In a report written by the Reuters News agency regarding Solitary Confinement Juan Mendez, a United Nations torture investigator was quoted as saying “can amount to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment when used as a punishment, during pretrial detention, indefinitely or for a prolonged period, for persons with mental disabilities or juveniles.” This is a most accurate statement and should set the parameters for such treatment or mistreatment as it is prone to become in longer time periods. He also said that “short-term solitary confinement was admissible under certain circumstances, such as the protection of lesbian, gay or bisexual detainees or people who had fallen foul of prison gangs”. But he said there was ‘no justification for “using it as a penalty, because that’s an inhumane penalty.” ‘Mr. Mendez is also correct on this principle of locking down people who fit into this category as many who are weak and have special needs regarding their lifestyles or other differences, need protection from others who prey on such individuals. Hence his statement that it should not be used as a penalty is where the systemic flaws are occurring as management styles have been adapted to use this isolation methods as a tool to control behaviors and in some cases, extract information for intelligence purposes in reference to gangs and gang activities.
Herein this use of solitary confinement to be used as a penalty comes the variances that are imposed inside such parameters that may or can constitute unusual punishment or cruelty to the persons incarcerated and confined inside such special housing units for reasons deemed to be rational and practical under correctional guidelines. Because of its mere location and isolation from the rest of the world’s eyes, solitary confinement is most often misunderstood. It has been described as a place where there are individuals who are labeled “worse of the worst” creating stereotyping that is both inaccurate and most harmful to their needs of protection and civil right considerations by the system and the courts. Internal controls established by the unit’s management imposes additional alleged “unintentional punitive measures” to manage the individual’s behaviors creating a conflict in established methods of managing the prisoner’s needs while housed inside this special unit. This fever to play the role of the “punisher” creates informal corrective or preventive measures that are not outlined within any written document or policy leaving its interpretation up to the “punisher.” without going into depth of these draconian methods of “punishing” a prisoner’s negative behaviors, it can easily lead to abuse, neglect and eventual torturous conditions. It is these unofficial sanctions imposed by these “punishers” that escapes the eyes of the top administrators and the attention of our courts. Through tacit approval and the code of silence, these sanctions are imposed and permitted to occur randomly to “adjust attitudes” or modify behaviors with or without incentives.
Solitary confinement should be a rigid procedure that is constantly maintained under the scrutiny of an independent panel not influenced by the unit’s correctional hierarchy or command systems. It should be composed of five (5) individuals who are skilled and trained with extensive backgrounds in the areas of due process, medical care, mental health standards , operational security and internal affairs experience. The final review for approval or disapproval would rest with the director of operational concerns in a centralized position. The process this oversight panel would implement would be two-folded. The first purpose is to review the justification for placement process documented of the prisoner to review the case and facts. This should be done no later than 60 days after initial placement to allow a time period of adjustment to consider behavioral adjustment recorded or misconduct reported. The second purpose of this five (5) member panel would be to review those “use of force” reports identified to be questionable and possible “excessive force” situations based on the considerations of physical evidence of injuries, hospitalization of prisoner, statements by the participants in the action, a psychological assessment of the prisoner and a review of the disciplinary history to establish patterns of behaviors that need housing adjustments. Even if these independent placement and activity reviews are random and taken at a percentage of events as they occurred, the mater of fact remains that employees and unit management are aware there are formal regulation oversight procedures in place to verify the reasons for placement, the justification for actions taken and the possible repercussions of behaviors contrary to policies and procedures giving the system legitimate tools to provide sound guidance for solitary confinement and its associated problems. It is highly likely that the number of placements inside these special units would be adjusted as more avenues are provided for prisoners to air their concerns creating a more balanced environment within such a restrictive concept and due process intact.
Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/18/us-un-torture-solitary-idUSTRE79H7HF20111018
http://solitarywatch.com /