In the book Solitary by Kupers, the author delves deep into the issue of being confined in a cell that has no windows for almost 24 hours each and every day. Many individuals often wonder ‘What is the damage of long-term solitary confinement?’. This issue is rarely addressed and very few people know what it entails except than those who have been in prison themselves (Ross, 2012). Unfortunately, many inmates leave prison accompanied by severe psychiatric alterations due to the numerous years spent in solitary, despite them giving the impression of being stable mentally and emotionally. The author clearly asserts that “The damage from isolation is dreadfully real.” Many regular people are the least interested in what goes on in prisons, the process used during imprisonment, what inmates experience, role or duties and powers of prison officials and the myths regarding the system used in criminal justice. Due to the negligence and ignorance of what goes on in prisons by majority of the population, it is not a wonder that few fully comprehend the challenges and problems faced in correctional institutions. This is also a major reason why no concrete and evocative solutions have been developed to alleviate the social troubles encountered by inmates. The main challenges facing correctional institutions in the U.S is the over dependence on prisons as the most suitable punishment for law breakers, the fascination that correctional institutions are thrilling, failure to seriously put into consideration the nutrition, living condition and hostility in prison, the mismanagement of the process of re-entry and the tendency of prison officials to uphold their status quo. (Ross, 2012). Today about 100,000 inmates in the U.S are experiencing Solitary incarceration (Tapley, 2010). The author, who is a professional mental specialist, highlights the effects of solitary incarceration with supporting formidable stories narrated by inmates he has had the privilege of interviewing in his investigation about prison conditions for a period of more than four decades. During this duration when conducting his investigation, the author gets to meet inmates who have experienced different types of agonies like being raped, overpowered by use of gas, negligence when urgent medical care is needed and basic psychiatric wants. Kuper critiques the mental as well as physical abuse of inmates, then goes ahead to provide recovery options for individuals who undergo isolation in supermax. The author writes the book in such a way that anyone reading the book gets to fully comprehend, the exact impairment that solitary incarceration imposes on inmates confined in isolation and the society at large. Kuper denotes solitary in two ways; as a dynamic intellectual impact in the process of analyzing solitary incarceration in the present day, and as an influential fragment of activism advocating for obliteration of the system. This representation is a very exceptional base in the area of academics. The many decades of experience as a forensic psychiatric and another couple of decades dedicated to research on prison environs, greatly influences the writer’s writing flair and assessment. Throughout the book the author arranges his analysis and data in a thrilling but expert account, providing evidence of statutory incompetent settings of psychological well-being and advocating for change for the better. The author has purposefully portioned the book into three parts. The first segment explains the prison environs and traditions associated with solitary imprisonment, paying close attention to the racism culture. The second segment categorizes and assesses the various types of impairments that are brought about by solitary imprisonment such as mental health, practical skillfulness, permanent social disorders and impairment to vulnerable individuals like juveniles, the mentally challenged and women (Ewing, 2016). The last segment advocates for the necessity and feasibility of other courses of action that can be used in the place of solitary confinement. The key inputs in the book are not fixed on only these three sections, on the contrary they are intertwined all the way through the explanatory, normative and diagnostic declarations. Kuper starts off by providing an all-inclusive classification of the devastating constancy in the detrimental occurrences to inmates undergoing solitary imprisonment. The author observes that he has performed “over a thousand interviews with prisoners in a variety of correctional settings” (96), in addition to visiting prisons and jails all over the U.S, in states such as New York, Colorado, California, Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Illinois to state a few. The author astounds the reader by his utter extensiveness and depth of knowledge on the subject matter. The information in the book does not only amaze a layperson, but also specialists who have researched for about two decades in the same field of solitary imprisonment as Kupert. The book contains numerous new narratives and significant historical accounts, ranging from the explanations of the initial models of Marion supermaxes, Montana state prison, Illinois federal penitentiary and Deer lodge to confidential details about the lawsuits. For example, in the book Kupers gives details of the unusual “boxcar doors” and chamber close up, shutting two or more cells from any access even to the hallways in the Boscobel and Wisconsin Supermax correctional institutions (25-26).This account of events, the author saw personally when he was working as a specialist on the Jones ‘El v. Berge (2001) litigation defying confinement conditions (27). The author goes into detail to explain the extensive history of stripping to be searched and utilizing x-ray technologies, to “humiliate and intimidate visitors “in prisons located in California. This account was also experienced directly by the writer when he offered his expert services in the Salazar V. McCarthy lawsuit in 1986 (183). The author uses his comprehensive knowledge to describe to the reader in a vivid manner how inmates confined in solitary after a long period start “to feel unreal and nonhuman”. This occurs when they start feeling a range of symptoms that extend to “decimation of life skills” (87,96). This description and analysis by the author counteract with the debate that, inadequate evidence has been presented on the negative impacts of solitary confinements on the inmates physical and mental health. The author attempts to provide larger and broader evidence on this issue as compared to other researchers on the same issue. The second impact that the author wants to undoubtedly depict and elucidate, is the ineffectuality of inflicting additional punishments and constraints on inmates like confinement in solitary. The trend to inflict additional punishments to inmates in the U.S can be dated back to the first prisons in the beginning of the 19 th century, “additional punishments, even more severe punishments and restrictions had to be devised to prevent … other infractions … abuses, flogging, ice water, baths, restraint positions … proliferated” (22). Kuper observes that even the present day supermaxes, prisoners continue to undergo harsh mistreatments in barren cells made of concrete and do not have windows, “prison staff have been very innovative and often extremely cruel in inventing new and ever more complicated punishments (43)”. In one illustration the author explains how following his evidence bearing witness that mentally challenged inmates shouldn’t be overpowered using tasers, during the course of his investigation the writer explains about how he realized that the officials in California prisons used riot guns in the place of tasers. Riot guns are used to “fire blocks of wood or hard rubber”, after his testimony on the abolition of riot guns at a close range on mentally impaired inmates, the author says he was certain a new severely obnoxious and peculiar rule would be added to the policy in prisons. Shortly after, Kuper realized that the “immobilizing gas” and pepper spray had become the substitute for riot guns (47). The examples presented by the author are similar to what happened in Guantamo Bay, where the health specialists who assessed the situation questioned the morality and ethics of detaining or putting inmates in solitary. Many international researchers have also dedicated their focus on bringing to light the serious effects that solitary confinement has on both physical and mental health. Evidence to show that these efforts are being put is on the successful International Psychological Trauma Symposium held on December 2007 in Istanbul, where effects and use of solitary confinement were addressed “including the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture” (Shalev, 2011). The international bodies want to provide nations with a succinct and definite synopsis of their take on the subject matter. Addressing the issue of solitary confinement in prisons creates a great opportunity for health specialists to reevaluate all the practices that go on in prison, and take part in reestablishment of better prison systems (Shalev, 2011). In summary, the author notes that when the already established suitable punishments for inmates do not bring the desired results in an individual, more harsh and obnoxious rules like solitary confinement or worse are enforced. Mentally impaired inmates who are not provided with the appropriate treatment when incarcerated, are bound to encounter difficulties following prison regulations hence ending up in isolation more often than not. When confined in solitary they are bound to have even more trouble abiding by the extremely constraining rules. He clearly illustrates how mentally challenged inmates are treated as a disciplinary setback yet the prison guards conceal the fact that the institutions fail to provide appropriate healthcare to inmates. Diverting and releasing the mentally impaired inmates from the penitentiary is just a single strategy in reducing expenses and overcrowding in prisons. These inmates are not ready to get back to the real world, which is dangerous for everyone. They instead need proper mental health care in addition to other strategies that help in behavior modification. When mentally ill inmates fail to respond well to medication, or they fail to receive the proper treatment, they tend to defy the rules or at times become violent which awards them time in detention or solitary confinement (Vitiello, 2010). The author argues that the failure to give proper treatment sets into motion a cycle that escalates the disciplinary glitches. Kuper reasons that the issue of undisciplined inmates, whether mentally impaired or not, is one sided as it only depicts the unruliness of inmates and makes solitary confinement appear like a necessary measure, while it fails to highlight on the poor treatments provided. This implies that courts should be allies with influential health specialists and their model organization, like the AMA (American Medical Association), American Psychological Association (APA) and American Nurses Association (ANA). These specialists when consulted are in apposition to give insightful perspectives on the issue of solitary confinement and the health impacts it has on individuals, they are also better equipped to enlighten the public on the debate of effects of the practices that go on in prison on inmates and the general public. Consulting with these specialists might assist the courts on getting different perspectives and evaluating the best narrative on the health effects of solitary confinement to inmates, respecting and upholding inmate rights (Shalev, 2011). The third core input by the author is the revolutionization of the conversations regarding the restructuring on use of solitary confinement to rehabilitate inmates. The author goes an extra mile to precisely explain the abstract concept of rehabilitation. He provides the reader with vivid examples of practical consequences both positive and negative, associated with rehabilitation. Kuper also accurately demonstrates the ineffectiveness of isolating inmates, he gives recommendations on functional rehabilitation strategies that can be implemented on individuals as well as the entire institution. On individuals the author recommends rehabilitation through expressing mutual respect and significantly allowing inmates to carry out personal interventions. To show evidence of how this can be effective, the author uses an example of a case in Washington Department of Corrections Supermax about a manager in one unit who made a rule that the staff in prison should refer to inmates as Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones, likewise the inmates were supposed to regard the staff in prison as Officer Smith or Officer Jones. Other rules included ceasing to utter profanities in the prison, and exercising respect as well as dignity while interacting on daily basis with the inmates (171). The implementation of these simple policies greatly reduced violent interactions in his unit between the staff and inmates, but most conspicuously among inmates in cells. The author also stressed on the significance of according inmates with “incremental improvements in their situation” if their behavior met the set standard criterion, which the prison staff should urge inmates to do (178). While dealing with the institution as a whole, the author recommends that more focus should be put in creating a healthy system that promotes psychological well-being, as a substitute to confinement in solitary. This book is a very good read that vividly depicts essential aspects like hope, compassion and thoughtfulness throughout the chapters. The main censure that I can point out in the book, is that the hope of the author might be superfluous. The main concepts that the author advocates for are some of the major issues, despite how rational they might be, that the systems used in prisons have failed to achieve multiple times. the systematic implementation and sustainability of these recommendations have proved to be hectic or near impossible task, as the author notes after testifying numerous times in multiple cases. Reformation of Solitary confinement mostly experiences resistance due to incongruent philosophies as the writer notes. The main aspect of the reform that should be focused on, is the ability of prison staff to sanction change in the institutions, and their synchronized desire to succeed without making any changes, as the writer encourages, the abolition of solitary confinement. The writer highlights on the authority of prison staff but he does not analytically examine the influence it has. Kuper provides some circumstantial assessments of the prison staff depicting them as “spiteful and Innovative” in the severe vindictiveness (43). His assessment is based on the testimonies he acquires from his research and interviews conducted. Kuper recognizes the necessity to improved and advanced training of prison staff to circumvent mistreatment and antagonism (187-188). However, it will take more than better training to destroy the established structure that sets dangerous, mentally impaired and violent inmates against under-trained, underpaid and under-sourced prison officials. The author recognizes all these setbacks, which is why he highlights on the significance of having visionary leaders in the reformation process. A good example of this is the story about the Washington State unit manager, who nurtured an environment of mutual trust and dignity, or Rich Raemich who managed to “downsize the supermax from population of 7% to 1%” (231). Despite the author thoroughly examining the concept of solitary confinement and how it impacts inmates, more research needs to be carried out focusing on how it influences the prison staff, how it can be alleviated and how it can be methodically assimilated in reformation endeavors ( Lofstrom & Raphael, 2016).
References
Goff, A., Rose, E., Rose, S., & Purves, D. (2007). Does ptsd occur in sentenced prison populations? A systematic literature reviews. Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, 17 (3), 152-162. Accession No. 25640650
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ewing, A. (2016). Solitary confinement, race, and the politics of risk management. Indiana University Press , 119(1), 109-123. DOI: 10.2979/transition.119.1.13
Lofstrom, M., & Raphael, S. (2016). Crime, the criminal justice system, and socioeconomic inequality. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 30(2), 103-126. DOI: http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.lamar.edu/10.1257/jep.30.2.103
Ross, J. I. (2012). Debunking the myths of American corrections: An exploratory analysis. Critical Criminology, 20 (4). 409–427. DOI: 10.1007/s10612-012-9158-z
Shalev, S. (2011). Solitary confinement and supermax prisons: A human rights and ethical analysis. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice , 11(2/3), 151-183. DOI: 10.1080/15228932.2011.537582
Tapley, L. (2010). The worst of the worst: Supermax torture in America. Boston Review, 35(6), 30-35. Accession No. 510030493
Vitiello, M. (2010). Addressing the special problems of mentally ill prisoners: A small piece of the solution to our nation’s prison crisis. Denver University Law Review, 88 (1). p. 57-71. Accession No: 60502694
