10. Prisons and Human Rights: the Case of Solitary Confinement in Denmark and the US from the 1820S until Today

2007 ◽  
pp. 221-248 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
The Us

scholarly journals Regulating the Use of Solitary Confinement in US Prisons

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-62
Author(s):  
Brandon Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
Correctional Institutions ◽  
Medical Sciences ◽  
Moral Permissibility ◽  
The Us

Statement of Significance: This article aims to summarize relevant literature on the topic of prolonged solitary confinement from the perspective of the medical sciences to outline the detrimental health impacts associated with this practice, evaluate the extent to which the current use of this practice in the United States (US) aligns with the recommendations outlined in human rights literature, and offer recommendations to further regulate the use of solitary confinement in prisons to better align with the rehabilitative goals of the US criminal justice system. This review details the well-studied physical and psychological harms associated with prolonged solitary confinement to support the notion that restrictions should be placed on the use of this practice for the well-being of incarcerated individuals. Additionally, it reviews the recommendations for appropriate use of this practice outlined in human rights literature and examines how the contemporary utilization of solitary confinement within US prisons fails to meet these proposed standards. Finally, this article offers specific recommendations regarding the appropriate settings in which solitary confinement should be used, key regulations to limit the extent of its use, and additional measures to minimize harm to incarcerated individuals. The limitations of this study include the decision to pursue a targeted literature review, as opposed to an exhaustive systematic review, which may have excluded specific arguments relevant to this paper’s discussion. Further, the scope of this article was focused on a discussion on the topic of prolonged solitary confinement and did not comment on the separate issue regarding the moral permissibility of the solitary confinement, as a whole. Finally, the cultural differences between the US and other high-income countries may limit the ability to compare models of rehabilitation in correctional institutions between these nations, suggesting that the proposed impact of the chosen recommendations should be interpreted with caution.

Torture in US Jails and Prisons: An Analysis of Solitary Confinement Under International Law

ICL Journal ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Conley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Severe Form ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
Management Tool ◽  
Self Mutilation ◽  
The Us

AbstractOne of the most serious human rights violations today is occurring throughout the US. In US jails and prisons, individuals are held in solitary confinement for weeks, months and even years. Solitary confinement can cause significant psychological damage, including cognitive delays, increased suspicion and paranoia, increased anxiety, fear, ag­gression and hostility, heightened feelings of helplessness and depression, and increased thoughts and attempts at self-mutilation and suicide. Many prisoners held in this severe form of isolation are juveniles or individuals with serious mental illness, to whom it is par­ticularly damaging. Although solitary confinement is common in the rest of the world, no­where is it more prevalent as a long-term prisoner management tool than in the United States. US courts have found that solitary confinement is a violation of the Eighth Amend­ment to the US Constitution in certain situations, yet the practice persists.As a global movement against solitary confinement grows, the United Nations and re­gional human rights tribunals have spoken out against the practice. A robust body of inter­national case law has defined the contours of when solitary confinement is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the instances in which it is torture. International bodies pro­hibit solitary confinement for juveniles, prisoners with mental illness, and prisoners on death row or with life sentences. International tribunals generally find solitary confinement for all prisoners contrary to applicable law where it constitutes incommunicado detention, where it is unnecessarily prolonged without justification, and where the totality of condi­tions of confinement cross a threshold into unacceptable cruelty.As international law prohibiting solitary confinement crystallizes, the practice in the United States may be curtailed through reliance on international law by US judges. Further, the US executive may take an increased interest in curbing solitary confinement to avoid repu­tational damage among the global community.

scholarly journals Solitary Confinement, Prisoner Litigation, and the Possibility of a Prison Abolitionist Lawyering Ethic

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (02) ◽  
pp. 165-185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Debra Parkes
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Movements ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
The Third ◽  
Federal Prisons ◽  
Prisoner Rights ◽  
The Us ◽  
History Of ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract This paper considers the role that litigation might play in ending the human rights crisis of solitary confinement in Canada while also examining the relationship of prisoner rights litigation to broader, anti-carceral social movements. The paper proceeds in four parts. The first section provides a brief overview of the widespread use of solitary confinement in Canada’s federal prisons and in provincial and territorial jails. Next, current litigation seeking an end to solitary confinement in the federal prisons system is located in the context of a long history of prisoner rights litigation in both the US and Canada. The third section considers the possibilities and challenges of pursuing prisoner rights litigation with broader critiques of the carceral state in mind. The paper ends with examples of anti-carceral lawyering efforts and identifies some elements of a prison abolitionist lawyering ethic.

Palestine Unbound

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 130-134
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Task Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Tel Aviv ◽  
The Us ◽  
Intention To Move ◽  
Arab Israeli Conflict ◽  
The U.S

This section, updated regularly on the blog Palestine Square, covers popular conversations related to the Palestinians and the Arab-Israeli conflict during the quarter 16 November 2017 to 15 February 2018: #JerusalemIstheCapitalofPalestine went viral after U.S. president Donald Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and announced his intention to move the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv. The arrest of Palestinian teenager Ahed Tamimi for slapping an Israeli soldier also prompted a viral campaign under the hashtag #FreeAhed. A smaller campaign protested the exclusion of Palestinian human rights from the agenda of the annual Creating Change conference organized by the US-based National LGBTQ Task Force in Washington. And, UNRWA publicized its emergency funding appeal, following the decision of the United States to slash funding to the organization, with the hashtag #DignityIsPriceless.

scholarly journals The mission thing

1994 ◽  
Vol 23 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 38-42
Author(s):  
Ted Turner
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Hong Kong ◽  
Us Congress ◽  
The Us ◽  
Laissez Faire

While the US congress was debating whether to continue China's Most Favoured Nation status, and Clinton was going back on his election promises, CNN's boss in Hong Kong was appealing for a laissez-faire approach to human rights

Moving towards Complicity as a Criterion of Attribution of Private Conducts: Imputation to States of Corporate Abuses in the US Case Law

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 989-1007
Author(s):  
DANIELE AMOROSO
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
State Involvement ◽  
The Us ◽  
Terrorist Groups ◽  
Traditional Paradigm ◽  
Corporate Liability ◽  
Private Wrongs

AbstractAccording to the agency paradigm enshrined by the 2001 ILC Articles on State Responsibility, private conducts are attributed to a state when they are carried out on the state's behalf or under its tight control. On closer look, this legal framework proves to be unable to deal with state involvement in human-rights violations perpetrated by powerful non-state actors, such as terrorist groups or transnational corporations. These wrongs, indeed, are often put in place with the fundamental contribution of – but not on behalf of (or under the control of) – a state, with the consequence that, under the traditional paradigm, they could not be attributed to the latter. Against this backdrop, the present paper argues that a new secondary norm has been developing that provides that private wrongs are to be imputed to a state if the latter knowingly facilitated (or otherwise co-operated in) their commission. Although international practice will be duly taken into account, the analysis will be focused mainly on US case law concerning corporate liability for international human-rights violations.

Insult of Public Officials

2021 ◽  
pp. 388-409
Author(s):  
Christoph Bezemek
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Structural Differences

This chapter assesses public insult, looking at the closely related question of ‘fighting words’ and the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Chaplinsky v New Hampshire. While Chaplinsky’s ‘fighting words’ exception has withered in the United States, it had found a home in Europe where insult laws are widely accepted both by the European Court of Human Rights and in domestic jurisdictions. However, the approach of the European Court is structurally different, turning not on a narrowly defined categorical exception but upon case-by-case proportionality analysis of a kind that the US Supreme Court would eschew. Considering the question of insult to public officials, the chapter focuses again on structural differences in doctrine. Expanding the focus to include the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR), it shows that each proceeds on a rather different conception of ‘public figure’.

Ecuador prison crisis threatens to escalate

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Prison Violence ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Us ◽  
International Coordination ◽  
Drug Cartels ◽  
International Human ◽  
International Investors

Significance The attack, which involved drones, illustrates the evolving tactics of crime groups, and follows a string of violent, sometimes coordinated, incidents at prisons this year. These have resulted in the deaths of over 120 inmates. Prison violence comes alongside rising crime and growing concerns over the strengthening of transnational drug cartels. Impacts Lasso will face increasing pressure from international human rights groups to protect prisoners and improve prison conditions. Rising violence and crime will increase concerns among international investors about the security of investments and risks of extortion. Lasso might seek to exploit improved relations with the US and Colombian governments to strengthen international coordination.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document