|
COPYRIGHT 2001 Canadian Criminal Justice Association
In Canada, the percentage of segregated prisoners has more than doubled in the last ten years, now representing approximately 5.5% of federally sentenced prisoners (Pierson 1988; Kane 1997). However, little research has been conducted on these prisoners. Moreover, many scholars have assessed the literature on penal segregation as sparse, conflicting, rife with speculations, and based upon far-fetched extrapolations and generalizations (Barak-Glantz 1983; Brodsky and Scogin 1988; Suedfeld, Ramirez, Deaton, and Baker-Brown 1982; Wormith, Tellier, and Gendreau 1988).
Notwithstanding the inadequacy of the existing research, two conflicting perspectives on the effects of segregation on prisoners have emerged. Some researchers describe segregation as "cruel and unusual punishment" and psychologically damaging (Benjamin and Lux 1975; 1977; Grassian 1983; Immarigeon 1992; Jackson 1983; Korn 1988; Luise 1989; Martel 1999), whereas others provide evidence that segregation has little, if any, negative psychological effect on prisoners (Bonta and Gendreau 1995; Ecclestone, Gendreau, and Knox 1974; Gendreau, Freedman, Wilde, and Scott 1972; Gendreau and Bonta 1984; Suedfeld et al. 1982).
Resolving the question of the impact of segregation carries important policy implications for areas such as: (a) the level and frequency of monitoring and assessment required for prisoners in segregation (mandatory vs. upon request); (b) programming to reduce mental health deterioration (need for, and type of, intervention programs); and (c) the adequacy of current assessment strategies (what aspects of psychosocial functioning are important to assess, and which are less affected by segregation).
This article contains two sections. First, a review of methodological issues highlights the current unsatisfactory state of the literature on the effects of segregation. This review shows that supporters of one view often fail to appreciate the findings of the opposing view, as well as to recognize the limitations of their own findings when drawing their conclusions. The ability to generalize the results of these studies is affected to varying degrees by improper attention to methodological shortcomings of the research conducted. Second, the findings of a research project which addressed the shortcomings of the existing literature is presented.
Part I: Evaluation of existing research on segregation: A review of methodological shortcomings
1. Reliance on qualitative data (casual observations, interviews and anecdotes)
Many authors use anecdotal evidence to support their claims (Benjamin and Lux 1975, 1977; Brodsky and Scogin 1988; Grassian 1983; Jackson 1983; Korn 1988; Martel 1999). These authors often take selected but powerful excerpts from interviews of segregated prisoners or mental health professionals with experience with segregated prisoners to provide general evidence of the harmful effects of segregation. Some authors rely on testimony on the use of isolation in the 19th century to produce corroborative evidence of the harmful effects of segregation in today's correctional context (Grassian 1983; Immarigeon 1992; Luise 1989). Others cite human rights violation litigation to depict the general conditions of confinement and treatment of segregated prisoners, as well as the psychological and physical harm that ensues (Benjamin and Lux 1977; Birkinshaw 1981; Jackson 1983; Luise 1989).
The evidence of the damaging effects of segregation on prisoners adduced by these authors is very disturbing, and cannot be ignored. Because of the nature of the methodology, it is often unclear whether the pathologies displayed by some segregated prisoners were directly attributable to the conditions of confinement in segregation or whether these prisoners displayed similar pathologies in the general prisoner population or in the community, prior to being segregated (Gendreau and Bonta 1984).
In addition, Suedfeld et al. (1982) found that some authors inappropriately use findings from case studies of persons who experienced severe abuse and sensory deprivation to illustrate the damaging effects of segregation. Testimony of tortured political and war prisoners who were denied food, clothing, medical assistance and procedural fairness are at times relied upon to establish the damaging effects of segregation in contemporary North American correctional settings (Benjamin and Lux 1975; Korn 1988). The generalization of the findings of these case studies has been questioned (Gendreau and Bonta 1984; Suedfeld et al. 1982). Isolation in a political or war camp is not comparable to the highly regulated and formalized procedures for imposing segregation on prisoners in North American penitentiaries. Conditions of confinement, procedural safeguards, and the level of safety and security provided to the prisoners differ to such an extent that a comparison may well be inappropriate (Gendreau and Bonta 1984; Suedfeld et al. 1982).
2. Conditions of confinement
One of the problems with segregation research stems from difficulties in defining the constructs being evaluated. Many terms, such as administrative segregation, dissociation, isolation, seclusion, protective custody, and solitary confinement are used, often interchangeably, to describe various restrictive environments. These terms encompass a wide range of conditions of confinement in which the number of restrictions on freedom of association and freedom of movement may vary, and in which levels of perceptual deprivation, sensory deprivation, and social isolation may also vary. There is such a diversity in the nature of conditions of confinement used in segregation research that aggregating all studies under the same "solitary confinement" label has been described by some as inappropriate (Suedfeld et al. 1982).
Many authors recognize the importance of the environment with respect to its impact upon the segregation experience and the difficulty associated with generalizing results (Grassian 1983). Conditions of confinement and daily routine vary so greatly among correctional institutions (Kane 1997; Vantour 1975) that results derived from one institutional setting may not be applicable to others. For example, the frequency and quality of interactions with staff or other prisoners, the physical layout of segregation cells (e.g., solid doors, cell size, etc.), the size of the exercise yard, the availability of recreational equipment and hobby items, and the access to personal effects, programs, and services, may all affect the segregation experience. As a result, the majority of studies describe, at great length, the conditions of confinement and the daily routine of segregated prisoners being studied.
Many authors have reviewed the proliferation of control units in the United States and abroad in an attempt to determine their effects on prisoners' mental and physical health (Birkinshaw 1981; Coyle 1987; Dowker and Good 1993; Korn 1988; Immarigeon 1992). The establishment of control units in the United States originated in 1963 when a penitentiary in Marion (Illinois) was built to replace Alcatraz (Coyle 1987). Since then, more than 33 States have comparable Marion-like facilities (Immarigeon 1992). Control units provide a good illustration of the difficulty in defining the constructs being evaluated. Although control units are not formally recognized by correctional authorities as segregation units, and although they sometimes impose fewer restrictions on prisoners than in traditional segregation units, they often impose many similar conditions of confinement (Coyle 1987; Dowker and Good 1993; Immarigeon 1992; Korn 1988). For example, Dowker and Good (1993) describe some of the defining features of these institutions. Prisoners are confined in small cells for 22 or 23 hours per day. The cells are often equipped with solid steel doors, which prevent any communication between prisoners. Further, these institutions are often equipped with remote electronic sliding doors, which minimize, if not eliminate, most contact with correctional staff. There are no communal dining, exercise, or religious services, and few, if any, work opportunities.
3. Relevance of field and laboratory experiments on sensory deprivation
Most of the experimental studies on the effects of segregation come from the field of sensory deprivation. Gendreau and his colleagues have generated and evaluated many theories and hypotheses on sensory deprivation in the correctional context. For example, Gendreau and colleagues examined whether: isolated prisoners show higher arousal potential because of a lower arousal level induced by solitary confinement (Gendreau et al. 1972); segregation enhances learning (Gendreau, McLean, Parsons, Drake, and Ecclestone 1970); isolated subjects desire a lower level of stimulation (visual and auditory sensory input) after a deprivation experience (Gendreau, Freedman, Wilde, and Scott 1968); and stress levels, as indicated by adrenocortical activity, can detect whether solitary confinement is harmful (Ecclestone et al. 1974).
Others have commented upon or tested theories and hypotheses of sensory deprivation in the correctional context as well. For example, Benjamin and Lux (1977) argue that segregation is harmful because it dramatically reduces levels of needed stimulation. Dowker and Good (1993) believe that prisoners who are segregated for long periods of time may be deprived of necessary meaningful human contacts, and, as a result, these prisoners have difficulties in coping with normal social situations again.
Suedfeld et al. (1982) argue that the comparison between field or laboratory experiments on isolation and stimulus reduction and today's typical North American segregation environment is inappropriate. They contend that it is highly questionable whether the typical segregation unit in fact imposes much reduction in stimulus input. They state that most segregated prisoners can communicate with guards and other prisoners and have access to reading material, mail, lawyers, other visitors, and frequently possess radios and television sets. Gendreau and Bonta (1984) argue that the conditions of confinement in many of the sensory deprivation and isolation experiments are more severe than those found in today's segregation units. They argue that, since these field and laboratory experiments show little support for the position that sensory deprivation and isolation are psychologically damaging, the conclusions drawn from these studies are especially informative and relevant.
4. Selection of subjects
4.1 Use of Volunteers. Experimental studies on segregation rely primarily on volunteers who agree to be segregated for a fixed period of time. Some authors have been reluctant to accept results of studies which have relied on volunteers (Arbour 1996; Jackson 1983; Vantour 1975). Walters, Callagan, and Newman (1963) believe that the problem-with using volunteers is that they are apparently not too frightened by the prospect of facing a few days of isolation, and they may have personality characteristics and past experiences which enable them to cope with, and remain unaffected by, segregation.
In Canada, approximately half of all prisoners placed in segregation are confined against their will (Kane 1997). In...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
