The Prison Journal
REVIEWED BY SAM TORRES
"Supermax Prisons: Their Rise, Current Practices, and Effects on Inmates," by Jesenia Pizarro, and M.K. Vanja Stenius (June, 2003, Vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 248–264)
Since the late 1970s, a number of conservative crime control strategies like determinate sentencing, capital punishment, mandatory minimums, and elimination of parole, all seeking to meet the goals of deterrence, retribution, and incapacitation, have gained supremacy within the criminal justice system. One particularly harsh strategy, the supermax prison, is the focus of this article. Pizarro and Stenius examine the roots of supermax prisons, how they operate, and the effects on the inmates of these modern-day dungeons. These inmates are often referred to by prison administrators as "the worst of the worst," who need to be removed from the general population because they pose a danger to other inmates and staff and/or are so disruptive that they must be isolated.
The article opens with a few statistics to demonstrate the growth of the prison population in the U.S. since 1973. Between 1973 and the early 1990s, the number of prisoners grew by 332 percent, while the rate of incarceration increased over 200 percent. As the number of inmates grew rapidly, the characteristics of inmates began to change due to an influx of younger and more violent offenders. As prisons became more and more violent during this period, correctional administrators examined various strategies to manage this increasingly "worst of the worst" inmate population. Thus emerged the supermax prison, based on the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) model developed in 1983 at the U.S. Penitentiary at Marion, Illinois. Some believe that the U.S. Penitentiary at Alcatraz provided the foundation for the modern-day supermax facility. Alcatraz, the infamous federal prison located in San Francisco Bay, overlooking Fisherman's Wharf, housed the most notorious and disruptive inmates of the early and mid-1900s. The BOP closed Alcatraz in 1963 and opened the U.S. Penitentiary at Marion in 1969. Between 1969 and 1983 Marion was a level 5, maximum security prison, housing some of the most dangerous inmates in the federal system. In 1972, the BOP built H unit at Marion, which was designed to house the most disruptive inmates. Escalating violence continued at Marion through the mid-70s, and as a result, a new administrative maximum-level unit was built. This in essence became a higher security level 6 within a level 5 (maximum) security facility. The mission of this administrative unit was to provide long-term segregation for inmates who threatened or injured other inmates or staff members.
Violence at Marion continued to escalate during the early 80s, culminating in the killing of two correctional officers on the same day in the fall of 1983. As a result, Marion was placed on a complete lockdown and remained in lockdown, thus becoming the first supermax institution in the country that confined all of its inmates in their cells 23 hours per day. The warden and correctional officers at Marion claimed that this strategy reduced assaults and made the prison environment safer. As a result, other states began to emulate the Marion model. As of 1997, approximately 34 states operated one or more supermax facilities, with 55 supermax prisons or units in operation nationwide.
Like almost all correctional strategies, the use of supermax facilities has not been without controversy, and in some quarters there has been intense opposition. Opponents to this form of extreme incarceration argue that it violates prisoners' rights, contributes to a deterioration in the physical and mental condition of inmates, results in increased suicides, and is extremely expensive. Those who support supermax incarceration argue that these facilities are needed to enhance the security of other inmates and staff, and to decrease the tremendous influence and disruption of prison gangs. Above all else, order must be maintained and some inmates simply cannot be kept in the general population. Thus, supporters of supermax prisons argue that a special high-security facility is needed for the most dangerous and disruptive of inmates.
The authors indicate that while the empirical research on supermax prisons is somewhat limited, what little has been done on the topic seems to suggest that this form of incarceration has the potential to damage the mental health of inmates while failing to meet the purported goals of deterring inmates from violent and disruptive behavior. That these prisons seem not to meet their goals, according to the article, results in added problems and increased cost to public budgets. So, early on in this article, it becomes quite clear that the authors have concluded that supermax prisons are destructive and expensive.
In supermax prisons inmates are kept in their cells between 22½ to 23 hours per day, coming out only to exercise for approximately one hour per day. Because these inmates are deemed to be the most dangerous, they take part in virtually no educational, religious, or other programs. The unambiguous purpose of this form of incarceration is total control, and with this stated objective, there is little room or flexibility for any therapeutic intervention. Although the operation of supermax facilities varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, all facilities possess common features, which include confinement in their cells 22 to 23 hours per day, limited human contact, and restraint—usually of both hands and feet—for any movement outside the cell. Criteria for placement in a supermax facility for most jurisdictions are based on the inmate's behavior in prison and not the conviction offense or prior record. Supermax confinement is generally reserved for those inmates that are deemed to threaten the safety, security, or orderly operation of the facility where they have been serving their sentence.
Pizarro and Stenius report that only 23 jurisdictions have written criteria outlining how an inmate can earn a transfer back into the general population. The amount of time that inmates serve in supermax custody also varies across jurisdictions. Most inmates are serving indeterminate placement in these facilities and the amount of time that they remain in total isolation is generally determined by the perceived risk of the inmate. Thus, an inmate may either be returned to general population or released to the community when his or her sentence is completed.
Needless to say, this type of incarceration is more expensive than maximum, medium, and minimum security prisons. The average daily cost for inmates at the supermax facility in Colorado in 1999 was $88.72, compared to the daily cost of $50.82 for a maximum security prison. Annually, the cost per year in a supermax prison was $32,383 compared to $18,549 for a maximum security prison. The form of incarceration raises legal and ethical issues as well; however, the overall constitutionality of supermax prisons remains unclear. Many scholars and practitioners argue that the living conditions and treatment provided to inmates in these facilities do not meet the standards of the 8th Amendment, while some federal court judges have repeatedly ruled that prolonged confinement in supermax conditions is cruel and unusual punishment only for the mentally ill.
That the pains of imprisonment in a supermax facility are more severe than those of a maximum security prison are acknowledged by proponents and opponents. Opponents of supermax prisons argue that a major concern is the potential effect on inmates' mental health because of the total isolation and lack of activity. The Pennsylvania Prison System model of the 1800s was abandoned largely because of the physical and mental deterioration of inmates, the increased rate of suicide, and the high cost of this type of imprisonment. Thus, the reinvention of supermax facilities in 1983 is simply a recycling of the Pennsylvania System that long ago was found to be too harmful to the mental and physical well being of inmates as well as being too costly. Although no research to date has directly examined the effects of supermax confinement, isolation research supports the notion that greater levels of deprivation contribute to more psychological and emotional problems. The authors cite research demonstrating that as inmates face greater restrictions and social deprivations, their levels of social withdrawal increase. Other studies have found that segregation tends to result in such forms of psychological distress as depression, hostility, severe anger, sleep disturbance, physical symptoms, and anxiety. Thus, although no research has directly examined the effects of supermax confinement, the general consensus is that increasing the level of restrictions increases the risk for psychological and emotional problems. The authors cite numerous studies which have found that prolonged isolation results in a multiplicity of serious psychiatric conditions, up to and including losing touch with reality (psychosis).
Although the weight of the research supports the destructive impact of isolation, a few studies have found that such confinement can result in desirable behavior modification. A 1975 study found that short-term segregation can be an effective tool for dealing with disruptive inmates, while a 1982 study concluded that there is no support for the claim that solitary confinement is adverse, stressful, or damaging. Although most of these studies possess some methodological problems, taken together, they do suggest that isolation negatively influences inmates' psychological and emotional well-being. While it is acknowledged that many inmates come to prison with pre-existing psychological problems, supermax incarceration is likely to exacerbate their problems.
In addressing the deterrent effect of supermax confinement, the authors suggest, consistent with Classical Theory, that the punishment must be administered with certainty, severity, and celerity (promptness). The article concludes that it is unlikely that supermax facilities serve as a deterrent on the basis of certainty since placement in these facilities is relatively rare and often based on administrative decisions using risk factors over which the inmates have little control. The perceived certainty of placement, according to the authors, is likely to be low and inmates observe that disruptive or violent behavior does not generally result in a transfer to a supermax facility. Principles of deterrence theory argue that severity is less important than the certainty of punishment. The authors cite existing empirical literature that suggests that placement of problematic inmates in supermax prisons does not decrease prison violence. Furthermore, research in the area of deterrence indicates that in most cases, deterrence as a correctional policy does not work.
In conclusion, the authors in reviewing the literature on supermax incarceration and deterrence/isolation studies find what early correctional administrators/practitioners discovered almost 200 years ago under the Pennsylvania System, that this type of incarceration is not only very expensive but leads to mental/physical deterioration and increased suicides. Ironically, in adopting the supermax prisons, the correctional system seems to have suffered from a deficiency common to many of our offenders: a failure to learn from experience. In agreement with most correctional progressives, these authors also conclude that inmates who have been abused, treated violently, and confined in dehumanizing conditions that threaten their mental health may well leave prison angry, dangerous, and far less capable of leading law-abiding lives than when they entered prison. Angry, violent, and dangerous people may be released back into the community more angry, more violent, and more dangerous than when they entered our "correctional" institutions, and the public will pay over $30,000 per inmate annually to make them more likely to re-offend and victimize us.
This article clearly and (I believe) accurately outlines the damaging effects of supermax confinement. Correctional administrators had good reason to abandon this mode of incarceration almost 200 years ago. However, as a career correctional practitioner, I have observed first-hand the increasingly dangerous and violent offenders entering the system. While it is easy to identify current correctional strategies that are counterproductive, it is more difficult to know how to protect correctional officers, and for that matter, thousands of inmates serving time in maximum custody institutions. Correctional officers expect to return home at the end of their shift and inmates should expect that they will survive to complete their sentences without getting a shank in their back, having their throat slit, or being passed around as a sexual possession being repeatedly sodomized by sexual predators. While it is acknowledged that supermax facilities are probably over-utilized, and that many inmates serving time in these facilities could safely be released back into the general population, we are still left with the problem of what to do with the small percentage of sexual predators, violent psychopaths, prison gang members, or inmates that have little to lose by assaulting a prisoner or staff member. What are we to do with the inmate serving a life sentence without parole who kills an inmate or staff member with little remorse or fear of consequences? Should that inmate remain in general population?
The point here is that while it is easy for us academicians and researchers to highlight poor correctional practices, it is much harder to identify alternative constructive strategies to deal with the "worst of the worst." My own opinion is that there are way too many inmates serving sentences in a supermax facility; a significant percentage could be reintegrated back into the general population. A formal mechanism must be developed to determine if "disruptive" inmates may be suffering from mental or emotional problems, thus needing psychiatric care rather than total isolation. All jurisdictions must establish criteria outlining how long an inmate will remain in isolation and how inmates can work their way back to the general population. For those inmates that must be kept physically separate from other inmates and staff, the condition of their isolation should be mitigated by more time out of their cells and with the opportunity to participate, if only to a limited extent, in some type of programs. While it may be argued that many of these supermax inmates already have a diminished sense of humanity, in a civilized society it is incumbent upon us to encourage the maintenance of whatever humanity remains.