The Safety of Mentally Ill Prisoners in Solitary Confinement - Essay Example

March 3, Why it is safer for mentally ill prisoners to be housed in solitary confinement, rather than in the general population Mental illness induces unstable state of mind in which patients may engage in unreasonable activities, such as violence and destruction of property. Such an occurrence may be involuntary or out of unconscious or subconscious mind and may therefore be a threat to the patients’ environments. The same problem arises in prison environments with mentally ill people. Eliminating the patients from their potential victims, either other people or property, offers a solution to the threat and identifies the need to confine the patients. There are however contrary opinions to this approach and identify potential adverse effects of the patients’ confinement. I, however, argue that it is safer to house the prisoners in solitary confinement than in the general population. Arguments against solitary confinement of mentally ill patients are based on postulates that the treatment is bad for the population segment or that the population segment may coexist with other people without posing a significant threat. A review of data on confinement of prisoners in California facilities suggests this. The review identifies non-application of the term solitary confinement though the treatment is identifiable in the facilities. Preferring not to use the term could indicate intention to distance self from the practice because of identified moral or legal issues. The number of individuals who are placed in solitary confinement has also been reducing to suggest declining significance of the treatment. While the treatment has been used for prisoners who offer threats to others, a reduction in use of solitary confinement means that measures have been established to reduce the level of threat of violence. Consequently, threat that mentally ill people could pose to other prisoners could be managed in the same way to avoid solitary isolation treatment on the patients (Rodriguez 1). Putting mentally ill prisoners in solitary isolation may also worsen the patients’ conditions instead of solving the problem of threat to other people. The isolation, as Kupers explains, increases the patients’ irrationality, and motivates them to exert their condition. The author argues that more mental illness cases occur in prisons than they do outside the prisons, even in psychiatric hospitals. Effects of the isolation have also been identified with increased level of aggression among mentally ill individuals. A person, isolated in an enclosed cell may for example experience higher-level anxiety and physiological conditions that may induce hyperactive reactivity in their interactions. Such an individual may for example scream to an officer, exposing elements of violent threats, while his intention is just to seek attention. The resultant condition of the isolated prisoners, being more anxious and reactive than prisoners in the normal prison set up, also prompts them to react more negatively to officers’ harsh treatment. Consequently, placing mentally ill patients in solitary isolation only worsens their condition and therefore increases their threat to other prisoners after the isolation period, or their threat to the public when they complete their terms (Kupers 1). Susan also explains varied relationship between solitary isolation of mentally ill prisoners and their final condition. She argues that solitary isolation offers harsh treatment to prisoners, whether mentally sound of ill. The isolated prisoners experience boredom and loneliness that may cause mental illness or worsen illness among prisoners. In addition, isolation deprives prisoners of normal interaction with other people and this has adverse effects on their rationale and may reduce their cooperation with other people when they are released from isolation. Following concerns by health experts for mentally ill persons and human rights activists, a survey on effects of solitary isolation identified significance of the isolation on mental health. This together with decision by the director of correction facilities in Colorado to reduce the number of prisoners under solitary isolation shows that the practice is harmful to mental health and it puts mentally ill prisoners at a risk of worsening condition (Green 1). The Correctional Investigator’s annual report for the year 2011-2012 further suggest that removal of mentally ill prisoners from solitary isolation is associated increased probability of the patients’ recovery. In addition, it is noted that confinement is a violation of human rights and subjecting mentally ill prisoners to the treatment is unlawful (Saper 1). The arguments against placing mentally ill prisoners in solitary isolation focuses on the possible effects of the treatment on the patients but not the entire scope of the prison environment and potential effects of the mentally ill patients on other prisoners. In addition, empirical analysis that oppose the use of solitary isolation of mentally ill prisoners seems to be biased because they do not identify possible benefits that the isolation can offer to the ill prisoners and the other prisoners in a correction facility. Cohen however offers this open approach to the treatment and reports significant benefits to the ill patients. The author considers a situation in which mental prisoners were monitored after being slotted for solitary confinement. The confinement helped in identification of the degree of illness of the prisoners and therefore developed an informed basis for handling the prisoners. Suitable treatment methods and identification of special needs for recovery is therefore possible from such objective solitary confinement and not only helps in the prisoners’ treatment, but also expands the facilities roles of treating the prisoners. The objective solitary confinement also offers extensive benefits to the entire correction facility. The threats that the ill patients offer to other prisoners are not only eliminated during confinement, but are solved for the prisoners’ entire stay in the facility after recovery and release from confinement. In addition, the confinement facilitates individual attention to the mentally ill patients towards their well-being. In addition to the patients’ welfare, the isolation ensures that other members of correction facility fraternity are protected from possible dangers of interacting with mentally ill prisoners (Cohen 1). Results of a review that American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado conducted in the year 2013 also support the rationale into confining mentally ill patients. Despite the launch of the Residential Treatment Program that offers specialized and intensive care to the mentally ill patients, Colorado’s department of corrections continues to use solitary confinement and this suggest two possible implications. The launched program may not have been as effective as solitary confinement in helping the facilities to either improve the patients’ condition or protect other members of the facilities from the mentally ill patients or both. The report also noted that mentally ill patients whose conditions require significant psychological attention are the ones subjected to solitary confinement and therefore identifies operation of the treatment on necessity (American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado 1). Mentally ill patients are also vulnerable to their environments. Whether in prison set ups or outside prisons, the patients are at a higher risk of physical and sexual assault and their protection is necessary. The theory of isolation of a victim from its source of threat, as a preventive measure then supports isolation of mentally ill prisoners from other prisoners and solitary isolation is an alternative to this safety measure. In addition, the mentally ill prisoners have demonstrated the ability to endure the conditions under isolation and this undermines the notion of adverse effects of solitary confinement on the prisoners’ conditions (Johnston 147). Many arguments have been offered to oppose solitary confinement of mentally ill prisoners and the arguments focus on the prisoners’ welfare. These arguments are however largely subjective, despite some of them being made from empirical observations. Reducing trend in application of the treatment may for example be a result of human rights activism or resource scarcity for managing confinements and not necessarily due to benefits to the mentally ill prisoners. Further, though mentally ill prisoners forms a smaller percentage that mentally well prisoners, arguments against solitary confinement focuses on welfare of the smaller population segment and not the threat that the mentally ill prisoners offer to other prisoners. This may be irrational to the entire correctional facility population. The arguments for isolation are however objective and focuses on the entire population. The isolation for example identifies an approach to treatment of the mentally ill prisoners besides arguing for safety of other prisoners. These further extend to the entire population by improving the condition of the mentally ill prisoners before they are released into the society or by isolating them from the society. I therefore support the position that it is safer, for both the mentally ill prisoners and others, for mentally ill prisoners to be housed in solitary confinement, rather than in the general population. Works cited American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado. “Out of sight, out of mind: Colorado’s continued warehousing of mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement.” American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado. Web. N.d. March 3, 2014. < http://aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/files/imce/ACLU-CO%20Report%20on%20Solitary%20Confinement_2.pdf > Cohen, Andrew. Colorado Will No Longer Send the ‘Major Mentally Ill to Solitary Confinement, 2013, m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/colorado-will-no-longer-send-the-major-ill-to-solitary-confinement/282366/. Print Greene, Susan, CO Prisons Officials Acknowledge Chief’s Murder Tied in Solitary Confinement Policies, 2013. Print Johnston, Lea. “Vvulnerability and just desert: A theory of sentencing and mental illness.” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology (2013) 103.1, 147-229. Print. Kupers, Terry. A, How to Create Madness In Prison: Solitary Confinement In California, 2003. Print Rodriguez, Sal. How many People Are In Solitary Confinement in California’s Prisons, 2013, www.solitarywatch.com/2013/12/04/many-california-prisoners-solitary-confinement/. Print Saper, Howard. Annual report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator 2011-2012: Correctional Investigator’s Message, 2012. Print Read More