The psychological effects of administrative segregation.(response to article by Ivan Zinger, Cherami Wichmann and D.A. Andrews in this issue, p. 47)

Publication: Canadian Journal of Criminology

Publication Date: 01-JAN-01

Bookmark this article Print this article Link to this article Email this article Digg It! Add to del.icio.us RSS

COPYRIGHT 2001 Canadian Criminal Justice Association

It seems fitting that I should begin my commentary on the research of Zinger et at. on the psychological effects of 60 days in administrative segregation with two stories culled from my own most recent research archives. I say fitting because critics of Prisoners of Isolation, my 1983 monograph on solitary confinement in Canada, have suggested that my indictment of the practice of solitary confinement is unscientific, insofar as I draw conclusions as to the effects of prolonged isolation based upon "anecdotal" evidence, drawn from interviews with prisoners some of whom are "notorious", others who are involved in litigation in which they have an interest in dramatizing the impact of their treatment and who are in other ways unrepresentative of the "normal" prisoner population. Despite the criticisim, I take some comfort from the fact that, as Professors Landreville and Lemonde document in their commentary, judges, parliamentarians and the Correctional Service of Canada's own internal task forces have all drawn similar conclusions to my own.

The two stories I wish to relate occurred within the segregation units of Kent Maximum Security Institution and William Head Medium Security Institution in the Pacific region. The first story involves a prisoner who was placed in administrative segregation at Kent following the discovery in his cell of a knife and a sizeable amount of heroin. He was convicted of possession of contraband and sentenced to 30 days in punitive segregation by the independent chairperson of the disciplinary court. Prior to the expiry of that sentence, the prisoner indicated to the institutional authorities that he did not want to return to the general population, and was prepared to spend the remainder of his sentence (almost a year) in segregation. The primary reason he gave me was that he had been holding the heroin for other prisoners who blamed him for its discovery by the authorities and were likely to take retaliatory action against him. This prisoner believed that he was more than capable of taking on his former allies but preferred not to have to "step out" and run the risk of picking up more time or being transferred to the Special Handling Unit. When he appeared before Kent's Segregation Review Board for his sixty-day review (the critical period in the Zinger study), he told them that he was prepared to remain in segregation. He stated "it doesn't bother me at all. It doesn't hurt me being in segregation. The `seg' unit here is nothing compared to lots of prisons I've done time in". The response of one member of the Review Board,...

Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.