Solitary Confinement as Punishment: Examining In-Prison Sanctioning Disparities

Abstract

Drawing on prior sentencing and prison scholarship, this study examines the use of solitary confinement as a form of punishment. Specifically, it assesses whether, given a prison infraction, minority inmates—and young, male, minority inmates in particular—are more likely to be placed in solitary and to be placed in it for longer durations. Multilevel regression analyses of state prison data suggest little support for the hypothesis that minority males, or young minority, males, are sanctioned more harshly than other inmates. The analyses identify, however, that males are more likely than females to be placed in solitary as a form of disciplinary punishment and that younger females are more likely to be placed in it than older females. The findings highlight that age and sex may interact to influence punishment decisions and raise questions about the precise roles of race and ethnicity in affecting punishment decisions. Implications of the findings for theory, research, and policy are discussed.

Keywords:

• prison
• sanctioning
• race
• ethnicity
• solitary confinement
• focal concerns

Acknowledgements

We thank Sonja Siennick for providing helpful guidance with the analyses, Eric Stewart for his suggestions, and the Editor and anonymous reviewers for recommendations to improve the paper. We also thank the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) for providing the data. All views expressed here are those of the authors only, not of the FDC. A version of this paper was presented at the 2016 annual meeting for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences held in Denver, Colorado.

Notes

¹ For the purposes of this paper, “solitary confinement” refers to what sometimes is referred to as “disciplinary confinement,” which is confinement in response to inmates’ disciplinary infractions. Other terms—such as “isolation,” “supermax,” “segregation,” “administrative segregation,” and “restrictive housing,”—can be and are interchangeably used with “solitary confinement” (Mears, 2016). In each instance, the confinement of focus typically centers on (1) an inmate spending entire days, such as 20 hours or more, by themselves, (2) doing so for varying periods of time, and (3) for different goals, such as punishment, protection, or some general managerial purpose. There is, at present, no consistent terminological usage (Mears, 2016). For example, some scholarship may use “supermax” to refer to long-term stays whereas others may view “supermax” housing to encompass short- or long-term stays. We recognize this inconsistency and have opted here to refer to “solitary confinement” because the term has been in use for many decades and has been the term used in prominent presidential and legislative discussions. We use it instead of “disciplinary confinement” because this latter term does not clearly capture the fact that inmates may be alone during such confinement. Ultimately, regardless of terminology, our focus is on the use of placing inmates in a cell, alone, typically for 20 hours or more for one or more days, as a punishment for infractions.

² One other study by McClellan (1994) examined over 500 infraction sentencing events in two Texas state prison facilities and examined gender differences in sanctions, but did not examine the impact of race or ethnicity on sanctioning. In addition, Houser and Belenko (2015) examined in prison sanctioning outcomes for 211 female prison inmates in Pennsylvania prisons but did not differentiate use of solitary confinement from other serious in-prison sanctions.

³ Our analyses focus on lengths of sentence, which may differ from the amount of time individuals actually stayed in solitary confinement. The data did not allow for examining differences between sentence length and time served in solitary. Such differences constitute an additional potential disparity that may arise and that warrants attention in future research.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Joshua C. Cochran

Joshua C. Cochran, PhD, is an Assistant Professor at the University of Cincinnati, School of Criminal Justice, P.O. Box 210389, Cincinnati, OH 45221, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. His research interests include theory, imprisonment, prisoner reentry, and sentencing. His work has appeared in Criminology, the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Justice Quarterly, the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency and in a recent book, with Daniel P. Mears, Prisoner Reentry in the Era of Mass Incarceration (Sage).

Elisa L. Toman

Elisa L. Toman is an Assistant Professor at Sam Houston State University’s Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Huntsville, TX 77341, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. Her research interests include theories of punishment, trends in criminal sentencing, and the implication of individuals’ experiences with the corrections system. She has published recently in Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Justice Quarterly, and Journal of Criminal Justice.

Daniel P. Mears

Daniel P. Mears, PhD, is the Mark C. Stafford Professor of Criminology at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 112 South Copeland Street, Eppes Hall, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1273, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. His work has appeared in leading crime and policy journals and American Criminal Justice Policy (Cambridge University Press), which received the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Outstanding Book Award, Out-of-Control Criminal Justice (Cambridge University Press), and, with Joshua C. Cochran, Prisoner Reentry in the Era of Mass Incarceration (Sage).

William D. Bales

William D. Bales, PhD, is a Professor at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 112 South Copeland Street, Eppes Hall, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1127, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. Dr. Bales focuses on a range of crime and policy topics, including factors that contribute to recidivism, the effectiveness of electronic monitoring, and tests of labeling theory. He has published in Criminology, Criminology and Public Policy, Justice Quarterly, and other crime and policy journals.