The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has failed to provide adequate treatment to prisoners with mental illnesses, according to a July 12 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General. Among the OIG’s criticisms are the BOP’s failure to properly track and limit the length of time prisoners spend in “restrictive housing,” and prisons’ inadequate documentation of inmates’ mental illness resulting in inappropriate mental health treatment or no treatment at all. The report highlighted issues with multiple facilities for their mistreatment of mentally ill inmates, but singled out the U.S. Penitentiary (USP) in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, in particular.

The report said the BOP’s failure to document inmates’ mental health diagnoses leaves many cases of mental illness underreported. According to a DOJ survey that was conducted between February 2011-May 2012–which the recent DOJ report was based on–14 percent of state and federal prisoners and 26 percent of jail inmates reported experiencing serious psychological distress (SPD) in the past 30 days. Thirty-seven percent and 44 percent respectively had been told by a mental health professional they had a mental disorder. However, according to Inspector General Michael Horowitz, only 3 percent of BOP sentenced inmates were being treated regularly for mental illness as of 2015. “Without an accurate count of all inmates with mental illness, the BOP is unable to ensure that it is providing appropriate mental health care for its inmates,” Horowitz said in a video message.

According to the DOJ report, the BOP claimed that “the Bureau does not recognize the term solitary confinement. Therefore, the Bureau does not have a definition or a reference to provide.” The BOP also does not clearly define “restrictive housing” or “extended placement.” However, the OIG found that inmates, including those with mental illness, were confined to single-occupant cells, isolated from other inmates, and had little human contact at multiple facilities. At the U.S. Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Security Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, the OIG observed two inmates at the Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU) when they were each confined to single-occupant cells for over 22 hours per day.

Additionally, BOP does not limit how long an inmate can be held in restrictive housing–during individual periods or cumulatively over multiple periods of confinement. The OIG’s sample of inmates with mental illness showed that those inmates had been placed in the ADX for an average of about 69 months. One mentally ill inmate had spent 19 years in an ADX cell before they were transferred to a residential mental health treatment program. That time spent in isolation can be psychologically harmful to prisoners, increase the likelihood of recidivism, and make it more difficult for inmates to re-integrate into society after being released, according to the report.

In May 2014, the BOP adopted a new mental health policy to improve the treatment of inmates with mental illness, including those being held in RHUs. However, after that policy was implemented, the BOP exhibited a 30 percent reduction in the number of inmates receiving regular mental health treatment. Inmates are classified based on Mental Health Care Levels (MHCL) 1-4. MHCL 1, the lowest classification, represents “no significant level of functional impairment associated with a mental illness” and requires no regular mental health intervention. MHCL 4, the highest classification, represents that an “inmate may require inpatient psychiatric care and acute care in a psychiatric hospital.” The policy was meant to increase the number of inmates designated as MHCL 2-4 through proper diagnoses. Due to a lack of staffing and resources, the policy “raised the bar” for determining whether an inmate would receive mental health treatment. Without those upper tier diagnoses, many inmates went without the care they needed, according to the report.

One inmate who arrived at a Special Management Unit (SMU) was diagnosed with three mental disorders and was prescribed medications. The inmate’s psychologist removed him from his medications after claiming the patient was faking his mental illness. “Despite the litany of diagnoses and psychiatric medications [the inmate’s] contacts with psychology staff indicate a clear history of malingering and feigning symptoms to change conditions of his confinement,” the psychologist wrote in their notes. Two of the inmate’s three mental disorders were classified as “no longer current.” One year after arriving at the SMU, the inmate was transferred out for mental health reasons.

The American Correctional Association recommends that single-occupant, restrictive housing cells should be a minimum of 80 square feet with at least 35 square feet of unencumbered space. An unknown number of cells at USP Lewisburg did not meet that standard, according to the report. The BOP said that some cells were only 58.5 square feet. Additionally, the report said USP Lewisburg lacked air conditioning and instead relied on ceiling fans, according to the report. “This is especially troubling since psychotropic medications can hinder the body’s ability to sweat,” the report said. “These conditions can make inmates who take psychotropic medications more prone to heat stroke and heat-related illnesses.”

The DOJ acknowledged that the BOP has taken steps to improve these conditions for mentally ill inmates, such as diverting inmates with serious mental illness from traditional RHUs to residential mental health treatment programs and other alternative programs. However, the DOJ maintained that there are still numerous issues with the BOP system, such as high staffing needs and lack of measurement of programs’ effectiveness.

USP Lewisburg is currently involved in a lawsuit, filed on June 9, in which the prison has been accused of providing poor treatment to mentally ill inmates, such as cutting off medications and swapping crossword puzzles for counseling sessions, according to NPR. One of the plaintiffs in McCreary v. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is Jusamuel Rodriguez McCreary, a Lewisburg inmate who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, mood disorder, psycho-social, and environmental problems, ADHD, and antisocial personality disorder. McCreary attempted suicide on multiple occasions and is now being held in an ADX cell at Lewisburg. He has not left his cell since May 16 and has to yell through his cell door for his weekly, two-minute “therapy” sessions, according to the lawsuit. With the findings from the DOJ’s report, it’s unclear yet exactly how many more cases like McCreary’s there are. But for inmates with mental illness to receive proper health care, big changes must come to the U.S. prison system.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Report Criticizes Prisons’ Treatment of Mentally Ill Inmates appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

New Report Likens Texas Solitary Confinement to Torture

A new report from the Human Rights Clinic at the University of Texas School of Law states that solitary confinement in Texas violates international standards for human rights and amounts to torture. According to Ariel E. Dulitzky, a law professor who co-wrote the report, prisoners that were interviewed in the study suffered psychological problems after being in solitary. They were not allowed to have any contact with other inmates or access to health care, and changes in the execution schedule meant that some prisoners had to prepare for death more than once.

Hey Texas! What are we doing, exactly? Violating international human rights standards? Torturing people? Let’s not! https://t.co/koUEYiRFE9

— Haley Samsel (@haley_samsel) April 27, 2017

Inmates were also not allowed to have any physical contact with family members, even when they were heading to their execution. According to the study, the state of Texas is unique in that it uses all of these policies, while other states may only use one or two. Also, it seems like Texas is using solitary confinement as a general practice, rather than for a specific reason like safety or punishment. But a strong lack of transparency or will to cooperate on behalf of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has obstructed any change.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 27, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

People are Outraged at “Stealthing”

There’s a name for a man removing a condom during sex without his partner’s consent: stealthing. The phenomenon is reportedly on the rise in the U.S., according to a new study by Alexandra Brodsky in the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. Rape victims’ organizations say this kind of behavior needs to be classified as rape. And a lot of people are outraged that this is a “thing.”

Given that “stealthing” puts a victim at risk of pregnancy or disease, and that many people only consent to sex with a condom, this is “experienced by many as a grave violation of dignity,” the study says. And according to Sandra Paul, who is a specialist in sexual crimes, this could amount to legal rape. “There has to be some agreement that a condom is going to be used or there is going to be withdrawal. If that person then doesn’t stick to those rules then the law says you don’t have consent,” she said.

It’s both affirming and terrible to write about an under-acknowledged form of gender violence and hear a chorus of “me, too” in response

— Alexandra Brodsky (@azbrodsky) April 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: April 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Praised as a “tremendous step forward” toward meaningful penal reform, the Mandela Rules provide a framework for what is and is not permissible in terms of detention conditions in prisons across the globe. With 10 million people in prisons worldwide, it’s easy to assume that there is a high demand for the humane treatment of prisoners. However, while the Mandela Rules have been commended for their progressive revisions of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMRs) that have been in place since 1955, there is still no guarantee that prisons, domestically or internationally, will improve.

For a document that is supposed to provide governments the guidelines necessary to ensure that basic rights are afforded to prisoners, the Mandela Rules fail to provide incentives to abide by them or a method of accountability for prisons that break them. Furthermore, the lack of widespread discussion on the new rules is shocking, and perhaps telling of the low level of importance that both the public and politicians place on reforming the criminal justice system. Just like under the previous SMRs that the Mandela Rules revised, prisons will continue to cut corners, mistreat prisoners, and break this agreement unless there is more legal pressure and incentives to treat inmates with dignity.

The SMRs have since 1955 acted as the universally acknowledged minimum standards for the detention of prisoners and for the development of correctional laws, policies, and practices. On May 22^nd of this year, however, the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (the Crime Commission) passed a resolution approving the revised standards, named the Mandela Rules after the late South African President Nelson Mandela who was imprisoned for 27 years. These changes were prompted after a review of the SMRs in place concluded that advancements in human rights discourse since 1955 left the SMRs out of date. The Crime Commission identified nine areas for revision, agreeing that the new standards should reflect advances in technology and society.

Rules on health care, LGBT rights, and solitary confinement are the key modifications in the Mandela Rules, but a prison that does not want to be held accountable for treating inmates with dignity can easily dismantle almost all of the updates. One of the most acclaimed aspects of the new rules is that indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement is prohibited. Solitary is defined as confinement of a prisoner for 22 hours or more a day, and prolonged solitary is defined as confinement for fifteen consecutive days. So solitary confinement for fifteen consecutive days is not allowed, but what about fifteen days in confinement, one day out of confinement, and fifteen more days within? The new Rules have so many loopholes and almost no accountability for the “advances” they claim to make in the treatment of prisoners.

The Rules emphasize that prisoners should be protected from torture and inhumane or degrading treatment and punishment. The United Nations will adopt these Rules later this year, though nothing but the potential for an internationally-backed slap on the wrist will prevent prisons from operating under standard minimums. If anything, the Mandela Rules simply say, “Look, we know prisons are bad, and prisoners are being tortured around the world. There’s not much we care to do about that, but here’s some advice that you should follow if you want.”

Yes, state and federal prisons do have their own separate laws in place regarding the treatment of prisoners, but are those laws abided by? The answer, especially in the United States, is a resounding “No.” Even though prison guards are expected to keep inmates safe, there were more than 5.8 million violent crimes self-reported by inmates in 2012. Four percent of the prison population reports being sexually victimized while in prison in the past year, and over half of the incidents involved a prison guard or other staff member. Even though health care is supposed to be afforded to prisoners, 1,300 lawsuits have been filed in the past ten years in Illinois alone against the state because health care in Illinois prisons is so poor that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. These are only a few examples of failures of concrete laws that have been breeched, and continue to be broken, in prisons across the country. If the initial SMRs were never fully realized in prisons across the world, what hope do we have that the Mandela Rules, which raise the standards that were never even abided by in the first place, will actually be implemented?

Several sponsors of the new SMRs note the importance of civil society in the success of the Mandela Rules. The American Civil Liberties Union’s David Fathi said, “The Rules are only as good as their implementation.” Fathi expressed that both the public and decision makers must be aware of the rules and see them as a national priority in order for the Mandela Rules to be effective. But what if we live in a society in which the public does not see the humane treatment of prisoners as a national priority? And what if we live in a society in which private groups are swaying lawmakers to extend prison sentences and to create harsher punishments? While the Mandela Rules do offer a sort of cheat sheet for evaluating a state’s prison performance, they do not do anything about the public apathy towards the inhumane treatment of prisoners and they do not erase the negative stigmas that pro-prison lobby groups and lawmakers have instilled in the minds of millions. None of the 2016 U.S. presidential candidates have mentioned the Mandela Rules in their campaigns or expressed a plan to ensure that they are implemented in our prisons. If civil society has a critical role to play in the humane treatment of prisoners, and the current campaign rhetoric by governmental leaders is any indication of what civil society cares about, the outlook for prison progress looks bleak.

How do we ensure that these minimum rules will be followed? While the Mandela Rules do call for a more humane treatment of prisoners, and require a more accepting environment and safer prison standards, which is certainly wonderful, they should not be praised as a revolutionary feat. What would be revolutionary is if the United States and other countries would actually adopt these rules in practice rather than merely going through the motions.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prisons Won’t Get Better Just Because We’ve Signed Another Document appeared first on Law Street.

A Human Rights Watch report released this month titled “Callous and Cruel: Use of Force Against Inmates With Mental Disabilities in U.S. Jails and Prisons,” reported on the treatment of mentally ill inmates in prisons. The report documented major abuses in the prison system and major flaws in the availability of mental health services, and indicates that mentally ill do not do well in the American prison system. But why do they end up in correctional facilities in the first place? Read on to learn about mental health care in the United States and how it intersects with criminal justice.

How many mentally ill people are in correctional facilities?

People with mental illnesses are heavily represented in correctional facilities across the United States. In 2006, mentally ill inmates numbered 705,600 in state prisons, 78,800 in federal prisons, and 479,900 in local jails. In 2009, mentally ill individuals were on parole and probation at rates two to four times the general population. As of 2012, there were 356,368 mentally ill inmates in American jails and prisons. At the same time, psychiatric facilities hosted only 35,000 mentally ill patients, ten times less than the number of mentally ill inmates housed in correction facilities.

By various estimations, 20 percent of jail inmates and 15 percent of state prisoners, including violent and non-violent offenders, have some sort of mental ailment. Some of them were born with mental illnesses, while many acquired mental disabilities as the result of various circumstances. 

Why are so many mentally ill Americans in the prison system?

In order to understand why so many mentally ill Americans end up in correctional facilities instead of psychiatric hospitals, it’s important to look at the history and the changing dynamics of mental health care in the United States.

Using prisons and jails to house mentally ill people is not a new phenomenon. In fact, from 1770 to 1820, individuals with mental disabilities were routinely confined to correctional facilities. This practice was condemned as cruel and inhumane. As a result, the government asserted its obligation to care for and treat mentally ill people in a more suitable environment, creating a wide net of mental health hospitals across the country. Before the 1940s, the majority of mentally ill individuals, especially those with severe mental ailments, were housed in public mental institutions.

This situation changed in the beginning of 1950s. The government was again criticized for the inhumane treatment of mentally ill patients, now housed in psychiatric facilities, resulting in the inception of the deinstitutionalization movement. From this point on, instead of providing treatment and care in public mental hospitals, the government shifted the policies toward community-based treatment centers. The deal was sealed by the Mental Health Centers Act of 1963 that pushed mental health care away from state-run psychiatric hospitals and toward community-based centers. These changes allowed those with mental ailments to live in the community while receiving treatment at nearby mental facilities.

But in practice, this shift in policies created a disconnect between the care and treatment of mentally ill people, especially those with severe and chronic mental ailments. After deinstitutionalization, many were left without needed care as the government’s focus shifted toward outpatient mental services.

Shifting mental health policies toward outpatient services and breaking the link between treatment and care resulted in the decline of inpatient care and depreciation of state mental hospitals. In 1959, public psychiatric hospitals housed 559,000 mentally ill patients, by the late 1990s there were only 70,000 patients in such facilities. Now, there are only 35,000 patients in psychiatric hospitals, the lowest number in decades. Most states don’t even have enough psychiatric beds. From 2009-2012, the government disposed of 4,500 beds in public psychiatric hospitals. For example, Connecticut has only 20 beds per 100,000 people, while the nationally recommended standard is 50 beds per 100,000 people.

Thus, the deinstitutionalization of mental health services shifted public spending toward prescription drugs and outpatient treatment, largely ignoring the needs of those mentally ill people who required inpatient treatment. At the same time, access to outpatient mental health services proved to be worse than access to any other health services. In 2010, there were 156,300 mental health counselors in the United States. It’s estimated that 89.3 million Americans are living in areas that lack mental health professionals.

Mental health care is very expensive. In fact, 45 percent of people who suffer from some sort of mental illness fail to receive appropriate treatment due to the high costs associated with mental health services. A quarter of those who are mentally ill and have sought outpatient mental health services end up largely paying for treatment themselves, with out-of-pocket costs ranging from $100 to $5,000.

From 2009 to 2012, state governments, who pay most of the mental health care costs, also cut $5 billion from their funding overall, negatively influencing the availability and price of outpatient mental health services. 

The failure of the current mental health system to treat and care for people with severe and chronic mental illnesses paired with the lack of access to outpatient services is what has brought so many mentally ill people into the prison system. Those who have severe and/or chronic mental illnesses and cannot get access to outpatient mental health treatment, often end up in the criminal justice system. Before deinstitutionalization mentally ill people with severe and chronic illnesses were hospitalized, reducing their chances to break the law and come in contact with law enforcement. Some experts argue that beginning in the 1970s the United States has turned back toward incarceration practices resembling the 1800s paradigm of confining mentally ill people instead of treating and caring for them.

How do people with mental illnesses end up in the prison system?

Often, mentally ill people are arrested for crimes that could be avoided with proper mental health treatment or inpatient services. Those crimes are more bothersome than dangerous, and can include disorderly conduct, trespassing, disturbing the peace, and public intoxication. 

As 25-50 percent of mentally ill people in American prisons also suffer from substance abuse disorders, and 60 percent reported using drugs, alcohol, or both a month prior to their arrest, substance abuse issues can increase the likelihood of people with mental illnesses ending up in jail or prison. 

After initial contact with law enforcement, mentally ill individuals go through the court system. Due to harsh drug sentencing policies, such as “zero tolerance” and mandatory sentencing for certain drug offenses, mentally ill people are often sentenced to jail or prison terms.

All in all, those with mental disorders have a higher chance of coming into contact with law enforcement, mostly due to their mental condition. If they are regularly using drugs or alcohol, the chances are even higher. But, instead of offering treatment and support services to those with mental illnesses, the American justice system often uses the most punitive approach: incarceration.

What are the issues with incarcerating mentally ill individuals? 

Inadequate Staff Training

Inadequate staff training is one of the most important issues when talking about mentally ill people in the prison system. Many correction officers and jail deputies receive no guidance in how to interact with mentally ill inmates. Prison staff often don’t recognize symptoms of mental illness, nor do they use appropriate techniques, such as verbal de-escalation, when communicating with such inmates. Even when mental health professionals are available in the vicinity of the prison, guards rarely call for their intervention.

Physical Abuse

According to the recent Human Rights Watch Report, mentally ill inmates in American prisons and jails are regularly abused, including physically, by prison staff. The study cites the use of chemical sprays and stun guns as well as strapping mentally ill inmates to chairs and beds for prolonged periods of time. 

Solitary Confinement

Besides the fact that mentally ill inmates often suffer from physical abuse from prison or jail staff, they are also more often held in isolation, sometimes for months. According to a 2010 audit of three state prisons in Wisconsin, 55-75 percent of inmates in solitary confinement were mentally ill. Prolonged isolation of such inmates can exacerbate their conditions and increase symptoms of mental illness, often resulting in more misconduct instead of compliance.

Management Problems

As life in correctional facilities is heavily regulated and supervised, mentally impaired individuals can experience issues following rules, creating additional problems for prison guards. In many cases, their behavior is symptomatic, meaning that it’s conditioned by mental illness. They can  refuse to follow orders, and sometimes injure themselves, all things that can disrupt the daily routines of correction officers and other inmates. In some cases mentally ill inmates are provocative and can pose a danger to themselves or others.

Lack of Treatment

As prisons are not psychiatric hospitals, they often lack  mental health services as well as mental health professionals. Inmates are often not properly diagnosed, don’t have timely access to mental health services, and are often treated with medications only. Correctional facilities cannot usually aid mentally ill inmates in their recovery or even alleviate symptoms of their mental illnesses. In fact, the most helpful procedures for mentally ill patients are often not used in correctional facilities. Mentally ill inmates rarely receive therapeutic mental health interventions or participate in psychiatric rehabilitation programs.

Longer Stay

Mentally ill inmates usually stay in the prison system longer than those who have no mental issues. There are two primary reasons for this. First, mentally ill inmates can be less obedient due to their mental disorder, leading to additional charges and prolonged sentences. The other reason centers on the long waiting periods for beds in psychiatric hospitals. For example, in Florida’s Orange County Jail the average stay for mentally ill inmates is twice as long than for those without mental illnesses. In New York’s Riker’s Island Jail, the average stay for a mentally ill inmate is even longer—215 days–compared with 42 days for inmates without mental ailments. 

It’s Expensive

The cost of holding mentally ill inmates in prisons and jails is higher than average. This is due to the higher spendings on mental health services, including medications and staffing. It’s estimated that mentally ill inmates cost $130 a day, $50 more than average. The overall cost of incarcerating mentally ill inmates can be two to three times higher than average. 

Suicide & Rape

Mentally ill inmates are more likely to commit suicide than inmates who do not have mental illnesses. Multiple studies confirmed that the harsh prison conditions and the lack of proper treatment can increase the odds of suicide for this population. For example, a 2002 study of a Washington county jail noted that 77 percent of all suicides were committed by inmates with a mental illness. Sexual assault is another danger for mentally ill inmates. Many are are sexually assaulted, and their likelihood of being raped is higher than the general population in American prisons and jails. 

Watch the video below to get a full picture of mental health behind bars:

Conclusion

It’s evident that there are many issues with incarceration of mentally ill people, as there are many shortcomings and flaws in American mental health care, especially in prisons and jails. Such a system creates a cycle of incarceration for mentally ill people, by providing no remedies after the initial release. States should invest in more beds in public mental hospitals and provide better access to outpatient community treatment programs. It’s time to start treating and caring for the mentally ill, not just incarcerating them. 

Resources

Primary

National Institute of Corrections: Mentally Ill Persons in Corrections

Additional

Health Affairs: Mental Health Policy in America: Myths and Realities

The New York Times: Mentally Ill Inmates Are Routinely Physically Abused, Study Says

Human Rights Watch: Callous and Cruel: Use of Force against Inmates with Mental Disabilities in US Jails and Prisons

Washington Post: A Shocking Number of Mentally ill Americans End up in Prison Instead of Treatment

West Hartford News: Lawyers: Mentally Ill Need Services, not Prison

Treatment Advocacy Center: How Many Individuals with Serious Mental Illness are in Jails and Prisons? – Backgrounder

Mother Jones: There Are 10 Times More Mentally Ill People Behind Bars Than in State Hospitals

Stanford Law School: Three Strikes Project: When did Prisons Become Acceptable Mental Healthcare Facilities?

Washington Post: Seven facts about America’s Mental Health-care System

USA Today: Cost of Not Caring: Nowhere to Go

HNGN: Human Rights Watch: Mentally Ill Prisoners Are Abused In U.S. Correctional Facilities

The Sentencing Project: Mentally Ill Offenders in the Criminal Justice System: An Analysis and Prescription

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are American Prisons Becoming Psychiatric Hospitals? appeared first on Law Street.

This won’t be news to anyone who experiences it, but this “just in”–being targeted and locked up by racism and the criminal justice system dramatically increases people’s experiences of depression, suicide ideation, and many other types of “mental illness.”

Except here’s the thing: like Bruce E. Levine over at AlterNet has shown, the U.S. government’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has shoved under the table a survey that demonstrates the explicit connections between high rates of mental illness and mass incarceration, racism, unemployment, heterosexsim, and classism.

One of the most damning aspects of the survey is that the rate and severity of experiencing mental illness is double for adults who have contact with the criminal justice system compared with adults who don’t. (Seriously. Check it out.) There seems to be the perception that this country locks up people because they experience mental illness: this is often true, and is repulsive. But if we want to look at the proverbial big picture, we also have to consider the ways that mass incarceration–and the solitary confinement often involved with imprisonment–and the virulent racism that shapes the prison-industrial complex actually cause mental health issues.

Levine writes, “[f]or decades doctors — and Big Pharma — have pointed to neuroscience [as explanations for “mental illness”]. Cultural variables are often more telling.” Indeed. But by SAMHSA’s logic, why damn the system that produces these mental illness-causing oppressions when you can convince people to buy overpriced, toxic pharmaceuticals drugs and therapy from it?

Of course, people who experience these oppressions don’t need government-sponsored studies and surveys to elucidate the ways that racism, mass incarceration, classism, and heterosexism make many of us live with severely impaired mental health.

Personal Example Time: I am certain that my being a white queer woman in this society fundamentally shaped my diagnoses as depressed and bipolar. Expected to be easily “corrupted” and traumatized because of my whiteness and white privilege; expected to be dedicated to others and feel guilty for putting myself first because of my womanness and heterosexism; expected to daily endure the structural and interpersonal impacts of sexism and queerphobia and always be “polite” about it…my diagnoses (and the feelings that precipitated seeking them) are not surprising.

White men–much like those who shoot people in schools and much like Germanwings co-pilot Andrea Lupitz–are routinely portrayed empathetically by mainstream media sources (instead of being called terrorists) because of their emotional angst and “understandable” mental illness when they kill over 100 people. However, people (especially working-class women) of color who defend themselves against attack are imprisoned, villified, and pathologized. In light of this, the consequences of not addressing racism, heterosexism, and classism in mental health are… well… life-threatening.

And far, far beyond depressing: the causes and consequences are outraging.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mass Incarceration Leads to Depression, So Why Don’t We Stop? appeared first on Law Street.

Many prisons use solitary confinement as a mechanism to control their prison populations and minimize the threat of danger to other inmates and prison staff. Yet extreme isolation is an unnatural punishment and can cause severe psychological, or sometimes even physical, damage. The effectiveness and methods of solitary confinement has been debated since its modern day inception as a form of punishment in the 1800s, yet it was not until recent years that states began to question the constitutionality of the matter. As convicts, prisoners have little sympathy from the general population; yet there are arguments for the release of prisoners who are placed in solitary confinement for indefinite amounts of time and for non-violent reasons. The argument in favor of regulating or eliminating the age old method is that these people are being placed under “cruel and unusual” circumstances, and are being released back into society in an even worse condition than before they were incarcerated. As of 2013, the United States holds roughly 2.3 million inmates in federal, state, and local jails, 80,000 of which are in solitary confinement.

What is Solitary Confinement?

There are two main types of solitary confinement that are primarily used in the United States. Disciplinary solitary confinement is used to punish an inmate for a violation of minor jail rules or protocol; administrative solitary confinement is used to isolate dangerous prisoners from the rest of the prison population and staff. Often prisoners who are placed in the latter group will remain in Supermax cells for months to years, sometimes for an undetermined length of time.

Typically solitary confinement is reserved for the most threatening and aggressive inmates, so the conditions are not cozy. Cells are typically “80 feet [10 by 8 feet], not much larger than a king-size bed,”  and sometimes even smaller; they do not have any windows and the floors are hard concrete. The door is typically heavy metal and locks with massive bolts.  Prisoners are isolated for 23 hours out of the day, and receive one hour of heavily monitored recreational activity in another slightly larger cell. Meals are slid through a small space in the door so prisoners remain completely isolated even during meal times.The cell is left bare, so prisoners often resort to habitual pacing and sometimes create routines to mimic life outside of prison. Prisoners may receive an early release from the designated amount of time if they practice “good behavior” and attend classes to improve themselves.

 History of Solitary Confinement

Solitary Confinement is thought to have started in a Philadelphia jail in the 1800s. The Quakers felt that by placing criminals in isolation they would have time to read the Bible and repent for their sins. The original idea behind solitary confinement was to reform inmates, as opposed to violently punishing them.

The Invention of Solitary Confinement — The Eastern State Penitentiary:

Another early prison that used a form of solitary confinement was the New York jail, Auburn. There, the “Auburn System,” a method of punishment in which prisoners were required to do manual labor all day in silence before being sent off to solitary confinement for the remainder of the night, was developed. This system gained popularity in prisons across the country. During this time, Auburn and other prisons also used forms of torture as a punishment. One popular method was the “shower bath.” This consisted of placing a prisoner under a constant flow of an excessive and painful amount of water. The flood would beat them over the head, getting into their eyes and mouths, nearly drowning them. Sometimes the shock would cause prisoners to fall dead moments later.

Psychological Effects and Ethics

It is hard to think of people who have committed heinous crimes as actual people, yet putting them under such harsh conditions can be embarrassing, alarming, and disgusting. Many times inmates display suicidal tendencies and harm themselves with makeshift weapons. Others resort to odd and erratic behaviors such as rubbing feces on themselves, pacing mindlessly, or cutting themselves. If solitary confinement is supposed to teach a lesson, it may be counterintuitive to its original purpose. Prisoners who are placed in solitary confinement will experience several psychological and physical effects of being in isolation for an extended period of time. According to Frontiers in Psychology, “One’s own existence is something that one experiences in the kinds of pragmatic projects that one shares with others.” When deprived of the basic human need of socialization for long enough, people begin to display mentally unstable and even insane behaviors.

Prisoners in solitary confinement may begin experiencing:

Visual and auditory hallucinations

Hypersensitivity to noise and touch

Insomnia and paranoia

Uncontrollable feelings of rage and fear

Distortions of time and perception

Increased risk of suicide

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

The development of crippling obsessions

When prisoners do not experience any interactions with other people they begin to lose a sense of reality. Their internal thoughts become a blur with the external world, which they have ceased to experience. Not only is this inhumane, but it also defeats the purpose of punishing the guilty. Integrating the prisoner back into society becomes more challenging, and they become a product of isolation. This is not only detrimental to the individual, but also society.

According to International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, in 1890 the United States Supreme Court  began to note the inhumane and damaging effects that solitary confinement has on the prisoners:

“A considerable number of prisoners […] became violently insane;  other 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 any subsequent service to the community.”

ABCNews personality Dan Harris voluntarily spends 48 hours in solitary confinement:

Prisoners’ Rights

The Eighth Amendment includes the cruel and unusual punishment clause and serves as the basis for civil rights advocates’ arguments against the use of solitary confinement in American prisons. The fact that prisoners have little to no human contact, let alone see daylight for months to years, could be considered cruel and unusual. The argument that solitary confinement violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights prevails as the center controversy for advocates and courts. While incarcerated, prisoners are provided with medical and mental services, although whether they are adequate or not is debatable, and many cases regarding health care and general prison conditions have been brought to the forefront within the last 20 years.

To view the document outlining prisoner’s medical, dental, and mental health rights click here.

Case Study: Pelican State Bay Prison  (Ashker v. Brown)

The case Ashker v. Brown was sparked by a  2011 hunger strike led by prisoners at Pelican State Bay Prison in Crescent City, California. The strike drew attention to the unpalatable conditions that prisoners in solitary confinement experience. In an extended effort in May 2012, the  Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against Pelican State Bay Prison for allegedly violating the Eighth Amendment as well as the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.  Many prisons lack adequate medical care, and prisoners are denied an in-depth review of their cases before being placed in solitary confinement.

Case Study: Nicole Guerrero v. Wichita County

Pregnant inmate Nicole Guerrero was placed in solitary confinement in a Texas jail in 2012. While in ‘the hole’ she began to experience excruciating pain and intense cramps due to labor. The medical staff at the prison reportedly ignored her for hours. She was forced to give birth alone, and when the prison medical staff finally came to the scene the baby was dead due to the umbilical cord being wrapped around its neck. This case supports the argument noting the lack of medical attention prisoners in solitary confinement receive, and brings states closer to regulating the controversial practice.

Peoples v. Fischer

In June 2012, the New York City Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of prisoner Leroy Peoples. Peoples spent three years in solitary confinement for filing false legal documents. Violating any of the codes that the prison regards as against protocol has the potential to send a prisoner into solitary. According to the Civil Liberty Union, “only 16 percent of isolation sentences from 2007 to 2011 were for assault or weapons.” Solitary confinement served the original purpose of protecting staff and other inmates from potentially dangerous prisoners; now prison systems are abusing the extreme form of punishment, and overusing solitary confinement for reasons other than violence. Another issue that the NYCLU addresses is the fact that solitary confinement is used as a source of punishment for juveniles, pregnant inmates, and the mentally ill. The Union argues that this is inhumane and more permanently damaging to these more vulnerable groups of inmates. Currently, the outcome of the case is in reconsideration, and “if the process fails, the NYCLU will resume litigation.”

Click here to see the Institutional Laws of Conduct.

Innovation in the Prison System

Recently Colorado signed into legislation a law that bans prisons from placing mentally ill inmates in long-term solitary confinement. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Maine and New Mexico have taken steps to reduce their use of solitary confinement, and Nevada and Texas are studying the issue.” Similarly in a document, New York has decided to “remove  youth, pregnant inmates and developmentally disabled and intellectually from extreme isolation.”

Click here to see New York’s agreement to reform solitary confinement in the prison system.

Some opponents of the practice suggest alternative methods; instead of placing inmates in solitary confinement,  they could be sent to a mental-health care unit within prison where the individual can be treated instead of punished. Of course, this idea receives strong opposition, yet New York has decided to enact a version of it.

Resources

Journal of Constitutional Law: Prolonged Solitary Confinement and the Constitution

NYCLU: Peoples v. Fischer

Correctional Association of New York: Shining Our Spotlight on Auburn Correctional Facility

CNN: Solitary Confinement: 29 Years in a Box

PBS: Solitary Confinement and the U.S. Prison System

Pennsylvania Prison Society: Violence in the Supermax: A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Washington Post: Va. Prisons’ Use of Solitary Confinement is Scrutinized

The New York Times: New York State in Deal to Limit Solitary Confinement

Center for Constitutional Rights: Ashker v. Brown

NYCLU: Lawsuit Secures Historic Reforms to Solitary Confinement

CNN: Texas Wom Claims She Gave Birth Alone in Jail, Baby Died

Wall Street Journal: Colorado Becomes Latest to Back Ban on Solitary Confinement of Mentally Ill

—

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Evolution of Solitary Confinement in the United States appeared first on Law Street.