History of the Policy
The first instance of solitary confinement is traced back to 1829 at the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia. The whole ideology was based on a belief that isolating prisoners in stone cells would allow them time to reevaluate their actions and find introspection. The practice was abandoned until 1890 U.S Supreme Court Justice Samuel Freeman Miller criticized the effect solitary confinement had on inmates. Most prisons and security guards gave up that mode of punishment. However, in 1986 solitary confinement was re-instituted in Arizona. This resulted in the opening of the Security Management Unit (SMU) in Florence, Arizona, in that year (Polizzi, 2017) . Tis was, in essence, the first modern 'Supermax’ prison to be set up using a series of modern technological innovations to facilitate solitary confinements for indefinitely long times. This paved the way for other prisons like Pelican Bay State Prison in California to open up Supermax facilities. The Federal Bureau of Prisons opened its Supermax, the Administrative Maximum in Florence, Colorado, in 1994. The next decade saw almost every state open up its Supermax (Raemisch, 2019) . Even though it has been associated with negative consequences, solitary confinement still is legal and constitutional in the States.
Goals of the Policy
The policy is aimed at motivating compliance and desirable behavior in maximum prisons. It entails removing privileges that were initially granted to the prisoners to compel a transition that would see them reform (Lobel & Smith, 2019) . These privileges include removal from the general population, loss of contact visits, loss of TV, and loss of commutation time. These are privileges that the prisoner had already grown accustomed to, and the loss of them may compel them to act accordingly. This was one of the goals of the policy, to inspire transformational behavior in maximum prisons and ensure full compliance of laws and regulations in prison. The policy also aimed at improving order in the prisons that, most of the time, prove to be chaotic. With the possibility of indefinite solitary confinement, prisoners are forced to act in ways that don't undermine any prison's laws and regulations (Méndez, 2019) . That way, there is some order in the prisons. It is also aimed at checking prison gangs, which, most of the time, negatively impact the management of the prisons. Prison gangs undermine efforts by the prison management aimed at improving the overall prison experience. Moreover, the policy ensures overall safety in prisons. It does so by preventing incarcerated persons from being a threat to others in prison. This is done by isolating those inmates who pose threats to others.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Stakeholders
The stakeholders in creating this policy were government officials, legislators, Departments of Correction, offenders, correctional staff, community groups, and special interest groups. It was essential to establish the need for these stakeholders and develop a policy that was deemed practical and beneficial by all.
Results of the Policy
The policy was quite effective in ensuring adherence to laws and regulations of the respective prisons. Prison violence reduced significantly over the years (Raemisch, 2019) . There were order and discipline amongst inmates. The policy was taken up well, and its implications were clearly noted. The policy also resulted in negative criticism from different groups, some claiming that it had failed in other critical aspects. They mainly focused on its impact on the overall health of the segregated inmate.
Negative Consequences of the Policy
The policy has had several negative impacts since its inception. The increased number of incarcerated individuals being sent to solitary confinements to compel reformed behavior has had many implications. Segregation is in itself very costly, and it does not seem to be that beneficial for its high price tag. Staffing segregation units in prisons are costlier compared to staffing regular housing units? In addition to this, building and staffing a Supermax is way more expensive than constructing a maximum security facility. Closure of these facilities might save the state millions of dollars. Solitary confinement is costly socially, financially, and morally and this fails to justify its continued use.
Solitary confinement has also resulted in adverse health and mental health for prisoners who are isolated (Méndez, 2019) . Public health officials, together with psychiatrists and psychologists, have denounced the use of solitary confinement due to these health effects and have pushed for its cessation. Prolonged segregation has been associated with delirium. Prisoners lose the ability to respond to normal stimuli. Inmates with preexisting psychological conditions may be compelled to engage in acts of self-mutilation and even attempt to commit suicide. Statistics have shown that the rates for this are higher among inmates in solitary as opposed to those in the general population.
Isolation does not make the prisons any much safer. When they are finally released into the general population, the isolated inmates are overwhelmed by the outside world, and most struggle to manage their conduct. These prisoners usually find it hard to connect with other inmates in the general population. They may end up committing other disciplinary offenses and eventually end up back in solitary confinement (Shalev, 2019) . This cyclical process means that the prisons are not made safer by this policy.
Who the Policy Benefits and Hurts
The policy is a crucial and effective tool for the Prison's Board. It helps the prison's management to exercise control and instill some level of discipline in the inmates. It helps them ensure compliance with laws and regulations that govern the prisons. On top of that, it is a key tool in ensuring there is an order in these Supermax facilities. The policy does allow the prison management to check rogue and undisciplined inmates by sending them to solitary confinement for longer periods to inspire character transformation in these inmates.
On the other hand, the policy hurts the incarcerated inmates more. They have to endure long periods of segregation, which affects them psychologically and health-wise (Méndez, 2019) . The fact that they have to coexist under the harsh conditions for unknown time durations is inhumane and sad (Lobel, 2019) .
Ethical Issues of the Policy
The policy is seen by many activists and psychologists as an inhumane way of punishing violent and uncontrollable behavior among inmates. The conditions these inmates are exposed to while in solitary are so inhumane. Lights in those small closed cell blocks are kept on for 24 hours. The inmate is not allowed personal contact (Haney, 2019) . There is no communication with anyone from the general population. Moreover, some of them stay in solitary confinement for long periods ranging from seven months to a whole year. Human rights activists argue that no person should be subjected to such a form of inhumane treatment.
The use of force also raises ethical concerns. The prison officers are known to, at times, overexert their authority to inmates in solitary confinement. They deliberately undermine prison rules and regulations and use force on the inmates. They keep the inmates in solitary even longer than they are supposed to. This raises questions on the ethical conduct of the guards.
There is also a violation of the prisoners' right to treatment, which is common for those to end up in solitary confinement. They are mostly neglected, and no medical attention is given to them, resulting in health complications for most of them. Every prisoner has a right to proper treatment when they fall sick. This is undermined in most prisons around the state.
A Critical Review of the Policy
Solitary confinement policy has been subject to controversy over the years, especially when minors are being subjected to such isolation. Even now that some prisons are beginning to end long-term detainment in solitary, these policies have come under critical review and analysis. The policy has its benefits and its weaknesses and shortcomings, depending on the perspective we take. Some people would argue that it plays a role in ensuring the prisons are safer. It does this by restricting incarcerated persons from posing a threat to others. Solitary confinement is also effective for checking naughty behavior and maintaining a sense of order in prisons. Guards employ it as an effective tool for controlling undisciplined violent inmates.
Also, the policy has been critical in reforming and rehabilitating inmates' character. These are just some of the notable positive impacts that the policy has had over the years. On the contrary, there are other negative impacts associated both directly and indirectly with this policy. Human rights activists have denounced this policy and its associated practices due to the ethical issues that it violates. The right to humane conditions such as social interaction, treatment, and human contact are among the necessities denied to the incarcerated inmates (Méndez, 2019) . There is also the high cost of building and maintaining these solitary units. So as much as some parties advocate for the necessity of this particular policy, others condemn it in equal proportions. I believe there has been a significant transformation in our prison systems, mainly brought about by the solitary confinement policy. It has been more progressive than regressive.
References
Haney, C. (2019). Solitary confinement, loneliness, and psychological harm. Solitary Confinement , 129-v152. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190947927.003.0008
Lobel, J. (2019). Litigation to end indeterminate solitary confinement in California. Solitary Confinement , 353-372. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190947927.003.0022
Lobel, J., & Smith, P. S. (2019). Solitary confinement—From extreme isolation to prison reform. Solitary Confinement , 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190947927.003.0001
Méndez, J. E. (2019). Torture, solitary confinement, and international law. Solitary Confinement , 117-126. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190947927.003.0007
Polizzi, D. (2017). The developmental history of solitary and supermax confinement: Toward a phenomenology of the state of exception. Solitary Confinement . https://doi.org/10.1332/policypress/9781447337539.003.0003
Raemisch, R. (2019). Colorado ends prolonged, indeterminate solitary confinement. Solitary Confinement , 311-324. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190947927.003.0018
Shalev, S. (2019). Solitary confinement across borders. Solitary Confinement , 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190947927.003.0004
