Analysis Of Long-Term Solitary Confinement

Long-Term Solitary Confinement Today in the United States, almost every state has built a supermax prison that utilizes the punishment of long-term solitary confinement, which effectiveness can be explained using the views of the social theorists, Michel Foucault and Emile Durkheim. In the opinion of Foucault, he believes in using punishment as a political tactic. On the other hand, Durkheim believes punishment reaffirms the moral order. Comparing the two, the trend of supermax prisons for long-term solitary confinement is much better supported by Foucault than Durkheim. Foucault views this as an effective means of punishment towards those who broke the law. On the other hand, Durkheim would believe that long-term solitary confinement in supermax
prison is not better than any other form of punishment. According to the beliefs of Foucault (1995), he would explain this type of punishment as appropriate because his reasoning that prisons are supposed to act like a sovereign body (p.
130). The prisoners committed a crime, in which they wronged the rest of the public, so it is only right for the sovereign power to discipline these criminals. In addition, the supermax prison reflects the sort of power relations that Foucault endorses. The prison in itself acts as its own society and represents the rest of society, which the criminal wronged. This is shown by prisoners being sent to these supermax prisons by a Prison Administrator and not a judge or a jury2. These prisoners are cut off from the rest of society, as they have no windows, cannot answer any phone calls, have any visitors, and are not able to see other prisoners. In this total solitary confinement, prisoners are permitted to only leave their room for an hour a day. During this process they are let out one at a time by a guard, which demonstrates the little control they have over their lives. They are separated from regular society, and inserted into the prison society. In Foucault’s point of view, these prisoners are learning discipline. The solitary confinement that the prisoners receive is private, which resembles his belief that, “Punishment, then, will tend to become the most hidden part of the penal process.” (Foucault, 1995, p. 9). By keeping the punishment private, the rest of the public has no idea what is
going on inside those prison walls. Additionally, this punishment does not unleash so much bodily pain on the prisoners, as they are not being whipped or hurt. However, with the power structure of the prison, these prisoners are learning discipline. For example, just for a prisoner to use the bathroom or take a shower, they need a guard in the central control booth to press a bottom. Overtime, this trains the prisoners to be on their best behavior and stop acting as deviants to society, in order for them to satisfy natural bodily functions. Moreover, it is important to note that a lot of these supermax prisons contain gang leaders, who pose a danger to the rest of society by spreading violence and crime.
In other words, they have committed war on the sovereign state, as Foucault likes to claim. As stated, Foucault believes that the sovereign should seek revenge against these violators, but it should be private as to not angry the masses. This is the reason prisons exist, and for the worst violators of the laws, this is the reason supermax prisons exist. Here in solitary isolation even the worst prisoners become docile bodies with discipline. The key to forming these prisoners into “docile bodies” according to Foucault is through cautious supervision and not excessive force. This is the process that is occurring in long term solitary confinement. Each prisoner is being systematically controlled by the prison, until they give into the discipline and they become good citizens. Whether it be the many hours spent alone in a cell, the guards constantly watching them or the strict schedule the prisoners stick to, this process slowly forces them into submission. As Foucault (1995) states, “The body, is required to be docile in its minutest operation”, when speaking on the subject of discipline (p.156). This docile body in the supermax prisons represent the prisoners, who can be more easily improved and transformed through
discipline. Considering the views of Durkheim, he is a strong believer that punishment should reflect moral values. These moral values are important because they hold society together. When they punish people that break these moral values they are collectively standing together. Durkheim (1983) describes, “Society no longer punishes to avenge, but to defend itself.” (p. 60). The pain that is inflicted from the punishment of long-term solitary confinement acts only as an instrument for the societies protection. Moreover, Durkheim has a belief that punishments do not just affect the individual but the whole society. He says, “When the punishment is applied solely to people, it often extends well beyond the guilty person and strikes even the innocent”, (Durkheim, 1983, p. 59). In this situation, he is describing that a punishment will also upset many of the individuals closest to the criminal, such as family, friends and even neighbors (Durkheim, 1983, p.59). These criminals are in prison because they broke laws, which are forms of deviance that the society holds as wrong. The prisoners went against these morals, which is the reason Durkheim believes they deserve to punished. They are forced into this form of punishment, long-term solitary confinement, because they are not just prisoners, but the worst prisoners in the system. They absolutely deserve to be punished as some of the highest forms of deviants, like gang leaders. Also, Durkheim (1983) explaining his ideas on punishment, states, “Its real function is to maintain inviolate the cohesion of society by sustaining the common consciousness in all its vigor.” (p. 69). Durkheim is claiming that when a society punishes people, it is bringing that group closer together. For example, these citizens committing wrongs are sent to supermax prisons, which reinforces the morals of the rest of society. According to Durkheim (1983), the way to not lose these social bonds is by “suffering inflicted on the wrongdoer.” (p. 69). This punishment should not be thought of as cruelty, but rather it signifies that the sentiments of collective society have not changed. This applies to the supermax prison because the prisoners have shown to break rules in and out of prison, so they common consciousness needs another effective means of punishment to represent their collective values. This prison was not enough of a punishment, so these deviant people must pay the price in the supermax prison, as the people must stand together against these prisoners. In retrospect, Foucault simply provides the best insight on explaining this supermax prison phenomenon. His idea that the prison is supposed to act as a sovereign body that turns prisoners into a docile body, which can be manipulated is much too accurate. Today in America, supermax prisons are definitely a political tool that helps the state exercise its power of citizens that step out of line. In contrast, Durkheim’s ideas were a little rougher, and did not fit as perfectly as Foucault. His idea that prisoners who went against the norms of society and broke rules deserved to be punish was a decent explanation for supermax prisons existing, however it could not explain why long-term solitary confinement is better than any other type of punishment