The International Persistence and Resilience of Solitary Confinement
Keywords:
Solitary confinement, human rights, incarceration, legal reform, Aislamiento carcelario, derechos humanos, encarcelamiento, reforma jurídicaAbstract
Drawing on a combination of legal analysis and fieldwork conducted with prisoners and administrators in both Denmark and the United States, this article interrogates how solitary confinement has been defined and constrained – or not – in the context of U.S., European, and international law over time. Solitary confinement has existed consistently in prisons across the world, since the first prisons opened. Solitary has been surprisingly predictable over its long history: resilient to criticism, subject to ongoing debates about just how detrimental it is, and repeatedly producing instances of extreme and de-humanizing brutality. This consistency and predictability suggests substantial limitations inherent in the newest barrage of critiques leveled by courts, scholars, international human rights bodies, and professional associations against the practice of solitary confinement. Indeed, this reveals that many critiques of solitary confinement have failed because they have promoted reformist rather than non-reformist (or abolition) agendas – a distinction articulated by Mathiesen (1974/2014).
Partiendo de una combinación de análisis de leyes y trabajo de campo, este artículo investiga cómo se ha definido y limitado -o no- el régimen de aislamiento en los códigos legales. El aislamiento carcelario ha sido una constante en todo el mundo, produciendo ejemplos de brutalidad extrema, suscitando discusiones sobre su impacto psicológico y eludiendo las críticas fundadas en pruebas. La ininterrupción y predecibilidad del aislamiento carcelario indican que hay limitaciones sustanciales en la nueva ola de críticas por parte de juzgados, académicos, organizaciones de derechos humanos y asociaciones profesionales. Lo cierto es que muchas de las críticas han errado porque han promovido la reforma en lugar de la abolición, distinción explicada por Mathiesen (1974/2014).
Available from: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-0930
Downloads
Downloads:
PDF 614
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
OSLS strictly respects intellectual property rights and it is our policy that the author retains copyright, and articles are made available under a Creative Commons licence. The Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution No-Derivatives licence is our default licence, further details available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 If this is not acceptable to you, please contact us.
The non-exclusive permission you grant to us includes the rights to disseminate the bibliographic details of the article, including the abstract supplied by you, and to authorise others, including bibliographic databases, indexing and contents alerting services, to copy and communicate these details.
For information on how to share and store your own article at each stage of production from submission to final publication, please read our Self-Archiving and Sharing policy.
The Copyright Notice showing the author and co-authors, and the Creative Commons license will be displayed on the article, and you must agree to this as part of the submission process. Please ensure that all co-authors are properly attributed and that they understand and accept these terms.