Is segregation of prisoners torture or a ‘necessary evil?’
Pressure is mounting on Canada’s correctional service to stop isolating prisoners for long periods of time. Two lawsuits are challenging “administrative segregation” as unconstitutional. Several newspaper editorials have condemned the practice. The Correc
Q What is administrative segregation?
A It is the placement of a prisoner in a cell, away from the general population, for up to 23 hours a day. This is generally done when there is a concern of a risk to that inmate’s safety or that prisoner poses a risk to others.
Q Is it the same as solitary confinement? A That depends on whom you ask. Critics say there is no difference. Corrections officials reject the term because of its association with punishment and Hollywood dramatizations depicting inmates languishing in darkness. According to corrections guidelines, inmates in segregation are entitled to most of the same rights and privileges as other inmates, including case management services, an hour of exercise, psychological counselling, educational and health care services, and spiritual support.
Q Why is it so controversial?
A There is no limit to how long someone can be placed in segregation. Research has shown that long-term segregation — the lack of stimulation and social interaction — can have adverse effects on mental health, increase the risk of suicide and is contrary to the aims of rehabilitation. Canada’s prison watchdog has repeatedly raised concerns about this. This month, two lawsuits were filed against the government challenging the use of segregation as unconstitutional. One was filed by the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the John Howard Society of Canada; the other was filed by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. Prolonged isolation amounts to “torture,” they said. A 2011 report by a United Nations torture expert said indefinite segregation should be abolished.
Q What is the government’s response?
A In an emailed statement this week, Don Head, the commissioner of the correctional service, said the agency is developing an “enhanced model for segregation” to reduce the number and length of segregation placements, reframe the thinking about how segregation is used and strengthen oversight and decision-making. “The goal of the strategy is to reduce the reliance on segregation by creating better options and finding more viable alternatives for safe reintegration into the general population.” Outside experts will be consulted and options presented to the public safety minister by June, he said. The statement was pretty much a rehash of what the agency said in December in its official response to recommendations stemming from the coroner’s inquest into the high-profile death of Ashley Smith.
Q What are the options?
A One of the key recommendations from the Smith inquest was capping the number of consecutive days in isolation to 15. Jennifer Oades, who retired last year as deputy commissioner for women at the correctional service, said she absolutely agrees that prolonged or indefinite segregation is harmful. At the same time, she worries about prescribing a limit of 10 or 15 days because flexibility is important. “Segregation, unfortunately, is a necessary evil,” she said. There is also concern the limit would become the norm, possibly leading to people being kept in isolation for 15 days when they didn’t need to be. Where a cap might make sense, however, is for inmates with mental illness. If they can’t be managed after a certain period, they should be transferred to a mental health facility. Oades said the government needs to move away from a “punishment model” of corrections to a “rehabilitative model.” Performance reviews for wardens should be based, in part, on a reduction in the use of segregation, she suggested. Others have suggested the correctional service should have some kind of mandatory external review, perhaps performed by a judge, that kicks in after a prisoner has been held in segregation for a certain period of time.