CALIFORNIA has agreed to reform its use of solitary confinement in prisons by ending unlimited isolation for certain inmates under conditions outlined in a landmark legal settlement.
As part of the agreement, which was reached on Tuesday, Sept. 1, the practice of indefinite isolation to control violent prison gangs will come to an end and approximately 2,000 inmates will be returned to the general population, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Prison officials have long used solitary confinement as a means of controlling inmates they deem too dangerous to house with the general population because of gang membership or if they’ve demonstrated violence in prisons.
Most of these isolated prisoners have been without significant human contact for more than 30 years, the LA Times reported. The state has nearly 3,000 inmates who spend more than 22 hours per day alone in cells that don’t always have windows, The New York Times reported. No other state holds such a number of inmates for such a long period of time, according to the Center for Constitutional Rights.
The state has also agreed not to lock inmates with gang affiliations in soundproofed, windowless units just to prevent them from coordinating illegal activities with other gang members, USA Today reported.
“It will move California more into the mainstream of what other states are doing while still allowing us the ability to deal with people who are presenting problems within our system, but do so in a way where we rely less on the use of segregation,” Jeffrey Beard, secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, told the Associated Press.
Tuesday’s settlement does not eliminate solitary confinement, but it caps the duration of time prisoners can spend in isolation. It also calls on California to create high-security units that permit some group activity, phone calls and job opportunities for prisoners they say are too dangerous for mainline housing.
“This brings California in line with more modern national prison practices,” said Jules Lobel, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, who was the lead lawyer for the inmates who brought the lawsuit against California, the NY Times reported. “People have been kept in solitary confinement for outrageously long periods of time. That’s one of the problems in the U.S. – people are warehoused in these places, and now that’s going to change.”
The suit settled on Tuesday was filed in 2009 by two inmates – Todd Ashker and Danny Troxell – held in isolation for at least 10 years at Pelican Bay State Prison and accused of membership in the Aryan Brotherhood, the NY and LA Times reported.
“This settlement represents a monumental victory for prisoners and an important step toward our goal of ending solitary confinement in California, and across the country,” the plaintiffs of the case said in a written statement. “The prisoners’ human rights movement is awakening the conscience of the nation to recognize that we are fellow human beings.”
As of Monday, Aug. 31, the NY Times reported that 2,858 inmates were in solitary housing units throughout California. Of those, more than 1,110 are in windowless cells at Pelican Bay. The Northern California correctional facility, the state’s toughest prison, had more than 500 inmates in its isolation unit for more than 10 years. But following recent policy changes, the number dropped to 62 as of late July.
Many prisoners who endure indefinite solitary confinement suffer serious psychological damage, including paranoia and panic attacks, according to RT. Terry Kuppers, a forensic psychiatrist who was among criminal justice experts who filed research findings in the lawsuit, told the LA Times that claimed prolonged solitary confinement increased inmates’ risk of suicide and anxiety, among other things.
“This is a game-changer. California has led the nation in keeping people in cold storage,” he told the publication.
Other supporters of the end of solitary confinement include President Barack Obama, who became the first president to visit a federal prison in July and told attendees at an NAACP convention that month that prolonged periods of isolation are “not smart,” the LA Times reported.
Among criteria California has used in determining which prisoners to isolate include statements from informants, specific tattoos and possession of artwork displaying gang symbols. Now, inmates will not be subject to solitary confinement based solely on gang membership, the NY Times reported. Only those who are found guilty of violence or possessing narcotics will be isolated, according to the publication.
Before the settlement agreement is implemented, it will endure a comment period and hearings, and requires approval from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, according to the LA Times. Should Wilken accept it, which she is likely to do, the publication reports, California will have one year to make changes. Afterward, attorneys representing inmates and a federal magistrate would monitor the outcome for two years.
In the past several years, more than 1,000 prisoners who were previously isolated due to gang affiliations were released. Beard, the secretary of the state corrections department, told NY Times that few of these individuals have stirred up any problems.
Thirty or 40 years ago, Beard said there was much violence in the system and something had to be done to stop it, according to the NY Times.
“You had a system that was so overcrowded over the years they just went from one crisis to another and didn’t have the time to look at some of these operational issues,” Beard said, according to the LA Times.
With the settlement, Nichol Gomez, a spokeswoman for the union representing most prison guards, said it was disappointing that “the people that actually have to do the work” weren’t involved in the negotiations, according to RT.
David Marcial, a corrections consultant and former regional director with the Connecticut Department of Correction, touted Tuesday’s settlement and told the NY Times it could be used as a model for other states.
“The problem is that it’s a settlement and not a summary judgment, so there’s no case law that can be used to pressure other states,” Marcial said. “But it can be used as a guideline for states that are not as progressive that are struggling with what to do.”
