In 2011, a man named David Laffer entered a New York pharmacy with the intent of stealing painkillers for himself and his wife. After a brief conversation with the pharmacist, Laffer took out his gun and shot him in the abdomen. He then shot the pharmacist’s wife and unloaded more bullets into the wounded pharmacist. He also proceeded to kill two customers in the shop; including a 71-year-old man who he shot in the back of the head. He proceeded to calmly fill his bag with the drugs, wipe down the counter and make his way home. Eventually, Laffer was apprehended and convicted with four counts of murder; resulting in four consecutive life sentences. Laffer was described by the judge as having ‘unnatural viscousness’ as he fiercely promised to place him in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. For the majority of us, solitary confinement seems fitting for someone like Laffer; it expresses our revulsion for such a brutal, unprovoked killing spree. But is this practice justifiable?
Good morning classmates and Alison. Today’s presentation will explore the moral principles and ethical dilemmas associated with solitary confinement; and, if at all, whether it is an ethical punishment for certain lawbreakers. The realm of disciplinary isolation delves into moral dilemmas regarding human nature and the ethics of punishment itself. Solitary confinement is the isolation of incarcerated men and women for a definite or indefinite period of time; ranging from a few days to even decades. With regard to 2016 estimates, 80,000 to 100,000 prisoners in the United States alone are being held in some form of solitary confinement; majority as a result of minor offences.
The legal system itself presents a distinct moral dilemma, as it involves the state’s infliction of intentionally harsh treatment on members of society that would otherwise be morally impermissible. For example, outside of the penal system, I’m sure that most of us would agree that you should not imprison someone against their will. People can’t just walk down the street and choose victims to take home and lock in their basement for five years. The moral challenge arising from punishment is to establish what makes it permissible to subject those who have broken the law to treatment that would otherwise be morally impermissible.
As true utilitarians are concerned with the consequences of actions and maximising utility, they would suggest that solitary confinement is in fact an ethical practice; as removing certain inmates from the prison environment has an overall positive effect on society. Two particular claims are prominent from a utilitarian perspective: deterrence of crime and reducing violence. Officials often make the empirical assertion that isolation housing establishes a safer environment for both correction officers and inmates. Segregation housing is applied to protect the two parties from violent persons who otherwise could not be controlled; acting as a threat of punishment and motivating prisoners to behave and obey the law. It also prevents coordination of illicit activity by separating gang members and terrorists. The president of the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association asserted that a typical year in the New York correction system would see 1,200 reported incidents of inmate-on-inmate and inmate-on-staff assaults. Also, isolation units provide economic benefits to society and the local population as they require higher level specialty staffing; resulting in a large quantity of jobs for correction officers.
On the other hand, Kantian ethical theory does not focus on the consequences, and demands that we act with due respect to each other. In conjunction with the vice rule, the Kantian would argue that prolonged periods in isolation inflicts severe, irreversible psychological harm in such a way that could be avoided by taking another course of action, the least vicious action. Placing an individual in solitary confinement does not respect that individual’s own autonomy and rational nature regardless of what crime they have committed. Universal law suggests that we should never treat people as simply just a means, but always at the same time as an end. This could be interpreted that instead of condemning prisoners to isolation units, there could be platforms of rehabilitation and activities that can make a positive impact on the lives of those in prison. Correctional institutions should not be in place simply as a means to punish those who have broken the law; but provide an ends in the form of reformation of character and rehabilitation that will produce functioning, contributing members of society upon release. Frank De Palma, a man who spent 22 years and 36 days in solitary confinement for grand larceny, battery, second-degree murder and attempted murder eventually developed an extreme, but not so uncommon, mental illness which worked as the opposite to claustrophobia. Too much open space would make all of the air around him become pressure and force, describing it as if his heart and brain were about to explode. Guard’s caught wind of this and used it to take advantage of Frank by threatening to take him out of his cell. His condition was so bad that he refused to go to the dentist and used a strong nylon string from his mattress to pull four of his teeth out. Upon his release, the only comfort Frank could find in the alien environment outside of the prison was locking himself in his bathroom and turning off all the lights for hours and days on end.
In order to attempt to understand the psychological effects of solitary confinement, Lisa Guenther invited Omar Mualimm, a man who spent five years in segregation housing, to speak at a conference she was organising in Nashville. Omar described the ‘concrete abyss’ as sensory and existential annihilation; an emptiness of space without horizon, a decimation of orientation and time. He spent 24 hours a day, for 5 years in a grey cell with no contact with anyone other than guards whose job it was to incapacitate him. He was so lonely that he began to hallucinate words in the wind and his mind began to reflect his cell; a blank static. Omar illustrated solitary confinement as a living death, death because it eradicated everything that characterises humanness. Omar stated, “the very essence of life, I came to learn during those seemingly endless days, is human contact, and the affirmation of existence that comes with it. Losing that contact, you lose your sense of identity. You become nothing.”
German philosopher Edmund Husserl explains consciousness as consciousness of something; with the mind not a thing but a relation. Meaning is not ‘located’ in the brain like a shirt is in a closet; rather, it surfaces through an ever-changing relationship between the act of thinking and the objects of thought. Solitary confinement eliminates a clear perception one’s self as an objectively existing person; transforming us into merely an abstract capacity for awareness.
In conclusion, solitary confinement as a long-term practice is a life sentence. One day a prisoner may be physically released from their cell, but there always seems to be a part of them that wants the abyss; where there’s no feeling and no thoughts. It is an extreme process that has the propensity to inflict severe psychological and physical harm that is tantamount to torture. It must be approached in a situational manor, being restricted to cases where the benefits clearly outweigh the negatives. Solitary disciplining can have a legitimate place in the penal system, but only in exceptional circumstances where all other options are exhausted.