The Controversy Surrounding Solitary Confinement
Solitary confinement has long been one of the most debated practices in modern corrections. Promoted as a necessary tool to maintain order and discipline, it’s increasingly criticized for its psychological and social consequences. Among the various types of isolation used in prisons, disciplinary confinement (DC) stands out as one of the harshest.
Political leaders have also weighed in on the topic. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) introduced legislation in 2024 to limit the use of solitary confinement saying, “The goal of our criminal justice system should be to rehabilitate offenders and prepare them for successful reentry into our society. We have had some success—like the landmark First Step Act—but the continued overuse of solitary confinement undermines this objective, causing psychological harm that is difficult, if not impossible, to undo.” DC involves placing inmates in single cells for extended hours each day, usually as punishment for rule violations. It is also used for inmates under investigation and for those seeking protective custody because of threats within the general population. And while DC in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) does not promote the use of single-cell isolation, even spending time in a Special Housing Unit where lockdowns are nearly 24 hours a day and contact with the outside world is limited, it takes its toll on inmates.
A new study backs Durbin’s concerns in that the use of DC is not getting the results that corrections professionals seek even though it is widely used. The study conducted by Laura Dellazizzo, Sabrina Giguère, Charles-Édouard Giguère, Alexandre Dumais, entitled, “Does disciplinary confinement fulfill its objectives? A meta-analysis on the effects of disciplinary confinement on misconduct and recidivism,” was recently published and its findings show the damage of DC, particularly for those with existing mental illness.
Understanding Disciplinary Confinement
In correctional facilities, sanctions are often imposed to ensure security and compliance. These range from minor restrictions—such as limiting phone or visitation rights—to severe forms of isolation like DC. Typically, disciplinary confinement is temporary, lasting anywhere from a few days to several weeks, depending on jurisdiction.
According to the research, some regions, such as Canada, place firm limits on confinement length, usually capping it at 30 days per offense. In contrast, certain U.S. states impose no clear boundaries, allowing confinement periods to stretch unpredictably. Regardless of duration, the conditions are harsh. Inmates in DC are often deprived of social interaction, educational opportunities, and most basic privileges. In the BOP, its policy states, “An inmate is considered to be housed in “extended placement” when continuously housed in SHU for six months or longer.”
Even though this practice is costly to maintain due to heightened security measures, the human cost is far greater according to the research. Psychological deterioration, increased aggression, and diminished coping skills are among the well-documented consequences of solitary living.
Who Ends Up in Solitary?
Not all inmates face disciplinary confinement equally. Those placed in DC differ from the general prison population in key demographic and psychological ways according to the study. They are often younger, predominantly male, and considered higher security risks. Moreover, individuals with mental illness are disproportionately represented among those in isolation.
Studies reveal that inmates with psychiatric conditions are significantly more likely to be placed in solitary confinement, even after controlling for other factors. This raises serious ethical and clinical concerns. Individuals already struggling with mental health challenges face an environment that intensifies their symptoms—creating a cycle of isolation, instability, and repeated misconduct.
In these cases, confinement can quickly become counterproductive. Instead of stabilizing behavior, it often amplifies distress, frustration, and defiance, increasing the risk of future violations both in custody and after release.
Does Disciplinary Confinement Work?
Supporters of DC argue that it helps maintain institutional order and deters future misconduct. By isolating offenders, it temporarily removes threats to safety and reinforces disciplinary norms. In theory, it should also serve as a deterrent for other inmates who might otherwise break the rules.
Yet research consistently challenges these assumptions. Empirical studies show that DC provides little to no deterrent effect. Inmates subjected to isolation may become more withdrawn or hostile, and there’s scant evidence that they are less likely to reoffend upon release.
A major issue lies in the lack of access to rehabilitative programming during confinement. Without education, therapy, or vocational training, inmates miss critical opportunities for behavioral change. The BOP came under criticism and cancelled its Special Management Unit (SMU) after a report disclosed abuses at one of the primary locations for the program at its correctional facility an Thomson. That studied concluded that, in addition to physical abuse, corrections officers subjected people in the SMU to psychological trauma through the use of extended solitary confinement, referred to by the BOP euphemistically as “restrictive housing.”
The Role of Mental Illness
Mental illness significantly shapes how inmates respond to confinement. The research indicates that isolation worsens symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and anger. A 2020 analysis found that solitary confinement was associated with increased psychiatric distress, especially hostility and emotional instability.
For inmates with preexisting mental health conditions, these effects can be devastating. The recent meta-analysis found that while DC had no significant impact on misconduct overall, inmates with mental illnesses were substantially more likely to reoffend after confinement. In other words, DC may have no benefit for the general population but is clearly harmful for those with mental health vulnerabilities.
This dynamic exposes a deep flaw in the design of disciplinary systems. By using isolation as a behavioral control tool, institutions are effectively punishing symptoms of illness rather than treating them the paper concluded.
The Evidence from the Meta-Analysis
To examine these effects, researchers conducted a systematic review of studies across major academic databases. They identified 11 eligible studies, encompassing data from over 244,000 inmates across various correctional settings. The researchers used random-effects models to analyze outcomes related to misconduct during incarceration and recidivism after release.
The findings revealed a troubling pattern. Exposure to DC was associated with a 53 percent higher likelihood of recidivism. While DC showed no significant impact on institutional misconduct overall, inmates with mental illness were 54 percent more likely to engage in misconduct following confinement compared to those without. It is a vicious cycle.
These results suggest that DC not only fails to reduce future crime but may actively contribute to it—particularly for the most vulnerable populations.
Why Disciplinary Confinement Falls Short
There are several reasons DC fails to achieve its intended goals. Prolonged social isolation takes a heavy toll on mental health, undermining inmates’ ability to regulate emotions or make rational decisions. The deprivation of human contact and purposeful activity erodes psychological resilience, leading to frustration, hopelessness, and aggression.
Moreover, confinement eliminates opportunities for positive engagement. Inmates in isolation are denied access to group therapy, education, and vocational programs—all proven to reduce reoffending. Instead, they experience extended inactivity and surveillance, conditions that heighten stress and erode coping skills.
Rather than serving as a corrective measure, DC can become criminogenic—fueling the very behaviors it seeks to suppress.
Toward Safer and More Humane Alternatives
The evidence calls for a reevaluation of how correctional systems handle discipline and behavioral control. Alternatives to solitary confinement are both feasible and effective. Restorative justice programs, behavioral incentives, and specialized therapeutic housing units have shown promise in reducing violence and promoting rehabilitation.
Expanding mental health services is another key step. When correctional staff receive training in mental health awareness and crisis intervention, the reliance on solitary confinement decreases significantly. Some jurisdictions have already implemented reforms, limiting the duration of confinement or banning its use for individuals with diagnosed mental illnesses.
These changes reflect a growing consensus that safety and rehabilitation are not mutually exclusive goals. In fact, they depend on one another.
A Call for Reform
The findings from the latest research are clear: disciplinary confinement does not make prisons safer or inmates more compliant. Instead, it perpetuates cycles of violence, mental deterioration, and reoffending. For individuals with mental illnesses, the consequences are even more severe.
The Government Accountability Office issued a troubling report in 2024 about the BOP’s use of DC, concluding, “… the BOP has not fully implemented 54 of the 87 recommendations from two prior studies on improving restrictive housing practices.” It is still a problem today.
As correctional systems evolve, they must shift from punitive isolation toward evidence-based rehabilitation. True correction lies in equipping individuals with the tools to succeed beyond incarceration—not confining them to silence and despair. Since most all of those in federal prison will be released to society, it is important that those released have the best chance of not ever returning. Reducing reliance on DC also means the BOP needs more people to handle inmate problems, otherwise, additional confinement becomes an easy solution with a disproportionate downside for the future.
Read the full article here
