scholarly journals Ścisłe odosobnienie skazanego w warunkach restrictive housing w północnoamerykańskich więzieniach – znaczenie, cele i wyzwania

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Szwejkowska
Keyword(s):  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
Administrative Segregation

Problematyka dotycząca umieszczania przymusowego skazanych w warunkach ścisłego odosobnienia, określanego w północnoamerykańskiej literaturze przedmiotu jako restrictive housing, solitary confinement, administrative segregation lub supermax budzi liczne kontrowersje. W szczególności kwestionowana jest konstytucyjność rozwiązań prawnych dotyczących restrictive housing, jak i negatywny wpływ tego rodzaju warunków odbywania kary na dobrostan skazanych, którzy jak każda istota ludzka mają naturę społeczną i dążą doutrzymywania normalnych międzyludzkich interakcji. Zarówno wśród teoretyków badających naukowo problem, jak i wśród praktyków (funkcjonariuszy służby więziennej) można znaleźć zarówno zwolenników, jak i przeciwników, ścisłego odosabniania skazanych. Dodatkowo trzeba wskazać, że na płaszczyźnie prawnomiędzynarodowej zabrania się stosowania takich warunków na czas nieoznaczony lub na czas nadmiernie wydłużony (Reguły Mandeli). Aktualnie zdają się przeważać opinie, iż niezbędne jest opracowanie alternatywnych środków i strategii postępowania ze skazanymi, które z jednej strony zapewnią porządek i bezpieczeństwo w jednostkach penitencjarnych Stanów Zjednoczonych, a z drugiej, pozwolą na bardziej humanitarne postępowanie ze skazanymi, bez narażania ich na wysokie ryzyko negatywnych konsekwencji związanych ze stosowaniem warunków restrictive housing.

The Effects of Administrative Segregation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Gendreau ◽  
Ryan M. Labrecque
Keyword(s):  
Well Being ◽  
Psychological Problems ◽  
Psychological Effects ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Extreme Conditions ◽  
Collective Violence ◽  
Administrative Segregation ◽  
Supermax Prisons ◽  
The Impact

This essay considers debate over the extent to which some inmates should be isolated from others within prison, the impact of isolation on psychological well-being during confinement, and the implications for supermax prisons with 23-hour lockdown. The need for administrative segregation and solitary confinement is assessed in the context of improving the safety of individual inmates as well as preventing collective violence. These ideas are contrasted with the downside of isolation, including the possibility of compounding problems with existing mental illnesses, the development of “new” psychological problems during confinement, increased demands for psychological and psychiatric resources, and the problems posed for successful re-entry. However, contrary to some scholarly discourses, evidence to date suggests that administrative segregation does not produce dramatic negative psychological effects unless extreme conditions apply.

Solitary Confinement in Canada

2019 ◽  
pp. 335-342
Author(s):  
Joseph J. Arvay ◽  
Alison M. Latimer
Keyword(s):  
Significant Risk ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Trial Judge ◽  
Administrative Segregation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Psychological Harm ◽  
Pain And Suffering ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
The Government

On January 17, 2018, a historic decision put Canada at the forefront of an international movement against solitary confinement. A trial judge found that administrative segregation is a form of solitary confinement and that it causes some inmates physical harm and places all inmates subject to it in Canada at significant risk of serious psychological harm, including mental pain and suffering, and increased incidence of self-harm and suicide. This chapter describes the Canadian litigation and the findings of the trial judge with respect to the laws’ constitutional invalidity. The decision of the trial judge was largely upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The Canadian Parliament has now enacted a new law that purports to abolish solitary confinement but the authors are skeptical that the new law will pass constitutional muster because it is still too restrictive of inmate rights. It is expected that the government will seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Management of High-Security Prisoners

2019 ◽  
pp. 259-278
Author(s):  
Andrew Coyle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Administrative Segregation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
High Security ◽  
Good Order ◽  
The One ◽  
Vexed Question

This chapter deals with the vexed question, ‘If not solitary confinement, then what?’. The author describes his personal quest to find an answer this question throughout a professional lifetime during which he spent over two decades in the United Kingdom managing high security prisons where he tried to balance the obligations, on the one hand, to maintain security, safety and good order in each prison while, on the other hand, dealing in a decent and human manner with men who had the potential to be violent and dangerous. He recounts his early observations in the United States and Canada on the beginnings of what were to become ‘supermax’ and ‘administrative segregation’. Having spent a further two decades in academia researching this subject at an international level, he links his earlier experiences in North America with recent involvement in court cases in Canada and the United States. He concludes by laying out a series of operational principles which, if properly applied, are likely to lead to a dramatic reduction and eventually to the elimination of the use of solitary confinement.

Solitary Confinement

Criminology ◽  
2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian O'Donnell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
Administrative Segregation ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Solitary Cell ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Protective Custody ◽  
The 19Th Century

Solitary confinement has long been part of the practice of imprisonment in the United States, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. It has changed over time in terms of the underlying rationale, the enthusiasm with which it is embraced, and the identities of its most ardent advocates. In the early decades of the 19th century, religiously motivated prison reformers were at the forefront. Consensus was widespread about the need for prisoners to live by a rule of silence but disagreement as to whether this required separation at all times from their peers or whether silent association was acceptable (or, indeed, preferable). In the closing decades of the 20th century, there was renewed interest in solitary confinement, but without the concern for prisoner welfare and rehabilitation that had characterized earlier debates. Now the protagonists were prison administrators, and a discourse that had taken place outside the prison gates and featured many voices was replaced by one that was almost entirely internal and one-sided. Typically, there are four kinds of circumstances under which prisoners are isolated. First, there is protective custody, often at the prisoner’s request. A return to the general population can be difficult if a prisoner has been segregated because of vulnerability due to the nature of his or her offense, the accumulation of debts that cannot be discharged, or a perception that he or she has communicated information to staff. Second, there is disciplinary detention for breaking prison rules; generally the duration is relatively short. In some countries a court can impose solitary confinement as part of a sentence and the time period here can be lengthy. Third is administrative segregation. This can be short term (e.g., while an investigation is being carried out or pending transfer) or long term (if a prisoner is thought to present a threat to institutional order). Fourth, there are occasions when prisoners seek the respite of the solitary cell as a way of easing psychological pressures. In such cases the stay tends to be brief and prisoners return to their usual place of abode afterward. Long-term administrative segregation in the United States in facilities that have been described as offering “supermax” custody has generated concern on human rights grounds as well as for reasons of economy and efficacy.

scholarly journals Arbitrary or Administrative: The Consequences of Unregulated Segregation

INvoke ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Romanik ◽  
Regan Brodziak
Keyword(s):  
Public Safety ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
Objective Analysis ◽  
Administrative Segregation

This paper explores the consequences of the Canadian practice of administrative segregation (solitary confinement) as it currently exists with few mechanisms of oversight and few regulations guiding its use. The consequences are examined from three perspectives: that of ethics, that of reintegration and, finally, that of its uneven application. These consequences are evaluated and compared to the benefits of this practice in order to provide a more objective analysis. This paper concludes by arguing that, instead of abolishing the practice of solitary confinement in its entirety, the Correctional Service of Canada should instead create more comprehensive restrictions regarding its use so as to reduce the inevitable harms produced by this practice and in turn contribute to public safety.

Colorado Ends Prolonged, Indeterminate Solitary Confinement

2019 ◽  
pp. 311-324
Author(s):  
Rick Raemisch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Public Safety ◽  
The United States ◽  
Solitary Confinement ◽  
Parking Space ◽  
Administrative Segregation ◽  
A Cell ◽  
Department Of Corrections ◽  
Colorado Department

When did it become okay to lock someone in a cell that is the size of a parking space, twenty-three hours per day, seven days a week for decades? When did it become okay to lock someone who is mentally ill in a cell the size of a parking space, twenty-three hours per day for years, and let the demons chase him or her around in the cell? And when did it ever become okay to take someone who had spent years in segregation and release them directly to the community? If our mission is public safety, and it is, why are we sending people back to society worse than when they came in? Ninety-five percent of those incarcerated in Colorado will return to their community. In September of 2017, the Colorado Department of Corrections abolished the use of administrative segregation, or as it is now nationally termed by corrections, extended restrictive housing. Currently, Colorado is the only state in the United States that has abolished this practice. In order to see where we are, it is important to see where we were, and the journey that brought us here.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document