(Image: Headline Politics)
President Obama announced on Monday a ban on solitary confinement for juvenile offenders in the federal prison system. He is also contemplating banning or severely restricting its use in general.
Instead of getting legislation passed through Congress, Obama will use his “phone and pen” to outline a series of executive actions against the practice.
The president wrote in an op-ed:
Research suggests that solitary confinement has the potential to lead to devastating, lasting psychological consequences. It has been linked to depression, alienation, withdrawal, a reduced ability to interact with others and the potential for violent behavior. Some studies indicate that it can worsen existing mental illnesses and even trigger new ones. Prisoners in solitary are more likely to commit suicide, especially juveniles and people with mental illnesses.
The uses for solitary confinement has varied over time, but solitary was not originally intended for non-violent offenders. Solitary is supposed to be used not to punish the criminal for the crime they committed, but to protect everyone else from said criminal. Currently, the number of juveniles that face solitary confinement in the federal prison system is far outweighed by the number of adult inmates that face solitary.
The president addressed such statements with the following response; “In those cases, the practice should be limited, applied with constraints and used only as a measure of last resort.”
When does the situation become a last resort? After the inmate has killed another, or numerous, inmates or guards?
Obama may be correct in asking, “How can we subject prisoners to unnecessary solitary confinement, knowing its effects, and then expect them to return to our communities as whole people?”
But, while many would probably agree that "unnecessary" solitary confinement is a bad thing for a non-violent offenders' psyche, how can the president completely ban a practice just because of those instances?