Running head: The Psychology in Prison policy 1

The Psychology in Prison Policy

Savannah R. Clinton

First Colonial Legal Studies Academy

The Psychology in Prison policy 2

Abstract

The author examines the impact of correctional psychology, or the application of psychology in

correctional settings such prisons, on current policies. While focusing on federal inmates and

laws, comparisons of these policies with individual states will be made. Topics addressed in this

paper are prison psychologists, the housing of inmates, rehabilitation programs, mental health

and therapeutic treatments, the denial of privileges, and solitary confinement. A brief history of

each will be given, as well as more detailed information regarding the practices themselves.

Some of the major relevant laws will be discussed, the overall goals of these laws considered to

be protecting the rights of individual inmates while protecting the well-being of others in the

facility. They may protect even the outside world, as many of the practices allowed by these

laws, such as rehabilitation programs and educational services, lead to a safer community once a

prisoner is released back into it. Case law will be evaluated in order to demonstrate the legal

challenges presented by these systems and their resolutions. This paper will examine the impact

of what modern society has learned about human behavior on some of the major policy decisions

and reforms of the correctional system currently in effect.

Keywords: Correctional psychology, rehabilitation, recidivism, solitary confinement,

mental status examinations, Federal Bureau of Prisons, rehabilitation, incarceration

The Psychology in Prison policy 3

The Psychology in Prison Policy

In the 1830s, an exciting new form of psychology reached America. Called phrenology, it

quickly took root in universities, business places, and prisons. Based in the theories set forth by

Franz Joseph Gall, it contended that the source of the mind is the brain. The brain was made up

of different organs, each of which controlled a different mental function or trait. Thus, the

shape of the brain was determined by a persons character traits, skills, and intellect. Because the

shape of the brain determined the shape of the skull, the surface could be read to determine a

persons psychological status. These ideas prompted many reforms, in areas such as education

and criminal justice (Van Wyhe, 2000).

Phrenologist Johann Spurzheim believed that crime could be influenced by abnormal

structuring in the brain. He theorized that the brain is malleable and capable of change;

improvement was possible. This led him to the conclusion that criminals could be cured of their

criminality. The idea emerged that the general way of dealing with criminals and punishment was

flawed. Punishment did nothing to change the cause of the crimes, which were likely to be

repeated because the source of the behavior remained uncorrected. These concepts boosted the

argument for rehabilitation, which is the focus of correctional psychology (Rafter, 2008).

While the pseudoscience is laughed at today, phrenologys impact on the criminal justice

system is but one of many historical examples of the impact psychology can have on the criminal

justice system. Our understanding of the human mind has changed, but the grasp of psychology

on how things are run in our correctional institutions has not loosened much. The principles of

correctional psychology enhance, and in some cases reshape, the way prisons are run in an effort

to influence inmates to become more productive and socially grounded on the right side of the

law.
The Psychology in Prison policy 4

Prison Psychologists

History

American psychologists have served as expert witnesses since as early as the 1920s, and

acted as consultants before that ("History of Forensic Psychology ," n.d.). They began entering

the corrections system for purposes of classification and assessment of prisoners. In 1913, the

first psychological services were offered in United States corrections. This was in a womens

reformatory in New York, where Eleanor Rowland was asked to find a test to determine what

offenders would benefit from educational programs ("History of Forensic Psychology ," n.d.).

The responsibilities of these correctional psychologists have expanded greatly in the past few

decades. Stanley Brodsky is credited with the development of modern correctional psychology in

the United States. He served as president of the American Association for Correctional

Psychology (AACP) for a term, which is now known as the International Association for

Correctional and Forensic Psychology ("History of Correctional Psychology," n.d.).

Current System

Definition. A forensic psychologist is someone who studies human behavior related to the

legal system. They may provide courtroom testimony, evaluations for child custody, treatment of

inmates in correctional centers, research in criminal behavior, or design and implementation of

crime prevention programs. Four major areas they are concerned with are criminal psychology,

correctional psychology, police psychology, legal psychology ("History of Forensic

Psychology ," n.d.). This paper will focus in the second area, correctional psychology.

Roles. Correctional psychologists work with lawyers, caseworkers, and other employees to

modify the behavior of inmates. They conduct interviews, occasionally speaking with the

individuals family for more information, and conduct official psychological evaluations when
The Psychology in Prison policy 5

needed. They work to identify clinical disorders, and collaborate with other staff members to

create an individualized treatment plan (Guha, 2011). Generally speaking, a psychologist

(Ph.D.) is expected to offer therapy, teach coping skills and provide support. A psychiatrist

(M.D.) is expected to prescribe medication and provide med management. Often times, patients

will see both a psychologist and a psychiatrist (A. Herndon, Personal communication,

November 22, 2016). A correctional psychologist will often provide counseling, with the goal of

the eventual release of an inmate and his or her successful reentry into society. While generally

working to improve mental health of inmates, they are also called upon to advise on matters such

as parole eligibility or facility transfers. In this role, their primary responsibility is to society

(Guha, 2011).

Federal Bureau of Prisons. Part of the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Prisons

is an organization established in 1930 to provide more progressive and humane care for federal

inmates, to professionalize the prison service, and to ensure consistent and centralized

administration of federal prisons ("Federal Bureau of Prisons," n.d.). In addition running these

large facilities, it is partly responsible for providing mental health services to inmates, employing

hundreds of psychologists to do so. To evaluate and improve its programs, as well as to craft

better tests for the identification of mental illness, the Bureau conducts research using both its

own agents and outside groups (Pelissier, 1988). The Bureaus rate of recidivism, or the return of

an individual to criminal acts, is about half that of large, state run Department of Corrections at

35 percent ("Federal Bureau of Prisons," n.d.).

Psychological evaluations. The state of Wisconsin was the first to give all admissions to

their prison systems full psychological evaluations ("History of Correctional Psychology," n.d.).

The practice has since expanded, used by correctional facilities across the nation. These
The Psychology in Prison policy 6

evaluations are used to determine housing and the need for mental health treatments ("Mental

Health Screening," n.d.). One way an evaluation is made is through a mental status examination,

or MSE, which is conducted the first time an inmate meets with a psychologist.

The clinician records on the following: Appearance & Behavior, Speech, Thought Process,

Thought Content, Mood, Affect, Suicidal/Homicidal Impulses, Memory (often requests a list

of last three presidents), Intellect, Cognitive/Fund of Knowledge and Judgment/Insight.

Following the admitting MSE, the following information is collected: Identifying

information, chief complaint, history of present illness, drug/alcohol history, past psychiatric

history, family history of genetic psychiatric disorder, past medical history, allergies, a

personal/social history, capacity (does the patient have the capacity to make decisions about

his/her own healthcare?), patient assets/strengths, and patient weaknesses (A. Herndon,

Personal communication, November 22, 2016).

These evaluations are used for various purposes, among them determining needed psychological

care, rehabilitation programs, and where inmate can be housed.

Housing of an Inmate

History

In 1918, the first prison classification system was created by psychologists in New Jersey.

While many systems have been created and implemented, a few noteworthy ones developed in

the 1960s and 1970s. The Unit Management System, created by Daniel Glaser in 1964, creates

small groups of prisoners and staff members based on needs and expertise. This particular system

died down due to problems created by overcrowding from the 1980s and 1990s, but still exists in

some state and federal facilities. The Jesness Classification System was created in 1971, and

divides juvenile offenders into 9 categories. The Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) was
The Psychology in Prison policy 7

created in 1977. Proposed by Edwin Megargee, it organizes ten inmate types used to assign

custody levels, jobs, and rehabilitation programs. It is still in use in some places ("History of

Correctional Psychology," n.d.).

Law

According to 35 State inmates of American Jurisprudence, inmate classification is to be

decided by prison officials. Inmates are not entitled to a certain classification. In order for a

state law to create a liberty interest in retaining or attaining a particular security classification,

the law must place substantive limitations on official discretion. The Supreme Court decided

that there is a liberty interest in avoiding assignment to a state supermax facility as time there

differs significantly from an ordinary facility (State inmates ).

36 Federal inmates establishes that federal inmates also do not have the right to a certain

classification. Federal prison officials have full direction in determining classifications, as

decreed by Congress. These assignments can be evaluated based on constitutional due process

standards, and the due process rights of inmates on maximum security assignments are protected

by yearly review by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (Federal inmates).

Current System

Purpose. Offenders should be confined in a matter appropriate to both their personal needs

and security needs. Facilities are designed with these requirements in mind: the buildings

security features and protocol, types of housing, and the amount of staff members needed reflect

the type of inmates imprisoned there ("Federal Bureau of Prisons," n.d.).

Federal. Prisoners in the federal system are classified through evaluation of the individual on

a psychological and biographical basis. Factors taken into consideration include severity of the

current offense, escape history, education level, and any drug abuse problems, where applicable.
The Psychology in Prison policy 8

The results of separate psychological evaluations may come into play here. The program

SENTRY determines the lowest possible security level, and also identifies an institution capable

of handling that particular classification within 500 miles of where the prisoner is expected to be

released. This score can be altered in the presence of relevant factors not considered by the

program (Cameron, 2015).

Run by the Bureau of Prisons, federal institutions are categorized by security level.

Minimum security facilities house prisoners in a dormitory style. There is little perimeter

fencing or none at all, and the ratio of staff members to inmates is relatively low. These are

orientated toward various programs, such as work programs. Low security involves dorm or

cubicle housing, has a double fenced perimeter, and has many of the same programs. The number

of staff members per inmate is higher. Medium security houses inmates with higher

classifications, featuring double fenced perimeters with electronic detection systems. Most

housing is cell style, and there are higher internal controls in place. They still provide a variety of

programs. High security facilities are also known as United States Penitentiaries. They have

walls or highly reinforced fence systems, multiple or single occupant housing, and the greatest

control over inmate movements. The ratio of staff to prisoner is the highest. Administrative are

special purpose facilities. They house pre-trial, violent, or escape prone inmates, as well as

inmates who have serious medical conditions. They are home to inmates of all security levels,

with the exception of Administrative-Maximum Security Penitentiary facilities, which must

house inmates of maximum security level ("Federal Bureau of Prisons," n.d.).

Virginia. The structure of facilities run by the state of Virginia are similar to that of federal

prisons. The higher the classification of an inmate and the higher the security needs, the more

reinforcements and internal controls present. In this system, major institutions are those that are
The Psychology in Prison policy 9

large and contain inmates that are medium to maximum security, housing inmates who generally

have severe behavior problems or otherwise predatory behavior. Correctional units are small, and

house minimum to medium security inmates ("Institutions by Security Levels," n.d.).

Depending upon where an inmate is housed, different programs will be available. Generally,

those with lesser security measures offer more of these rehabilitation programs as they dont

need to put as much emphasis on controlling inmate movements.

Rehabilitation Programs

Logic

There has long been a debate over whether the justice system should focus on punishment

or rehabilitation. The two differing systems have not only different policies, but different names.

The term correctional institution applies to one which is focused on rehabilitation and

preparation for the future release of criminals into society, while the term penal institution refers

to a system of retributive justice.

The punishment structure is criticized as the success of its main proponent, deterrence, is

questionable given the statistics on of the number of crimes that go through our criminal justice

system either unsolved, or without conviction. When few criminals are convicted, it makes heavy

punishment seem much less threatening as chances of actually receiving that punishment are so

low. Additionally, receiving only a punishment implies the payment of a debt to society and

expiation of one's offense. Many psychologists contend that if a criminal thinks that his debt has

been paid, he will very likely feel that he is free to commit another crime (MacCormick, n.d.).

For a correctional psychologist, the obvious choice is rehabilitation. The rehabilitation

structure argued to be more effective due to its focus is on correcting whatever problem led to a

crime, rather than simply establishing that what was done is not allowed. Work programs,
The Psychology in Prison policy 10

psychological services, individual and group therapy, and parole are all considered effective

modes of rehabilitation. Many studies have presented evidence that rehabilitation leads to a

decrease in rates of recidivism, or the return to criminal activities (MacCormick, n.d.).

Law

According to 99 Rehabilitation; education, Although inmates do not have a federal

constitutional right to rehabilitataion.1 a fundamental right to rehabilitation may be found under a

state constitution.2. The court is authorized to suggest to inmates starting their sentences that

they participate in rehabilitation programs offered by the prison. They can recommend certain

programs that may be of particular interest to an inmate, and are authorized to make these

placement suggestions to the Bureau of Prisons (Rehabilitation; education).

Case

While rehabilitation is certainly an interest of the correctional system, it is not to be

confused as being the sole purpose of the institution of a prison sentence, nor should it be the

driving force behind the length of a prisoners sentence, as established by Tapia v. US. The

decision was that sentence length could not be extended so as to allow time for an offender to

complete a specific program, but they did concede that:

A court commits no error by discussing the opportunities for rehabilitation within prison

or the benefits of specific treatment or training programs. To the contrary, a court

properly may address a person who is about to begin a prison term about these important

matters. And as noted earlier, a court may urge the BOP to place an offender in a prison

treatment program a court may "make a recommendation concerning the type of prison

facility appropriate for the defendant"; and in this calculus, the presence of a

rehabilitation program may make one facility more appropriate than another. So the
The Psychology in Prison policy 11

sentencing court here did nothing wrongand probably something very rightin trying

to get Tapia into an effective drug treatment program. (Tapia v. US).

Current System

Background. Rehabilitation happens in a variety of ways, from treatment of drug abuse and

psychological disorders to the development of educational or vocational skills. Quite a bit of this

is either through one on one time with psychologists or in programs shown to have a lasting

impact on the minds of those who participate. These will be covered in later sections of this

paper. While most are essentially in effect from the first day of incarceration, there are also

special programs that are reentry-oriented. This means that they are built with mentally and

practically preparing prisoners to rejoin the outside world after a lengthy sentence in mind.

Reentry.

Federal. On the federal level, The Reentry Services Division supervises a number of

programs implemented together to prepare prisoners to return to normal life on the outside.

While training generally occurs from the start of a sentence, once there are 18 months left the

Release Preparation Program goes into effect. It features educational classes with a focus on job

attainment and retention. One such program is Federal Prison Industries, which teaches skills

valuable to employers. Residential reentry centers, or halfway houses, are meant to provide a

controlled and gradual return to the community. ("Federal Bureau of Prisons," n.d.)

Virginia. The Virginia Department of Corrections Re-entry Program is part of the

transition services in place to ease the process of returning to the community. This specific

program transfers an inmate from a prison to a local jail in said inmates community. Phase one

of this process is a series of daily workshops for about six to eight weeks. They are run by the

departments staff, the Virginia Employment Commission, Social Services, Community Service
The Psychology in Prison policy 12

Boards, Pre-Release and Post Incarceration Services providers, and Mental Health Organizations,

and other community organizations. Classes include Life Skills, Cognitive Thinking,

Employability, Conflict Resolution, Substance abuse, and Anger Management. Phase two is

work release, and inmates who are eligible are identified by the classification unit. They must

have successfully completed phase one before they are considered. Some felonies will disqualify

an inmate from participation, such as Homicide, Murder, Abduction, Kidnapping, Sex Related

Crimes, Robbery, Felonious Assault, Unlawful wounding, Malicious wounding, Maiming, and

Carjacking. Phase three is Community Release, and once released, they will continue to receive

guidance. It is important to note that this is not a voluntary program, nor is it an early release

program ("Re-entry Program," n.d.).

Quite often, the rehabilitation need extends further than just encouraging good behavior

in criminals. The needs of the average criminal may be addressed through work programs and

the like, but some inmates suffer from conditions that require more intensive care in order to

achieve psychological and social stability.

Mental Health and Therapeutic Treatments

History

The 1960s saw a rise in support for deinstitutionalization. This refers to the sharp cuts in

state and federal spending on public psychiatric centers, meant to close them down in favor of

more personalized care from community programs. Lack of funding to those programs and the

increase in the amount of people needing them quickly overwhelmed the new system. Untreated,

normally manageable disorders began to cause community problems. Thus, the mentally ill

began to be arrested and incarcerated in ever growing numbers (Aufderheide, 2014).

Current System
The Psychology in Prison policy 13

Background. According to the Bureau of Justice, more than half of all inmates have some

form of mental illness as opposed to only 11 percent of the general population. However, only

about 60 percent of mentally ill inmates get treatment for those disorders afflicting them. Prisons

were not designed to replace psychiatric facilities, and the cost of providing services combined

with the nationwide problem of overcrowding have resulted in barriers to effective treatment

(Lamberti & Weisman, 2004). While the over incarceration of the mentally ill is an unfortunate

and growing phenomena, once they have been sentenced to prison time, the system must address

their needs as it can. The following sections will detail the current policies regarding treatment

for the mentally ill.

Most common problems and treatments. Many inmates are struggling to overcome

lifetimes of poverty, abuse, drug addiction, and other trauma. These problems are great in and of

themselves, and many prisoners struggle with mental illnesses in addition to them (Martin,

2008).

The most common psychiatric disorders among mentally-ill offenders are bipolar

disorder, severe depression and psychosis/schizophrenia. Bipolar disorder causes

uncontrolled, often violent, shifts in mood. Severe depression is a persistent feeling of

sadness and lack of interest in previously enjoyable activities. Psychosis/schizophrenia

are serious thought disorders that cause delusions and an extreme removal from reality.

Any of the above can lead to self-harm, suicide or homicidal feelings. (A. Herndon,

Personal communication, November 22, 2016)

These problems are often addressed through medication. Also available are individual

and group therapy, drug-treatment services, client assessments, crisis prevention, and employee-

assistance programs. Sometimes these approaches are combined with each other, while in other
The Psychology in Prison policy 14

cases only one of the above may be put into effect. These change based upon the needs of the

individual (Martin, 2008). Additionally,

psychiatric treatment can include psychopharmacological and/or therapeutic treatment.

Although therapy (a variety of types) can be beneficial for some mood disorders, more

acute illnesses and thought disorders tend to benefit more from medication combined

with therapy. (A. Herndon, Personal communication, November 22, 2016)

Once released, parole and probation officers can enforce court mandated treatment. The goal is

to prevent recidivism due to a sudden stop in treatment, and about 13 percent of individuals on

probation are required to get mental health treatment. Unfortunately, the large caseloads of both

mental health professionals and probation officers make enforcement difficult (Lamberti &

Weisman, 2004).

Alternatives. While extremely severe cases may be transferred to psychiatric centers,

treatment within the correctional system is much more common. One major way to cut back the

burden on the system is to stem the incoming tide of mentally ill inmates. As less enter the

system and current inmates are gradually released, it will lower the overall prevalence of mental

illness among prisoners. This will lead to more available care for those who are arrested, and

ensure higher quality treatment for those who are not. Those who avoid the legal system can

receive care in freestanding psychiatric hospitals, which are usually more effective. It is the firm

belief of most mental health experts that although a psychiatric condition can often lead to

criminal acts, it must be taken into consideration that having this condition is not a criminal act

and is not a reason for incarceration (A. Herndon, Personal communication, November 22,

2016).
The Psychology in Prison policy 15

For this purpose, police-based jail diversion programs are going into effect around the

country, and mental health courts have been established. Diversion programs normally include

volunteer officers who get training on how to deal with people who have psychiatric problems.

They learn how to access community resources for them, and how to effectively and safely calm

down disturbances (Lamberti & Weisman, 2004). CIT, or a Crisis Intervention Team, is one of

the most effective of these programs, and the curriculum consists of about 40 hours of training.

This training involves lessons from mental health professionals and those who have personally

faced and overcome psychiatric problems ("National Alliance on Mental Health," n.d.). Mental

health courts were established in 2000 by the Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project Act,

and they reduce incarceration rates by having both different eligibility criteria for guilt and ready

alternatives to imprisonment in dealing with criminal charges (Lamberti & Weisman, 2004).

However, in order to reduce recidivism and promote safety within correctional

institutions, sometimes administering treatments is not enough. Even in the limited environment

of one of these facilities, negative stimuli persist. They interfere with progress towards the

overall goal of producing well-rounded, law abiding citizens. For this reason, media access may

be limited.

Revoking or Denying Privileges

Law

60 Television, radio, motion pictures, and video provides that inmates do not have a

constitutional right to certain types of media, such as radio or television. First Amendment rights

may be limited in regards to prohibiting inmates from watching R-rated movies, or those with

even higher ratings. This is acceptable when assessed under the following conditions:
The Psychology in Prison policy 16

(1) whether there was a valid, rational connection between the policy and a legitimate

government interest, and if so, whether alternative means of exercising First Amendment

rights remained open to inmates;

(2) the type of impact the accommodation of right would have on guards, other inmates,

and the allocation of prison resources; and

(3) whether there were ready alternatives to the policy that would accommodate inmates

rights at de minimis cost to penological interests.

Ban of unedited R-rated movies is connected to the government interest of pursuing

rehabilitation, due to their having a detrimental influence on inmates through the messages and

situations depicted (Television, radio, motion pictures, and video ).

Case

Lewis v. Phillips addressed whether restriction of access to media such as movies and

video games for prisoners is considered a violation of the First Amendment. The inmates

bringing forth this query were considered sexually violent under the Illinois Sexually Violent

Persons Act, meaning that they were convicted of sex crimes and had mental disorders making

another offense probable. The policy in place was that movies PG-13 and lower were allowed, as

were video games rated Teen or younger. R-rated movies and MA-rated video games were also

allowed, given that those viewing or playing them were not on a prohibited list created by

therapists. The restriction was decided to be constitutional due to safety, therapeutic, and staffing

concerns. Therapists time is better spent providing treatment than going through movies and

video games with a particular inmate in mind, every single time a request is made. Additionally,
The Psychology in Prison policy 17

the content of those prohibited forms of media, namely violence and illegal activities, are not

conducive to a secure, therapeutic environment (Lewis v. Phillips ).

In some cases, deeper restrictions are placed on an individual than simply the types of

media they can access. The restriction drastically changes day-to-day life in a correctional

instruction, for a similar purpose: security of the facility and safety of those who reside in and

work in it.

Solitary Confinement

History

In the preindustrial era, people did not differentiate between mental illness and thought-

out crimes. Criminal behavior and the disregard of social norms were considered an evil. As this

was addressed as malicious and intended wrongdoing, punishments for crimes were dire. Some

of those punishments included whipping, pillories, stockades, brandings, and, ultimately, the

gallows. In some cases, when mental illness was expressly clear to be the cause of the actions,

the lunatic was locked up instead, often for the remainder of his or her life. By the beginning of

the nineteenth century, however, a new belief arose. It was one of the possibility for social

reform and improvement. This caused people to want to rehabilitate both criminals and those

determined to be mentally ill. Naturally, this leads the nation into the creation of large mental

hospitals and prisons (Grassian, n.d.).

The idea of the time was that, when separated from the rest of society, a sort of natural

improvement would occur in these individuals. While they could heal, the community would be

protected from further injury at the hands of those sent to the institutions. In prisons, this

separation had to be even more pronounced. To protect the inmates both from harming each

other physically and from further corrupting and criminalizing each other, prisoners had to be
The Psychology in Prison policy 18

kept separate even from each other. This was achieved through the assignment of individualized

cells which prisoners rarely, if ever, were permitted to leave. The perceived need to isolate them

was so pronounced that in some cases new prisoners were escorted to their cells with a bag over

their head, to prevent them from seeing other inmates or being seen. This early form of solitary

confinement was originally praised and expanded, but by as early as the 1830s, it was becoming

clear that improvements in behavior were not always the result of this prolonged isolation;

research that it lead to psychological damage began to surface (Grassian, n.d.).

Current System

Background. Solitary confinement goes by many different names, including restrictive

housing, special housing units, and administrative segregation ("Restrictive Housing," 2016).

The average stay in solitary confinement consists of a cell of roughly fifty to eighty square feet;

approximately twenty-two and one-half hours per day locked in the cell; about one hour per day

of yard exercise, five out of the seven days each week (Grassian, n.d.). They may be put there as

punishment for violent, drug-related, or disrespectful behavior. Some are housed there for

protection from other inmates, as is often the case when inmates are of minority groups such as

transgender, gay, or Muslim. ("Frequently Asked Questions," 2016)

Arguments for. Corrections officers generally support the practice, using it to inspire

prisoners to keep on their best behavior. They argue that it also provides a chance for

uninterrupted reflection of self, while serving as a protective shield for prison undesirables such

as pedophiles. It is strongly linked to discouragement of participation in illegal activity within

the facility. Solitary confinement may also lead to the prevention of both self-harm and harm to

others through increased monitoring ("Flow Psychology," 2016).

The Psychology in Prison policy 19

A mental health expert, working as community liaison for the Virginia Beach Psychiatric

Center, explained that while the idea of secluding an individual is not ideal, it may be essential in

protecting both that person and those he or she interacts with on a daily basis.

Seclusion and restraints are often necessary in order to protect a patient from his/her self

as well as protect others. This is always a last resort. There are very specific requirements

on how this is to be done. These requirements include constant one on one supervision,

repeat medical checks, specific patient placement while restrained, offering the patient

food and drink in a necessary time frame, etc. This is a practice used only when all other

options have been exhausted. In my personal opinion, this practice does save lives and is

to only be used when patients are acutely psychotic and endangering the safety of

themselves or others. (A. Herndon, Personal communication, November 22, 2016)

While the specific requirements mentioned are practices of mental institutions more so than

correctional facilities, the overall policy presents practically the same argument applied in the

correctional system: in some cases, the highest degree of safety for all involved is attained only

when particular individuals are separated from others.

Arguments against. In recent years, plentiful evidence has linked the practice of

administrative segregation to the development of serious mental illnesses and an increase in the

severity of preexisting conditions. In some cases it will result in the resurgence of an illness

thought to have been conquered. Symptoms of such illnesses are experienced by the majority of

inmates placed under these conditions. Many inmates exhibit frequent panic attacks and

paranoia, characterized by a constant state of fearfulness and attribution of threatening messages

to common occurrences or benign statements. Inmates also tend to experience a sort of mental
The Psychology in Prison policy 20

clouding in which they have trouble thinking or concentrating for very long. Many report

memory problems which they did not have prior to time in solitary (Grassian, n.d.).

Time in such extreme isolation often produces even more serious irregularities of the

mind. One of the most common of these irregularities is hyperresponsivity to external stimuli in

which inmates cannot tolerate even the most ordinary sounds or sensations. Mild stimuli become

extremely aggravating; the mind of an inmate seizes and dwells on those annoyances for great

lengths of time. Prisoners also develop difficulties controlling their impulses, resulting in

vandalism or self-harm in many instances. Those who experience this explain that they can

logically connect those behaviors to causing greater problems in the future, but inexplicably still

act upon the smallest whims with no regard to those consequences. Following these

uncontrollable impulses are vivid imaginings, just as overwhelming and often unwanted, called

intrusive obsessional thoughts. These generally revolve around fantasizing about harming the

guards; visualizations of mutilation, torture, and even murder that often frighten the inmate

experiencing them (Grassian, n.d.).

In even more extreme cases, interpretations of the small world of their cell becomes so

altered that a complete loss of perceptual constancy takes place. Normal objects appear to grow

or shrink, sounds seem to fade or increase, and in some cases an object may morph into another,

completely different object. Other types of perceptual distortions, illusions, and hallucinations

may ensue in the form of hearing nonexistent voices or believing that events have transpired

which did not in reality. Everyday items and situations suddenly become violent and threatening

to the afflicted mind. EEG abnormalities have been noted in residents of special housing units

(Grassian, n.d.). EEG scans can detect certain disorders, in everything from mental disorders to

intoxication. ("Electroencephalogram (EEG)," n.d.).

The Psychology in Prison policy 21

The impact solitary confinement has on individuals varies, and two factors that strongly

affect this can be attributed both to prison-to-prison differences in the conditions and differences

in the individuals themselves. Different facilities have different policies on how long and how

intense the experience is. The most extreme levels of sensory deprivation produce the worst

effects on inmates. Minor environmental differences in the cell have a large impact on the

prisoners; even the type of door on the cell makes a difference. A barred door supplies the most

stimuli possible, a mesh door allows very little sound, sight, or smell through, and a solid steel

door is the most restricting. Also varying from place to place are visitation rules and media

access. The harshest negative effects are seen in places with the lowest amount of environmental

stimulation available. Differences among the individuals placed in restrictive housing are also

important to note. Those with average or higher levels of intelligence, who are emotionally

mature and healthy to begin with, demonstrate the most resistance to harmful effects. Lower

intelligence levels paired with emotional turmoil or existing psychological conditions are the

most affected. People with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Antisocial Personality

Disorder normally exhibit increased impulsivity, are stimulation seekers, and involve

biologically based abnormalities in central nervous system functioning, and due to this they are

known have especially terrible reactions to the restricted environments and lack of stimulation

(Grassian, n.d.).

These effects can outlast simply the time spent in the cell. While many of the symptoms

are alleviated simply by being removed from a special housing unit, others are more lasting.

Once released back into the general inmate population, or later into the community, they may

persist. This leads to a great chance of recidivism, due to diminished social skills and lessened
The Psychology in Prison policy 22

ability to form connections with others. Hypersensitivity can get in the way of finding and

keeping a job (Grassian, n.d.).

Current challenges of the practice. While some advocate for the complete dismantling

of the institution, and others wish it to remain unchanged, most people do not believe that

solitary confinement can be treated as a black and white issue, one that can be accurately labeled

as either an inherent good or evil. Seeing the validity in points from both perspectives, quite a

few advocate for a reform of the system rather than an elimination of it. Safety of inmates and

staff alike can hardly be ignored, yet the sometimes devastating effects of solitary confinement

must be considered as well. Finding a fair balance between the two is essential to a more just

system. Some organizations simply want to lessen the severity of the isolation, such as Lifelines

to Solitary, which sends newsletters and holiday cards to those confined ("Please Support

"Lifelines to Solitary"," 2016). A few other ways balance might be achieved include shortening

the amount of time inmates can be left in restrictive housing and limiting the amount of

infractions that may result in a stay for the purposes of punishment.

Conclusion

Influence on Creation of Policy.

In an effort to promote the rehabilitation of criminals, to reduce recidivism rates and

create a healthy transition back into community life, psychology has driven prison policy.

Correctional psychologists and their practice have fueled the classification and rehabilitation of

inmates, triumphing over an old system of administering only retributive justice. By

understanding how the mind works and applying that to the way we classify and address

prisoners, a deeper and more lasting change occurs within an inmate. While the system may be
The Psychology in Prison policy 23

flawed in some respects, it strives to promote community safety through its logical and rigidly

structured methods.

Influence on Reform of Policy.

Where the practices of correctional systems are failing or could be improved upon, much

data exists from a psychological standpoint supporting a need for change. We see this in the

persistent issues revolving around the incarceration of the mentally ill and in the practice of

solitary confinement. While these are issues that do not have one simple solution, alternative

methods for dealing with them are grounded in the idea of improving the quality of

psychological care and preventing of further psychological trauma form being experienced.
The Psychology in Prison policy 24

References

Aufderheide, D. (2014, April 1). Mental illness in America's jails And prisons: Toward a public

safety/public health model. Retrieved from

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/04/01/mental-illness-in-americas-jails-and-prisons-

toward-a-public-safetypublic-health-model/

Benge, V. A. (n.d.). Roles of correctional psychologists. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from

http://work.chron.com/roles-correctional-psychologists-9707.html

Cameron, B. (2015, February 22). Inmate classification and BOP designation. Retrieved

December 16, 2016, from http://www.federalprisonauthority.com/inmate-classification-

bop-designation/

Countable. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.countable.us/bills/hr731-114-justice-and-mental-

health-collaboration-act-of-2015

Electroencephalogram (EEG). (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2016, from

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/test_procedures/neurological/electroencep

halogram_eeg_92,p07655/

Federal bureau of prisons. (n.d.). Retrieved December 14, 2016, from

https://www.bop.gov/about/facilities/federal_prisons.jsp

Federal Bureau of Prisons. (n.d.). Retrieved December 19, 2016, from

https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/reentry.jsp

Federal inmates, 36 (American Jurisprudence).

Flow psychology. (2016, April 04). Retrieved from http://flowpsychology.com/9-pros-and-cons-

of-solitary-confinement/
The Psychology in Prison policy 25

Forced medication or feeding of prisoners. (2007). Jail & Prisoner Law Section. Retrieved

December 15, 2016, from http://www.aele.org/law/2007JBDEC/2007-12MLJ301.pdf

Frequently asked questions. (2016, March 08). Retrieved December 10, 2016, from

http://solitarywatch.com/facts/faq/

Grassian, S. (n.d.). Psychiatric effects of solitary confinementt. Journal of Law and Policy,

22(325), 327-354.

Herndon, A. (2016, November 22). Mental health professional [E-mail interview].

History of correctional psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved November 9, 2016, from http://criminal-

justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psychology/history-of-forensic-

psychology/correctional-psychology/

History of forensic psychology. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://criminal-

justice.iresearchnet.com/forensic-psychology/history-of-forensic-psychology/

Hutto v. Finney (June 23, 1978).

Institutions by security levels. (n.d.). Retrieved October 31, 2016, from

https://vadoc.virginia.gov/facilities/security-levels.shtm

Lamberti, J. S., & Weisman, R. L. (2004, June). Persons with Severe Mental Disorders in the

Criminal Justice System: Challenges and Opportunities. Psychiatric Quarterly, 75(2),

151-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:PSAQ.0000019756.34713.c3

Lewis v. Phillips (United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Springfield Division March 28,

2014).

MacCormick, A. (n.d.). A prisons role in crime prevention. Retrieved November 4, 2016.

Martin, S. (2008, April). A prison pychologist. Retrieved October 31, 2016, from

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/04/job-prison.aspx
The Psychology in Prison policy 26

Mental health screening. (n.d.). SpringerReference. doi:10.1007/springerreference_223338

National alliance on mental health. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2016, from

http://www.nami.org/Law-Enforcement-and-Mental-Health/What-Is-CIT

Pelissier, B. M. (1988, December). Mental Health Research in the Federal Bureau of Prisons:

Current Trends and Future Developments. Psychiatric Annals, 18(12), 702-705.

Retrieved December 14, 2016, from ProQuest Central K-12.

Please support "Lifelines to Solitary" (2016, November 28). Retrieved December 16, 2016, from

http://solitarywatch.com/2016/11/28/please-support-lifelines-to-solitary-2017/

Rafter, N. (2008). The criminal brain: Understanding biological theories of crime. Retrieved

December 1, 2016, from https://books.google.com/books?

hl=en&lr=&id=GK1PKyvkUhoC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=phrenology+and+crime&ots=x

6asK21Zs_&sig=3LXYF_ZTIXWa6kLhGM6s1nPjfJ4#v=onepage&q=phrenology

%20and%20crime&f=false

Re-entry program. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2016, from

https://vadoc.virginia.gov/offenders/institutions/programs/re-entry.shtm

Rehabilitation; education, 99 (American Jurisprudence).

Restrictive Housing. (2016, July 29). Retrieved October 18, 2016, from

http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/institutional/Pages/restrictive-housing.aspx

State inmates, 35 (American Jurisprudence).

Tapia v. US (June 16, 2011).

Television, radio, motion pictures, and video, 60 (American Jurisprudence).

The Psychology in Prison policy 27

Torrey, E. F., Zdanowicz, M. T., Kennard, A. D., Lamb, H. R., Eslinger, D. F., Biasotti, M. C., &

Fuller, D. A. (n.d.). Pilot survey of persons with mental illnesses in SC jails: July 1, 2007

- June 30, 2008. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e548262011-001

Van Wyhe, J. (2000). The history of phrenology. Retrieved November 30, 2016, from

http://www.victorianweb.org/science/phrenology/intro.html

Washinton v. Harper (February 27, 1990).