement should not be a solely political decision. It shouldn’t be left up to party tendencies, or certain interpretations of the constitution. America is failing to evaluate every aspect of the issue, failing to step back and look at the bigger picture and its consequences for the future. We can’t afford to psychologically test people just because they committed a crime. We can’t afford to send those people back into society worse off than where they started. We also literally cannot afford it.

Don’t sit idly and wait. The decision is in the hands of the people who can and will speak up for change, not those who are locked while we speak.