Abstract
The use of solitary confinement in prison environments is both widespread and controversial. The harms of the practice are widely recognised, and efforts to reduce its use and harmfulness focus on limiting the time prisoners can be held in solitary confinement and setting standards to ensure that the conditions in which prisoners are held do not amount to solitary confinement. The Mandela Rules, revised in 2015 to reflect human rights principles and good practice, define solitary confinement as ‘the confinement of prisoners for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact’ (rule 44), and prohibit indefinite and prolonged (over 15 days) solitary confinement. ‘Meaningful human contact’ is therefore a central concept to distinguishing between permissible and prohibited practices. This chapter examines the concept of ‘meaningful human contact’ and discusses ways in which it is being operationalised and monitored. It specifically considers the expanded use of remote forms of communication, including with families, and asks if these can be said to amount to ‘meaningful human contact’.
This chapter also benefited from research support provided by Sarah McHutchison, RMIT University which was greatly appreciated by the authors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Human Rights Watch (2020), Covid-19 Prisoner Releases Too Few, Too Slow.
- 2.
Antigone Association (2020), Prison at the Time of the Coronavirus: Antigone’s XVI Report on Prison Conditions.
- 3.
European Organisation of Prisons and Correctional Services (EUROPRIS) (2020), Prevention Measures in European Prisons against COVID-19, Directorate of Norwegian Correctional Service (NO).
- 4.
Shalev (2013).
- 5.
- 6.
Shalev (2008).
- 7.
Coppola (2019).
- 8.
Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement (Istanbul Statement) (2017), p. 1.
- 9.
Human Rights Watch (2020).
- 10.
EUROPRIS (2020).
- 11.
Ibid.
- 12.
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (The Nelson Mandela Rules) (2015), UN Doc. A/RES/70/175, rule 1.
- 13.
Nelson Mandela Rules, rule 46(1).
- 14.
Nelson Mandela Rules, rule 46(2)-(3).
- 15.
The recently revised European Prison Rules 2006, revised 2020 similarly require ‘at least two hours of meaningful human contact a day’ (rule 53A a) but do not specify any maximum period of time noting only that it should be used ‘for the shortest period necessary to achieve its objectives, rule 53A c.
- 16.
Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex (2017), pp. 88–89.
- 17.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1976), adopted by UN Doc. A/RES/2200A(XXI), 999 UNTS 171, art 17; European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (1953), art 8.
- 18.
Nelson Mandela Rules, Rule 37.
- 19.
Nelson Mandela Rules, Rule 43(3).
- 20.
Victorian Ombudsman (2019), OPCAT in Victoria: A Thematic Investigation of Practices Related to Solitary Confinement of Children and Young People. An additional category ‘use of one hour “run-out”’ was discussed as relevant for one facility.
- 21.
Ibid., p. 120.
- 22.
Ibid. footnote 21, p. 121.
- 23.
Ibid. footnote 21, p. 121.
- 24.
Ibid. footnote 21, p. 180.
- 25.
Ibid. footnote 21, p. 182.
- 26.
HM Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (2020), Human Rights Scoping for Scrutiny Visits Methodology Undertaken During COVID-19, pp. 30–31.
- 27.
See Shalev (2019).
- 28.
Prison Rules (2007), Ireland 2007: SI No. 252/2007, rule 27(1)(a) (Irish Prison Rules).
- 29.
Ibid., rule 27(4).
- 30.
Irish Penal Reform Trust (2017).
- 31.
Corrections and Conditional Release Act, SC 1992, c 20 (as amended November 2019).
- 32.
Ibid., s 32(2).
- 33.
Ibid. footnote 32, s 35: ‘An inmate in a structured intervention unit has the same rights as other inmates, except for those that cannot be exercised due to limitations specific to the structured intervention unit or security requirements’.
- 34.
Ibid. footnote 32, s 33.
- 35.
The legislation further specifies what activities will be regarded as being counted as out of cell time; time spent showering, which previously was routinely counted, is specifically not included in the outside cell time: s 36(3).
- 36.
Ibid. footnote 32, s 37.6.
- 37.
Ibid. footnote 32, s 37.83(1-3).
- 38.
For example Grace (2019).
- 39.
Walsh et al. (2020), p. 79.
- 40.
Pate (2018).
- 41.
For example ECtHR, Hansen v Norway, Application no. 48852/17, Judgment of 29 May 2018; ECtHR, Piechowicz v Poland, Application no. 20071/07, Judgment of 17 April 2012; ECtHR, Horych v Poland, Application no. 3621/08, Judgment 17 April 2012.
- 42.
ECtHR, Babar Ahmad and others v the United Kingdom, Application no. 24027/07 11949/08, Judgment of 10 April 2012, [209].
- 43.
Ibid., [208].
- 44.
ECtHR, Harachiev and Tulumov v Bulgaria, Application no. 15018/11 61199/12, Judgment of 8 July 2014, [204].
- 45.
ECtHR, Babar Ahmad and others v the United Kingdom, Application no. 24027/07 11949/08, Judgment of 10 April 2012, [210].
- 46.
ECtHR, Ramirez Sanchez v France, Application No. 59450/00, Judgment of 4 July 2006, [145]; ECtHR, Horych v Poland, Application no. 3621/08, Judgment of 17 April 2012, [91]; ECtHR, Babar Ahmad and others v the United Kingdom, Application no. 24027/07 11949/08, Judgment of 10 April 2012, [210].
- 47.
ECtHR, Horych v Poland, Application no. 3621/08, Judgment of 17 April 2012, [92].
- 48.
ECtHR, Ramirez Sanchez v France, Application No. 59450/00, Judgment of 4 July 2006.
- 49.
Press Release, European Court of Human Rights 4.7.2006 Ramirez Sanchez v France.
- 50.
ECtHR, Ramirez Sanchez v France, Application No. 59450/00, Judgment of 4 July 2006, [134].
- 51.
Ibid., [131].
- 52.
ECtHR, Ramirez Sanchez v France, Application No. 59450/00, Judgment of 4 July 2006, [132].
- 53.
ECtHR, Hansen v Norway, Application no. 48852/17, Judgment of 29 May 2018.
- 54.
The decision of the European Court refers to the ‘High Court’, being the Norwegian Lagmannsrett.
- 55.
ECtHR, Hansen v Norway, Application no. 48852/17, Judgment of 29 May 2018, [56].
- 56.
Ibid., [58].
- 57.
Ibid. footnote 56, [94].
- 58.
Ibid. footnote 56, [87].
- 59.
Ibid. footnote 56, [89].
- 60.
Ibid. footnote 56, [90].
- 61.
ECtHR, Babar Ahmad and others v the United Kingdom, Application no. 24027/07 11949/08, Judgment of 10 April 2012.
- 62.
Ibid., [222].
- 63.
ECtHR, Piechowicz v Poland, Application no. 20071/07, Judgment of 17 April 2012.
- 64.
ECtHR, Horych v Poland, Application no. 3621/08, Judgment of 17 April 2012.
- 65.
Ibid., [96] (citations omitted).
- 66.
Ibid. footnote 65, [96].
- 67.
Ibid. footnote 65, [46].
- 68.
R v Prystay, 2019 ABQB 8.
- 69.
Canadian Civil Liberties Association v Canada, 2019 ONCA 243.
- 70.
Corporation of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association v Her Majesty the Queen, 2017 ONSC 7491 [44].
- 71.
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 BCSC 62.
- 72.
Ibid., [137].
- 73.
Ibid. footnote 72, [132].
- 74.
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 BCSC 62, [129].
- 75.
Ibid., [133].
- 76.
Winnicott in Caldwell et al. (2016), pp. 217–224.
- 77.
European Organisation of Prisons and Correctional Services (EUROPRIS) (2021), Expert Group on ICT in prisons.
- 78.
Jordan (2020).
- 79.
Antigone Association (2020).
- 80.
Shalev (2008), p. 18.
- 81.
- 82.
Council of Europe (2020), Covid-19 Related Statement by the Members of the Council for Penological Co-operation Working Group (PC-CP WG), p. 6.
- 83.
Favotto et al. (2019).
- 84.
Lee et al. (2010), p. 386.
- 85.
Ibid., p. 387.
- 86.
Ibid. footnote 85, p. 388.
- 87.
Vlahovic et al. (2012), p. 436.
- 88.
Ibid., p. 447.
- 89.
Morris (2020).
- 90.
Zurpin (2020).
- 91.
Domes (2007), p. 731.
- 92.
Spengler et al. (2017), p. 1325.
- 93.
Zurpin (2020).
- 94.
- 95.
Morris (2020).
- 96.
Gale et al. (1975), p. 237.
- 97.
Shalev (2019).
- 98.
Jefferson et al. (2020), p. 108.
References
Antigone Association (2020) Prison at the Time of the Coronavirus (Antigone’s XVI Report on Prison Conditions, 9 June 2020). https://www.antigone.it/upload2/uploads/docs/Press%20kit%20Antigone%27s%20XVI%20Report.docx.pdf
Coppola F (2019) The brain in solitude: an (other) eighth amendment challenge to solitary confinement. J Law Biosci 6(1):184–225
Council of Europe (2020) Covid-19 Related Statement by the Members of the Council for Penological Co-operation Working Group (PC-CP WG). https://rm.coe.int/pc-cp-wg-covid-19-statement-17-04-2020/16809e2e55
Domes G et al (2007) Oxytocin improves “Mind-Reading” in humans. Biol Psychiatry 61(6):731–733
European Organisation of Prisons and Correctional Services (EUROPRIS) (2020) Prevention Measures in European Prisons against COVID-19. Directorate of Norwegian Correctional Service (NO) 9 November 2020. https://www.europris.org/directorate-of-norwegian-correctional-service-no/
European Organisation of Prisons and Correctional Services (EUROPRIS) (2021) Expert Group on ICT in Prisons. https://www.europris.org/expert_groups/ict-in-prisons/
Favotto L et al (2019) The role of family and computer-mediated communication in adolescent loneliness. PloS One 14(6) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214617
Gale A et al (1975) EEG correlates of eye contact and interpersonal distance. Biol Psychol 3(4):237–245
Grace A (2019) The end of solitary confinement in Canada? Not Exactly. https://theconversation.com/the-end-of-solitary-confinement-in-canada-not-exactly-124679
Haney C (2018) Restricting the use of solitary confinement. Ann Rev Criminol 1:285–310
HM Inspectorate of Prisons for England and Wales (2020) Human Rights Scoping for Scrutiny Visits Methodology Undertaken During COVID-19. <https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/07/20200730_HMIP_C-19-Human-Rights-Scoping_Publication-Version_FINAL-FOR-WEBSITE.pdf>
Human Rights Watch (2020) Covid-19 Prisoner Releases Too Few, Too Slow. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/05/27/covid-19-prisoner-releases-too-few-too-slow
Jefferson AM et al (2020) Connecting and disconnecting, exploring prisoners’ relations with the outside world in Myanmar. Cambridge J Anthropol 38(1):105–122
Jordan K (2020) An unexpected benefit of the pandemic: the doctor will virtually see you now. Washington Post Opinion. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/04/14/telemedicine-virtual-health-coronavirus/>
Lee P et al (2010) Internet communication versus face-to-face interaction in quality of life. Soc Indicat Res 100:375–389
Lowenthal PR et al (2017) In search of a better understanding of social presence: an investigation into how researchers define social presence. Distance Edu 38(2):141–159
Morris B (2020) Why does zoom exhaust you? Science has an answer. The Wall Street Journal (New York City). https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-does-zoom-exhaust-you-science-has-an-answer-11590600269
Pate K (2018) Solitary by another name is just as Cruel. Globe & Mail Opinion, 12 November 2018. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-solitary-by-another-name-is-just-as-cruel/
Penal Reform International and the Essex Human Rights Centre at the University of Essex (2017) Essex paper 3: Initial guidance on the interpretation and implementation of the Nelson Mandela Rules. <www.penalreform.org/resource/guidance-on-implementation-the-nelson-mandela-rules>
Shalev S (2008) A sourcebook on solitary confinement. Mannheim Centre for Criminology, London School of Economics, London
Shalev S (2013) Supermax: controlling risk through solitary confinement. Willan, Cullompton
Shalev S (2014) Solitary confinement as a prison health issue. In: Enggist S et al (eds) Prisons and health: a World Health Organisation guide to the essentials in prison health, 2nd edn. World Health Organisation, Copenhagen, pp 27–35
Shalev S (2019) Shining a Light on the Prison’s Darkest Corner: A Human Rights-Centred Approach to Monitoring Solitary Confinement Units. Penal Reform International. <https://www.penalreform.org/blog/shining-a-light-on-the-prisons-darkest-corner/>
Spengler FB et al (2017) Oxytocin facilitates reciprocity in social communication. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci 12(8):1325–1333
Venter E (2019) Challenges for meaningful interpersonal communication in a digital era. HTS Theol Stud 75(1):1–6
Victorian Ombudsman (2019) OPCAT in Victoria: A Thematic Investigation of Practices Related to Solitary Confinement of Children and Young People. https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/our-impact/investigation-reports/opcat-in-victoria-a-thematic-investigation-of-practices-related-solitary-confinement-of-children-and-young-people/
Vlahovic TA et al (2012) Effects of duration and laughter on subjective happiness within different modes of communication. J Comput-Mediated Commun 17(4):436–450
Walsh T et al (2020) Legal perspectives on solitary confinement in Queensland. University of Queensland. https://law.uq.edu.au/files/55114/Solitary-Confinement-Report.pdf
Winnicott DW (1965) Review: normality and pathology in childhood by Anna Freud. International Universities Press, New York). In: Caldwell L, Robinson HT (eds) The collected works of D.W. Winnicott: Volume 7, 1964–1966. Oxford University Press (2016), pp 2017–20224
Zurpin A (2020) How to Combat Zoom Fatigue. Thinkersmith. https://www.thinkersmith.org/zoom-zoom-zoom-away-how-to-combat-zoom-fatigue/
International Legal Instruments
Council of Europe (1950) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Council of Europe Treaty Series 005
Council of Europe Recommendation Rec(2006)2-rev of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the European Prison Rules[1] (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 January 2006, at the 952nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies and revised and amended by the Committee of Ministers on 1 July 2020 (‘European Prison Rules’)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 1976. Adopted by A/RES/2200A(XXI), December 16. 999 UNTS 171. Entered into force 23 March, 1976
Istanbul Statement on the Use and Effects of Solitary Confinement (Istanbul Statement) (2007). https://www.solitaryconfinement.org/istanbul-statement
Prison Rules, Ireland 2007: SI No. 252/2007
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (The Nelson Mandela Rules). 2015. UN Doc A/RES/70/175
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Naylor, B., Shalev, S. (2022). Solitary Confinement and the Meaning of ‘Meaningful Human Contact’. In: Burbano Herrera, C., Haeck, Y. (eds) Human Rights Behind Bars. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 103. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11484-7_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-11484-7_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-11483-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-11484-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)