Skip to content
5 years ago

5767 words


            Solitary confinement (SC) has been practiced since the early 1800s as part of prisoner rehabilitation. The practice has received criticism since its foundation for being inhumane and unconstitutional. This stance is motivated by research conducted on behalf of those who develop psychological issues during solitary confinement, and their propensity to repeat criminal misconduct despite its claim to rehabilitate inmates. However, those in support of solitary confinement often cite research that propagates its utility in prisons, and how it is both economically and managerially effective. This literature review was created in order to sample the research being conducted in recent history and ascertain whether it is an accurate reflection of the total body of research available. In doing so, we hope to clarify the disparity between research that condones or rejects solitary confinement. We accomplished this by reiterating the method each experiment was conducted and addressing their limitations. We then verify that the results of each experiment were accurate reflections of the data provided and are reproducible. From these results we compared all the research in its ability to convey its message to a general audience, and whether it offered a solution to the controversy that surrounds solitary confinement today. The majority of these conditions were met for each of the eight research articles we reviewed, yet there were certain improvements that could be made to all of them. We address these limitations and offer our own solutions as part of the conclusion.




            Solitary confinement (SC) began its use as a supposed rehabilitation method right here in the United States, at the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia. The practice itself came from Quaker tradition that believed isolation with only the Bible would force someone into repentance and self-reflection. However, when tested on prisoners it became immediately apparent that it was much more inclined to cause mental duress and increase the risk of suicide (Labrecque 2015). This would lead to a short period where the practice is halted, but it is eventually brought back in other forms such as the ‘congregate’ system where inmates interact but are not allowed to communicate. Each of these instances of social deprivation had similar results, and by the end of the eighteenth-century U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Freeman finds solitary confinement to be a form of cruel and unusual torture. Unfortunately, this was never ratified into a national law and with the exponential increase in prisoners over the 120 years since then it has been put back into practice across the country. Privatized penitentiaries who are not bound to the same constraints as federal prisons often employ this form of torture. This would become popularized by the term ‘SuperMax’ cells, which have shown across all research to procure negative psychological effects if in confinement for over 10 days (Bowers et al., 2014). These SuperMax prisons are legally condoned under the supposition that it is a betterment for the safety of the staff and fellow inmates. Yet these modern inmates are kept in smaller rooms with no contact twenty-three hours a day, and not even given the Bible.

Through modern research conducted by non-profit organizations and universities not affiliated with the Department of Justice, the potential psychological effects of solitary confinement are being exposed to a new generation. In doing so, it became apparent that there has been a significant decrease in literature regarding solitary confinement available to the public domain (Labrecque 2015).  This makes sense considering SuperMax prisons would not want research to be publicized regarding the long-term effects of solitary confinement on repeat misconduct, tendency to violence, and mental health.

Our literature review discusses the means by which we acquired these reliable sources and how we determined that the state of solitary confinement research is headed in the right direction. We briefly introduce the methods and structure of each of the experiments and verify that the data reflects the assertions made in the results. We then each made comparisons between two sources that have similar results on the effects of solitary confinement in some significant way. By finding the common strengths in each of our sources, we can better determine the most plausible solution to the issues surrounding solitary confinement. Perhaps through enough public awareness to these underlying issues, a national change can be made for both the betterment of prison staff and the prison system here in America.

In searching for our research articles, we found that EBSCO host was the most reliable source of retrieving recent full articles that met our criteria. However, Google Scholar provided some of us with similarly lengthy information regarding solitary confinement and even had access to certain documents that could not be found on EBSCO host. In addition, the references section of the Wikipedia article on solitary confinement was useful for finding more legitimate sources.




Recidivism: the tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend.

Bio-criminology: the sub-order of criminology that explores organic and hereditary elements and their connection to criminal practices.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: a condition of persistent mental and emotional stress occurring as a result of injury or severe psychological shock, with dulled responses to others and to the outside world.



The culmination of this research implies that studies into solitary confinement are not without their flaws. In fact, much of the research cited here has either a gap between its data and results or is irreproducible. However, the unifying factor is that each of these studies was conducted with at least some affiliation to the American prison system. Some research takes a more comprehensive approach to prisoner data than others, but the results are surprisingly similar despite this. In all of the research reviewed, it was found that solitary confinement has some psychological effect on the patients, but the degree of its effect varies between data sets. When considering the motive for the majority of this research, it was clear that the goal is to clarify the actual effects of solitary and stop political agendas based in unfounded assertions.

Research conducted as part of the dissertation for PhD. Ryan Labrecque takes a macroscopic look at how solitary confinement effects the entire population of a single prison. This experiment, titled The Effect of Solitary Confinement on Institutional Misconduct: A Longitudinal Evaluation, served to provide insight onto the actual effects of solitary confinement in modern prison systems when it was first published in 2015.  In this particular study, it tries to assess whether there is a significant correlation between the likelihood of misconduct in prison after solitary confinement. In his study of criminal justice, PhD. Labrecque found that not enough research had been conducted regarding the tendency to repeat criminal behavior after solitary confinement, and both ends of the polarizing issue were making strong claims without an evidential basis (Labrecque 2015).

The study titled Solitary Confinement as Torture, is much more direct in its stance on the nature of solitary confinement and its immorality. This study was written by Mark Bowers and his colleagues at the University of North Carolina School of Law Immigration/Human Rights Clinic and collects three different sources of data for a comprehensive evaluation of the state of solitary confinement in America. Its first two sources come from the federal penitentiary of North Carolina, one large scale survey given to the inmates themselves, and a subsequent interview process for a select few of the inmates which gave a more personal background to the issue. The last means of data collection was on a national scale, where mental health professionals and more national prisoners were interviewed to draw a conclusion on the state of solitary confinement across the country.

Beginning to address the issues with solitary confinement, the article titled “Solitary Confinement and Risk of Self-Harm Among Jail Inmates,” marks the problem of self-harm. The introduction provides background information about self-harm explaining in depth what it is. This study was conducted in New York City jail systems over a three year period from January 1, 2010 to January 31, 2013. The purpose of this research was to comprehend the risk factors connected with self-harm and see if solitary confinement plays a role in all this (Fatos et al., 2014). The authors declare, “The dependent variables, self-harm and potentially fatal self-harm, were dichotomous variables. The independent variables included ever being in solitary confinement during their incarcerations, Serious Mental Illness (SMI), age 18 years and younger, gender, length of stay, and race/ethnicity” (Fatos et al., 2014). All of the variables that were controlled were properly selected and nothing was missing. The hypothesis was not clearly stated, but from the title and information given I was able to come up with one relevant to the topic. That is that solitary confinement increases the risk of self-harm of inmates.

An article named “History of Solitary Confinement Is Associated with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms among Individuals Recently Released from Prison”, researched how harsh solitary confinement may really be and determine whether their methods were psychological researchers like Brian O. Hagan observed “the relationship between solitary confinement and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in a cohort of recently released former prisoners” (Hagan et al., 2017). The independent variable was based on the numbers of inmates that have reported being in solitary confinement and the dependent variable is presence of PTSD in inmates from PTSD screening.

PTSD isn’t the only disorder that is developing in inmates after solitary confinement. Carly D. Chadik. published an article named: “The psychological impact of solitary: A longitudinal comparison of general population and long-term administratively segregated male inmates”, focuses on “existing research on the psychological impact of administrative segregation on inmates by addressing several methodological limitations…” (Chadik et al., 2018).

The final research articles reviewed in this paper are “Life Beyond—A Program to use Astrobiology to teach science and Advance space exploration through Prisons” and “Broken Beyond Repair: Rehabilitative Penology and American Political Development”. Each of these research materials take an abstract approach towards solitary confinement in America. Essentially, they make observations of conditions similar to solitary confinement and draw adjacent conclusions.




Labrecque’s study was conducted over three years with an initial population of 14,311 federal inmate participants, and a census would be taken every three months. It is important to note that the participants were slowly getting released, and by the end of the experiment only around fifty four percent of the initial inmates remained in custody (Labrecque 2015). The data itself was collected directly from prison staff records, where the duration and frequency of inmates being put in solitary confinement was noted. A second data set was made, comparing their age, sex, gang affiliation, and mental state to their conduct records according to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and correction (ODRC) sixty-one rules of conduct. Any infraction, whether it was violent, non-violent, or drug related was recorded and taken into account for that inmate.

The inmates chosen for interviews and surveys with Bowers’ research team were ranked on a scale of M1-M5 with M2 or higher. This ranking system was used as an incticator for the on-staff psychiatric department on a patient’s mental wellness. A rank of M2 meant that the inmate had some health treatment by the prison psychology staff (Bowers et al., 2014). Yet more notably, of these 4,531 candidates, 3,142 were in need of both psychological and psychiatric treatment after prolonged expose to solitary confinement (Bowers et al., 2014).

The method used for Fatos’ research was analyzing medical records throughout New York City’s jail systems. A good thing about the study was that it examined a large amount of records consisting of 244,699 in total. The methods are reproducible because the instructions as to what was looked for when examining the records were clear. For instance, the observation period for new inmates was extended to three months. The study does give enough information after examining the paper to understand how the study was conducted. The study explained how participants were chosen by informing the readers of the criteria and the specific location which was in New York.

The method used for Medrano’s research was separating prisoners into two groups. The SC receivers and non-SC receivers. Their disciplinary records were analyzed for a period of time. They kept track of the total punishments for non-SC receivers and SC receivers. However, it is unclear how many prisoners were part of the study. The authors clearly state, “Dependent variables in this study are: Total Punishments for Non-SC Receivers, Total Punishments Before SC, Total Punishments After SC, Failure Among All Capital Inmates and Failure After SC” (Medrano et al., 2017). The independent variables that were controlled were gender, race, gang membership, number of previous violent crimes, sex offender status, and time period (Medrano et al., 2017). This study can be reproducible except that it is necessary to clarify how many prisoners were used. The study does explain that it was done in Texas because it has the second biggest population of isolated prisoners in the nation (Medrano et al., 2017).

After questioning the researches methodology, results must also be looked at to whether the hypothesis was supported and see if there has been any errors or false data added. They represented a histogram correlating PTSD rate from solitary confinement and those who haven’t. They also tried to find a difference between prior PTSD and excluding prior PTSD which again is a little ambiguous. This helps them to show that even without the prior PTSD inmates there is still a high correlation between those who experienced in solitary confinement than those who haven’t. Since the data wasn’t taken in a long-term effect where the research can take place years after or years before first encounter in solitary confinement, they themselves state “The long-term mental and physical health sequelae of isolation are not well understood” (Hagan et al,.2017).

In “Life Beyond—A Program to use Astrobiology to teach science and advance space exploration through Prisons” implemented a science program to change the recurring criminal behavior in inmates in the United States. The data that was presented on how many offenders were incarcerated again after being released were much higher in the United States compared to overseas. Utilizing the pilot program crosswise over four American jails, a 4-week astrobiology course centered around planning a station for Mars was created. Taking in results ran from enhancements in proficiency, numeracy, and science abilities to improving civil duties. The aftereffects of the activity are items, for example, Mars station plans, articles, and craftsmanship, furnishing members with unmistakable yields. The researchers depict the pilot program, the 4-week Life Beyond course, and make inferences about the utilization of astrobiology as a vehicle for showing science and propelling social change in the jail condition.




The results of Labrecque’s data were interesting, since no universal claim could be made from the data collected. However, when specifying the effect of solitary confinement on young, gang affiliated, or diagnosed mentally ill inmates, the results were in fact significant. Labrecque’s research found that “In terms of the magnitude, the exponentiated coefficients suggest that…each additional day in SC for inmates involved with gangs led to a .06% increase in violent misconduct and a .07% increase in nonviolent misconduct (Labrecque 2015, 98). This was found in addition to the significant increase in drug misconduct for those with mental health issues, and age correlated to violent misconduct (Labrecque 2015). Taking this exponential likelihood into account, this means that an inmate who is kept in solitary confinement over a 5-month period is twelve percent more likely to repeat criminal behavior in accordance to their age, mental state, or gang affiliation.

The interviews from Bowers’ study are perhaps the most direct aspect of this research, considering each recounting of the inmate’s experience in isolation is more disturbing than the last. Many of these prisoners turn to suicide as a way out, and one inmate recounts the death of another as “Those who don’t kill themselves learn to compress their hatred…while being forced to suppress their true emotions… to survive,” (Bowers et al., 2014, 58). These interviews showcase the reality of the situation firsthand and provide an uncensored perspective on the psychological horror that is solitary confinement. The results of the prisoner surveys are no surprise considering these interviews, as many of the paper submissions recount their own trials with isolation and the mental strain that came with it.

Fatos’ research explained the results in a way that contextualized them from where they started at the beginning. The author was consistent with the topic of solitary confinement and self-harm and didn’t gear towards a different direction of introducing other effects it can cause. Everything was broken up into sections which can be appreciated for its accessibility to the general public as simpler reading. There was a section titled “limitations” that included examples of ways that the research was restricted and affected the methodology as well as conclusions. One of them being that there is not enough data having to do with criminal charge or violations of rules (Fatos et al., 2014). Additionally, some inmates are placed in solitary confinement but leave before they are punished.

Medrano’s experimental data explained the results in a way that contextualizes them from where they started at the beginning. The research concentrated strongly on solitary confinement and misconduct. The authors discuss several limitations of the research. For example, there is not information about how the participants were chosen and there are other factors that play a role on inmate misconduct (Medrano et al., 2017).

For the results they claimed a different number of inmates experimented on in procedure and methodology than what is present on Table 1 in page 105. Before they said 48 inmates but, on the Table 1, it shows degrees of freedom of 46. The problem with this research is that possibly the disorders the inmates are tested to have may not have been a result from solitary confinement, it may have been present before the administrative segregation and possibly even before inmates got into prison. They also ask the question if psychological disorders increase in result of longer periods of time in solitary confinement, but inmates are placed are segregated to prevent doing more harm to the general public or to themselves. And in order to get more time they need to have constant or very poor behavior which may be cause by psychological disorders they already consist of. These may be a good example of a correlation vs. Causation experiment and relationship may have the same possible trend as a form of correlation and no certainty that solitary confinement causes psychological disorders.

Research in “Broken Beyond Repair: Rehabilitative Penology and American Political Development” showed a long open support from the public on rehabilitative existing together with helpful reform in prisons. This research is qualitative data because it is non- numerical. There is a conflict of interest because the prisons are trying to improve the quality of life in inmates once they are released. They believe it is a biological issue and it is part of their DNA to act out and disobey authority. Because the policy makers truly believe that it is a bio criminology issue, they are justifying harsh and cruel punishment (Grasso 2019). An examination of the rehabilitative ideals starting points uncovers that it lays on a few center rules that have repeatedly legitimized injurious punishment and regulation-based policies. Many crimes are deemed as incorrigibility is biologically based, discipline ought to be individualized dependent on an individual’s reformative limit, guilty parties are by and by in charge of their transformation, and coercive state organizations are fit for establishing positive social change, either by improving or containing inmates. Lawmakers even felt that endorsing sterilization to inmates with aggressive punishments will make a change (Grasso 2019). This punishment policy that was implemented did not work because of the racial ideology. Policies cannot be made, and it only be used on a percentage of the population in prison and have the policies be ethnicity related and be based on bio-criminology. This research was not as detailed and constructed in a way where statistics were used. This research can be improved by including what part of the United States the research was conducted in, presenting a sample size, providing information on what the academic programs consist of and before and after data on how the program affected the inmates and how harsh punishment affected them as well.

In “Life Beyond—A Program to use Astrobiology to teach science and Advance space exploration through Prisons” noticed that lessening the quantity of individuals that arrival to jail and upgrading the welfare and condition of those inside penitentiaries are key destinations in jail training. This research is quantitative because it has numerical values in the data and studies the population. Their quality of life will improve as well once they are active participants in the programs. In the United States, around 40% of released offenders return to prison within 3 years, and up to 80% within 10 years (Davis et al., 2013). This rate of individuals returning to prison is way too high, so by putting more programs like this into place will help decrease recidivism. Throughout this research, researchers have found that individuals who are not interested in the educational opportunities occur because of the lack of a positive role model, and poor socioeconomic status (Davis et al., 2013). The more engaged the participants are, there will be less disciplinary action, and higher employment rates after their sentence. This science program improves opportunities for prisoners and not all science programs have instant vocational benefits. Which is an important component for achievement in educational prison programs. The research could have been conducted differently by elaborating on what state each prison was in, using more prison and a larger sample size. Just to have tangible evidence on the inmate’s academic growth. The program is only four weeks long, it would be useful if the program was extended to four months. By extending it to four months, more data can be documents on the progression of the inmates. All pilot programs are not perfect, so the research needs to provide factual data. Both research techniques ‘Broken Beyond Repair’ and ‘Life Beyond’ need more data but the Life Beyond program had more components to the because the research provided, what subject was being taught, how the program would help the inmates, sample size, information on how they would change the environment of the jail as well. Compared to the Broken Beyond Repair research, did not have all of those components to help build the hypothesis the researchers where trying to provide.




            The results from Labrecque’s quantitative research contrasts Bowers’ qualitative data, yet they have certain commonalities. For instance, the research conducted by Labrecque shows that in younger, gang affiliated, and mentally ill inmates there is a strong positive correlation between solitary confinement and repeat criminal behavior. This reflects the qualitative data found in the interviews by Bowers, who even state that the only way to survive isolation is to repress your anger and emotions. However, there is an important distinction between these two sources, and it is their attempt to make a change. Labrecque’s dissertation contains little to no information on what can be done to reform solitary confinement, while Bowers’ research dedicates an entire thirty pages to it. Secondly, Labrecque’s data may have been skewed by the sharp decrease in participants over the course of the experiment, and there was no way to account for the criminal behavior of the inmates who were released. Bower’s experiment manages to avoid this issue by providing primary information from a consistent set of inmates and bypasses the prison-censorship they would otherwise be subject to.

The results given for the article titled “Solitary Confinement and Risk of Self-Harm Among Jail Inmates” were straight to the point and clear. There was a section explaining the results and it stated that serious mental illness, length of stay in prison, SC, and young age are significant self-harm predictors in prison (Fatos et al., 2014). There was a table that broke everything down which was useful and made it easier to interpret the results. The results given for the article “Solitary Confinement Exposure and Capital Inmate Misconduct” were comprehendible. There were four tables and the section that explained the results used the tables as references. The results for this study were that age, gender, race, and gang membership are factors that increases the risk for inmate misconduct. There was a graph that showed that relationship between solitary confinement and misconduct. It demonstrated that misconduct increased after being exposed to SC. The authors for both articles give an objective written narrative of the results and give explanations that correspond with why the outcome turned out to be that way.

Hagan’s research team chose 119 inmates, but only 43% went through solitary confinement, making 57% that have not been in solitary confinement to compare PTSD rates in both. Another problem is that 66% have had lifetime substance abuse before but it doesn’t claim whether the inmates were having withdrawal symptoms during solitary confinement or it was due to being isolated from the rest of the people. In the article they also claimed that “In the sensitivity analyses, excluding those with prior PTSD diagnosis decreased the number of participants who screened positive for PTSD symptoms” which is unclear as to why they used previous PTSD diagnosed, it’s just adding false data and making it look like there’s more PTSD results from solitary confinement. The methods they used to achieve in the experiment for broad spectrum of psychological disorders solitary confinement can cause, was first a number of only 48 male inmates which does not assert confidence that the founding was just by chance. They do state though it’s because the research did not have that much funding for any extra volunteers. Each of them was required to take the MCMI-III which is a test that measures any syndromes and cognitive ability as well as personality disorders. And like the previous experiment this one compared number of inmates with disorders from the general prison population to the inmates that were in solitary confinement. They both also investigated on only male inmates and since it is only applying to their biological gender it could be different in female prisons. They used 48 male inmates and 24 were taken from the general population in the prison and the other 24 have experienced solitary confinement.

The issue that is present in “Broken Beyond Repair: Rehabilitative Penology and American Political Development” is the constant punishment of inmates who are considered ‘incapable’ of maintaining proper behavior. Harsh punishments were justified because of bio criminology and racial ideology that the prison system believed were true about African American inmates. Blacks were also frequently punished as irredeemable criminals in the South, but through practices like convict leasing and lynching that were justified by racist ideologies (Garland 2010; Oshinsky 1996). Prisons in America use different ways to change the behavioral patterns of inmates by creating programs, community service and harsh punishment. In prisons policies are put into place to ensure that the rate in which individuals return to prison are little to none. In order to restore someone to a positive state of mind and build integrity in an individual, the source of their issues must be found (Garland 2010; Oshinsky 1996). The ideals have dependably depended on recognizing treatable wrongdoers from hopeless ones who can’t be changed and warrant harsher discipline. This has guided American state advancement in correctional ways all through the twentieth century. Penology is currently driven by the rate in which inmates are not changing and continuing deviant behavior. Many proposals to reverse the prison boom are based on reorienting the penal system toward rehabilitating offenders through early release incentives and educational, substance abuse, and other prison-based programs (Norquist 2011; Shavin 2015; Thielo et al. 2016). To influence a domino effect in prison, policies are made to change the environment. By creating a system where an inmate can display positive behaviors, other inmates will be willing to participate in the same behavior.






Moving forward, changes must be made when it comes to solitary confinement. There are alternative ways to dealing with prisoners. For instance, there should be more programs and activities that keep prisoners busy in a positive way. There could be programs that focus on science, math, reading, drawing, or health. Isolating an individual doesn’t provide the right pathway for progress. If anything, they are being limited and little improvement will result from this type of punishment. In the article titled “Solitary Confinement and Risk of Self-harm Among Jail Inmates,” it is mentioned that prisoners with serious mental illnesses who breach prison regulations will be put in clinical environments where they would receive individual and group therapy (Fatos et al., 2014). Replacing punishment with therapy is a better solution when dealing with difficult prisoners. They are able to discuss their problems and feelings instead of dealing with the issues on their own. Solitary confinement lacks effectiveness and other methods should be utilized to solve the issues with prisoners.

Ameliorating SC conditions to more humane ways is a solution as well. If solitary confinement continues to exist, there needs to be changes made to the restrictions. First, SC should be given to prisoners for the least time possible. Spending weeks, months, and even years makes it more difficult to resist the mental stress SC brings. Second, prisoners with real mental issues should not receive more than an emergency duration in solitary because they can commit serious acts of self-harm. Additionally, prisoners should be given more out-of-cell time. Inmates in SC spend 23 hours of the day locked up and are only allowed up to two hours to shower and do other things but alone. They don’t get a chance to interact with people, which is inhumane. Reforming SC will benefit prisoners in many ways and even though they are in there for a reason doesn’t mean they need to be treated like animals.







Many speculate that solitary confinement is a safe form of punishment for prison inmates as it has been used for inmates to learn and understand their mistake on their own. As well as many believe that since the law states no cruel or unusual punishment prison should conform to that. And the purpose of this review is to establish a contemplation for readers to gather an acknowledgement the state of current research on solitary confinement and its effects on repetitive misconduct, self-harm, behavior, and if they cause disorders. The research articles didn’t all specify where the study was done or explain if it was a private or public institution which would help acknowledge that maybe there was some bias information to fit their needs or false data added.

At first we analyzed solitary confinement towards repetitive misconduct, with the question: Are inmates that have experienced solitary confinement more likely to keep committing crimes after incarceration? The Case study source provides qualitative data and overall was consistent with participants and didn’t seem to provide false data. As for the Lebrecque dissertation he provided quantitative data, the problem with his research can be seen that by the end of the experiment he had only half of his participants, meaning his numbers were inconsistent and makes hid data less credible.

The next topic includes Solitary confinement and its effects on behavior. These sources included data that explained the relationship between mental disorders after solitary confinement and as well a source that find relationships between solitary confinement and self harm, including factors from age, time incarcerated and if one has a mental illness before solitary confinement. The self harm source provided a large amount of quantitative data and made the methodology very clear to the point the experiment can be repeated. As for the source focusing on behavior, they claim to have gathered data from Texas prisons but lack information on how many inmates were being tested. Though they provided graphs and data tables without the given number of inmates, the research isn’t reproducible.

We also looked at psychological disorders that could have been resulted by solitary confinement. In one of the articles a big focus was PTSD and whether there could be higher rates of PTSD if an inmate was isolated in solitary confinement and compare it to the rate of PTSD in inmates who haven’t been isolated from the general population. The overall research provided enough information to become reproducible without regarding the small points that were added that seemed unnecessary to prove like what the graph looked like if they were to add previously tested PTSD before solitary confinement. The second article had the similar methods instead involving inmates to take a psychological test to find any disorders they may possibly test positive for. This source also appeared clear on how the experiment was done, but with the exception that degrees of freedom was a bit off which may have thrown off the data to skew the direction closer or away to support their hypothesis.









Anthony Grasso, 2017, Broken Beyond Repair: Rehabilitative Penology and American Political                      Development, accessed 6/19/2019, by virtual PDF


Chadick, C. D., Batastini, A. B., Levulis, S. J., & Morgan, R. D. (2018). The psychological             impact of solitary: A longitudinal comparison of general population and long-term       administratively segregated male inmates. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 23(2),    101-116. doi:10.1111/lcrp.12125, accessed through EBSCO Host of the CCNY database.


Charles S. Cockell, Yair Augusto, Gutierrez Fosado, James Hitchen, Hanna Landenmark,  Liam    Perera, Teun Vissers, 2018, Life Beyond—A Program to use Astrobiology to teach science and Advance space exploration through Prisons, accessed 6/19/2019, by virtual PDF



Hagan, B. O., Wang, E. A., Aminawung, J. A., Albizu-Garcia, C. E., Zaller, N., Nyamu, S., . . . Fox, A. D. (2017). History of Solitary Confinement Is Associated with Post-Traumatic        Stress Disorder Symptoms among Individuals Recently Released from Prison. Journal of        Urban Health, 95(2), 141-148. doi:10.1007/s11524-017-0138-1, accessed through         EBSCO Host of the CCNY database.


Kaba, F., Lewis, A., Glowa-Kollisch, S., Hadler, J., Lee, D., Alper, H., . . . Venters, H. (2014).            Solitary Confinement and Risk of Self-Harm Among Jail Inmates. American Journal of   Public Health, 104(3), 442-447. doi:10.2105/ajph.2013.301742


Mark Bowers, Patricia Fernandez, Megha Shah, Katherine Slager, April 2014, Solitary                                    Confinement as Torture, University of North Carolina School of Law,            rt.pdf


Medrano, J. A., Ozkan, T., & Morris, R. (2017). Solitary Confinement Exposure and Capital            Inmate Misconduct. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(4), 863-882.     doi:10.1007/s12103-017-9389-3, accessed through EBSCO Host of the CCNY database.


Ryan M. Labrecque, August 2015, The Effect of Solitary Confinement on Institutional             Misconduct: A Longitudinal Evaluation, Division of Research and Advanced Studies of        the University of Cincinnati

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to toolbar