Exploring the Effect of Exposure to Short-Term Solitary Confinement Among Violent Prison Inmates
- 5.1k Downloads
This study tracked the behavior of male inmates housed in the general inmate populations of 70 different prison units from a large southern state. Each of the inmates studied engaged in violent misconduct at least once during the first 2 years of incarceration (n = 3,808). The goal of the study was to isolate the effect of exposure to short-term solitary confinement (SC) as a punishment for their initial act of violent behavior on the occurrence and timing of subsequent misconduct.
This study relied upon archival longitudinal data and employed a multilevel counterfactual research design (propensity score matching) that involved tests for group differences, event history analyses, and trajectory analyses.
The results suggest that exposure to short-term solitary confinement as a punishment for an initial violence does not appear to play a role in increasing or decreasing the probability, timing, or development future misconduct for this particular group on inmates.
Upon validation, these findings call for continued research and perhaps a dialog regarding the utility of solitary confinement policies under certain contexts. This unique study sets the stage for further research to more fully understand how solitary impacts post-exposure behavior.
KeywordsSolitary confinement Punitive segregation Corrections Inmate misconduct
The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript. Gratitude is also expressed to James W. Marquart, Alex R. Piquero, J.C. Barnes and others for valuable feedback on this study as it was in development.
- Becker SO, Caliendo M (2007) Sensitivity analysis for average treatment effects. Stata J 7:73Google Scholar
- DiIulio JJ (1990) Governing prisons. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Gau S, Fraser MW (2009) Propensity score analysis: statistical methods and applications. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
- Gibbons J, Katzenbach N (2006) Confronting confinement: a report of The Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons. Wash Uni J Law Policy 22:385–560Google Scholar
- Greenland S, Robins JM, Pearl J (1999) Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference. Stat Sci 14:9–46Google Scholar
- Haney C, Lynch M (1997) Regulating prisons of the future: a psychological analysis of supermax and solitary confinement. NYU Rev Law Soc Change 23:477Google Scholar
- Holmes WM (2014) Using propensity scores in quasi-experimental designs. Sage Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
- Irwin J (2005) The warehouse prison: disposal of the new dangerous class. Roxbury, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
- Minke KL (2012) Fængslets indre liv. Jurist og økonomforbundets forlag. Unpublished dissertationGoogle Scholar
- O’Keefe ML, Klebe KJ, Metzner J, Dvoskin J, Fellner J, Stucker A (2013) A longitudinal study of administrative segregation. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 41:49–60Google Scholar
- Riveland C (1999) Supermax prisons: overview and general considerations. http://static.nicic.gov/Library/014937.pdf
- Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB (1985) Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat 39:33–38Google Scholar
- Shalev S (2009) Supermax: controlling risk through solitary confinement. Willan, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Useem B, Kimball P (1989) States of siege: US prison riots, 1971–1986. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar