Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Solitary Confinement Exposure and Capital Inmate Misconduct

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study assesses whether capital inmates exposed to short-term solitary confinement (SC) continue to engage in physical violence and misconduct while incarcerated post-exposure. Using archival longitudinal data collected by a large prison system in Texas, the current study intends to reveal patterns behind prisoner misconduct examining complete disciplinary records for all capital inmates (N = 1236). According to the results, age, gender, race, gang affiliations and priors are associated with prisoner misconduct. On average, capital inmates exposed to solitary confinement are more likely to manifest continuity in misconduct during their stay in prison.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In 1999 the state of Texas moved death row to the Polunsky unit. This unit houses death row inmates in single person cells, with each cell having one small window. These offenders are allowed individual recreation time. Death row inmates are not deprived of a regular diet, reading, writing or legal materials and depending on their custody level may obtain a radio (TDCJ).

  2. Although there has not been tremendous change in the correctional system, the use and widespread of supermax prisons that facilitate SC as a control mechanism has been in full effect since 1983. During this time, there were two correctional officers murdered at Marion Penitentiary in Illinois. These murders occurred on the same day, but not simultaneously, so to control the prison population and prevent future tragedies, the prison remained on lockdown, and isolated inmates. This idea of SC became an ordinary measure in hopes to lower prison violence. Prison administrations hoped to modify negative inmate behaviors through intimidation and zero tolerance policies.

  3. It is important to note here that sometimes SC is resorted because of extreme circumstances where inmates need to be isolated due to outbreaks of violence, etc. Even in these conditions, solitary-confined individuals might show those mental problems.

  4. To construct Failure Among All Capital Inmates and Failure After SC, data is reshaped to make it suitable for survival analysis.

  5. It is important to note here that the two models examine different outcomes (e.g., only SC versus any type of punishment). However, we observed that gang involvement showed similar patterns in the analysis on any type of misconduct before SC in the earlier draft of this paper. We excluded that model in this manuscript for simplicity.

  6. Propensity score matching was attempted, however the performance matching was not satisfactory, and data shared by TDCJ could not fulfill the requirements to conduct propensity score matching.

References

  • AFSC (2016). Solitary Confinement Facts. Retrieved from https://www.afsc.org/resource/solitary-confinement-facts.

  • Arrigo, B., & Bullock, J. (2008). The psychological effects of solitary confinement on prisoners in supermax units: What we know and recommending what should change. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(6), 622–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms, A. E. (1999). Interpersonal violence and social order in prisons. Crime & Justice, 26, 205–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S., & Day, A. (2008). The role of loneliness in prison suicide prevention and management. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(4), 433–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulman, P. (2012). The psychological effects of solitary confinement. NIJ Report. Corrections Today, 58–59. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/239781.pdf.

  • Camp, S. D., Gaes, G. G., Langan, N. P., & Saylor, W. G. (2003). The influence of prisons on inmate misconduct: A multilevel investigation. Justice Quarterly, 20, 501–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, F. (2008). Penal isolation: Beyond the seriously mentally ill. Criminal Justice Behavior, 35(8), 1017–1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. D., & Reidy, T. J. (2002). Violence risk assessment at Federal Capital Sentencing: Individualization, generalization, relevance, and scientific standards. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 512–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. D., & Sorensen, J. R. (2006a). Actuarial models for assessment of prison violence risk: Revisions and extensions of the risk assessment scale for prison (RASP). Assessment, 13, 253–265.

  • Cunningham, M. D., & Sorensen, J. R. (2006b). Nothing to lose? A comparative examination of prison misconduct rates among life-without-parole and other long-term high-security inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33, 683–705.

  • Cunningham, M. D., & Sorensen, J. R. (2007). Capital offenders in Texas prisons: Rates, correlates, and an actuarial analysis of violent misconduct. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 553–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, M. D., Sorensen, J. R., & Reidy, T. J. (2005). An actuarial model for assessment of prison violence risk among maximum security inmates. Assessment, 12, 40–49.

  • Diamond, B., Morris, R. G., & Barnes, J. C. (2011). Individual and group IQ predicts inmate misconduct. Paper presented at the 2011 annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences in Toronto, Canada.

  • DiIulio, J. J. (1990). Governing prisons. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drury, A., & DeLisi, M. (2011). Gang kill: An exploratory empirical assessment of gang membership, homicide offending, and prison misconduct. Crime and Delinquency, 57, 130–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dudeck, M., Drenkhahn, K., Spitzer, C., Barnow, S., Kopp, D., Kuwert, P., et al. (2011). Traumatization and mental distress in long-term prisoners in Europe. Punishment & Society, 13, 403–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, S. (2014). The cruel and unusual phenomenology of solitary confinement. Hypothesis and Theory Article. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gendreau, P., & Bonta, J. (1984). Solitary confinement is not cruel and unusual punishment: People sometimes are. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 26(4), 467–478.

  • Glancy, G., & Murray, E. (2006). The psychiatric aspects of solitary confinement. Victims and Offenders, 1, 361–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, L., & Wright, K. N. (1989). Inmate adjustment to prison. In L. Goodstein & D. L. MacKenzie (Eds.), The American prison: Issues in research and policy (pp. 229–251). New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grassian, S. (1983). Psychopathological effects of solitary confinement. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 1450–1454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent misconduct among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 33, 419–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C. (2003). Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 49(1), 124–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C. (2006). Reforming punishment: Psychological limits to the pains of imprisonment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Haney, C., & Lynch, M. (1997). Regulating prisons of the future: A psychological analysis of supermax and solitary confinement. NYU Review: Law Society Change, 23, 477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henrichson, C., & Delaney, R. (2012) The price of prisons: what incarceration costs taxpayers. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.

  • Irwin, J. K., & Cressey, D. R. (1962). Thieves, convicts and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10, 142–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, S., & Fisher-Giorlando, M. (2002). Inmate misconduct: A test of the deprivation, importation and situational models. The Prison Journal, 82, 335–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. (1981). Condemned to die: Life under sentence of death. New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. (2008). Life without parole, America’s other death penalty: Notes on life under sentence of death by incarceration. The Prison Journal, 88, 328–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazemian, L., & Travis, J. (2015). Imperative for inclusion of long termers and lifers in research and policy. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 355–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovell, D., & Jemelka, R. (1996). When inmates misbehave: The cost of discipline. The Prison Journal, 76, 165–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquart, J. W., Ekland-Olson, S., & Sorenson, J. R. (1989). Gazing into the crystal ball: Can jurors accurately predict dangerousness in capital cases? Law and Society Review, 23, 449–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquart, J. W., Ekland-Olson, S., & Sorenson, J. R. (1994). The rope, the chair, and the needle: Capital punishment in Texas, 1923–1990. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. R. (1998). Linking exposure to strain with anger: An investigation of deviant adaptations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P. (2013). Supermax prisons: The policy and the evidence. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(4), 681–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P., & Bales, W. D. (2010). Supermax housing: Placement, duration, and time to reentry. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 545–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P., & Watson, J. (2006). Towards a fair and balanced assessment of supermax prisons. Justice Quarterly, 23, 232–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P., Mancici, C., Beaver, K. M., & Gertz, M. (2013). Housing for the “worst of the worst” inmates: Public support for supermax prisons. Crime & Delinquency, 59(4), 587–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, R. (2016). Exploring the effect of exposure to short-term solitary confinement among violent prison inmates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, R., & Worrall, J. (2014). Prison architecture and inmate misconduct: A multilevel assessment. Crime & Delinquency., 60, 1083–1109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, R. G., Longmire, D. R., Buffington-Vollum, J., & Vollum, S. (2010). Differential parole eligibility and institutional misconduct among capital inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 417–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, R., Carriaga, M., Diamond, B., Leeper-Piquero, N., & Piquero, A. (2012). Does prison strain lead to prison misbehavior? An application of general strain theory to inmate misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 194–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muldrow, D. (2015). The Cost of a Cage: Solitary Confinement in Texas. Right on Crime. Retrieved March 2, 2017, from http://rightoncrime.com/2015/03/the-cost-of-a-cage-solitary-confinement-in-texas/.

  • National Research Council. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, M. L., Klebe, K. J., Metzner, J., Dvoskin, J., Fellner, J., & Stucker, A. (2013). A longitudinal study of administrative segregation. Journal of American Academic Psychiatry Law, 41, 49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obama, B. (2016). Barack Obama: Why we must rethink solitary confinement. Washington, DC: The Washington Post.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogletree, C., & Sarat, A. (2012). Lives on the line: From capital punishment to life without parole. New York: The Charles Hamilton Houston Institute Series on Race and Justice: Life Without Parole: America’s New Death Penalty? (1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Osgood, D. W. (2000). Poisson-based regression analysis of aggregate crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 21–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozkan, T. (2016). Reoffending among serious juvenile offenders: A developmental perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizarro, J. M., & Narag, R. E. (2008). Supermax prisons what we know, what we do not know, and where we are going. Prison Journal, 88, 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reidy, T. J., Cunningham, M. D., & Sorensen, J. (2001). From death to life: Prison behavior of former death row inmates in Indiana. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 62–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter, A. (2012). The most restrictive alternative: A litigation history of solitary confinement in U.S. Prisons, 1960–2006 studies in law, politics, and society, 57: 71–124.

  • Rogers, R. (1993). Solitary Confinement. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 37(4), 339–349.

  • Schenk, A., & Fremouw, J. (2012). Individual characteristics related to prison violence: A critical review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 430–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shalev, S. (2009). Supermax: Controlling risk through solitary confinement. London: Willan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalev, S. (2011). Solitary confinement and supermax prisons: A human rights and ethical analysis. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 11, 151–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, L. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 445–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. (2006). The effects of solitary confinement on prison inmates: A brief history and review of the literature. Crime and Justice, 34, 441–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. (2009). Solitary confinement- history, practice, and human rights standards. Prison Service Journal, 181, 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen, J., & Wrinkle, R. (1996). No hope for parole disciplinary infractions among death-sentenced and life-without-parole inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 542–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2009). Rethinking the link between institutional crowding and inmate misconduct. The Prison Journal, 89, 205–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, B., Butler, H. D., & Ellison, J. M. (2014). Causes and correlates of prison inmate misconduct: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 462–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinke, P. (1991). Using situational factors to predict types of prison violence. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 17, 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suedfeld, P., & Roy, C. (1975). Using social isolation to change the behavior of disruptive inmates. Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 19(1).

  • Suedfeld, P., Ramirez, C., Deaton, J., & Baker-Brown, G. (1982). Reactions and attributes of prisoners in solitary confinement. Criminal Justice Behavior, 9, 303–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, G. M. (1958). The society of captives: A study of a maximum-security prison. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Texas Department of Criminal Justice (2015). Death Row Facts. Retrieved from https://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/death_row/dr_facts.html

  • Toch, H., Adams, K., & Grant, J. (1989). Coping: Maladaptation in prisons. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

  • Useem, B., & Kimball, P. (1989). States of siege: US prison riots, 1971–1986. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. (2007). Predicting institutional adjustment with the psychological inventory of criminal thinking styles composite scales: Replication and extension. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 12, 69–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, R., Mukamal, D. A., & Segall, J. D. (2011). Life in limbo: An examination of parole release for prisoners serving life sentences with the possibility of parole in California. Stanford: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, University of Stanford.

  • Wener, R. (2006). Effectiveness of the direct supervision system of correctional design and management. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 33, 392–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worrall, J., & Morris, R. (2012). Prison gang integration and inmate violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 425–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worrall, J., & Morris, R. (2014). Prison architecture and inmate misconduct. Crime & Delinquency. 60(7), 1083–1109.

  • Zimring, F., & Hawkins, G. (1995). Incapacitation: Penal confinement and the restraint of crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas at Dallas, 800 West Campbell Road, GR 31, Richardson, TX, 75080, USA

    Justine A. Medrano, Turgut Ozkan & Robert Morris

Authors
  1. Justine A. Medrano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Turgut Ozkan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Morris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Turgut Ozkan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Medrano, J.A., Ozkan, T. & Morris, R. Solitary Confinement Exposure and Capital Inmate Misconduct. Am J Crim Just 42, 863–882 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9389-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-017-9389-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation