Solitary Confinement as Torture University of North Carolina School of Law Immigration/Human Rights Clinic Principal Authors: Mark Bowers Patricia Fernandez Megha Shah Katherine Slager Collaborating Authors: Kelly Crecco, Susanna Wagar Faculty Adviser: Deborah M. Weissman In Cooperation With American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Steven R. Edelstein, Edelstein & Payne North Carolina Stop Torture Now Solitary Confinement as Torture University of North Carolina School of Law Immigration/Human Rights Clinic Principal Authors: Mark Bowers Patricia Fernandez Megha Shah Katherine Slager Collaborating Authors: Kelly Crecco, Susanna Wagar Faculty Adviser: Deborah M. Weissman and North Carolina Prisoners Legal Services Elizabeth Simpson In Cooperation With American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Steven R. Edelstein, Edelstein & Payne North Carolina Stop Torture Now 2014 http://www.law.unc.edu/documents/academics/humanrights/solitaryconfinement/fullreport.pdf Acknowledgements We would like to thank Christina Cowger and North Carolina Stop Torture Now and Steven Edelstein, Edelstein & Payne, for their conceptualization of this project as part of their commitment to exposing violations of the basic human rights and to ending torture in all forms. Guangya Liu provided expert assistance with empirical research and data analysis. We are grateful for the support, insights, and encouragement of Christopher Brook and the ACLU of North Carolina and Mary Pollard and North Carolina Prisoners Legal Services. Thanks too to Alan Rosenthal, Patricia Warth, and Marsha Weissman of the Center on Community Alternatives. Thanks to Melissa Cobb and Jesse Ramos who provided ongoing efforts to support this project. A special note of gratitude to Debra Edge who assisted with the completion of this project. UNC School of Law Immigration/Human Rights Clinic and Human Rights Seminar- 2013-2014 Table of Contents Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………...1 Definitions ………………………………………………………………………………………..5 I. North Carolina Data Collection………………………………………………………..12 A. Interviews………………………………………………………………………...12 B. Survey Results…………………………………………………………………...32 1. Due Process: Assignment to Solitary Confinement………………………….33 2. Conditions in Solitary Confinement………………………………………….35 3. Treatment by the Corrections Officers and the Lack of Remedies…………...38 C. Statistical Data: NC Department of Public Safety……………………………….39 D. Data: NC Department of Public Safety Public Records Request.........................45 1. Inmate Population Statistics Throughout North Carolina……………….46 2. Staffing at CPHC and System-wide……………………………………..47 3. General Structure of CPHC……………………………………………...48 4. Observations of and Interviews with Line Mental Health Staff…………48 5. Intensive Level Housing Unit for Control Status Inmates………………49 6. Out-of-Cell Time for Inmates……………………………………………50 7. Summary of Metzner and Aufderheide Findings………………………..51 II. National Data…………………………………………………………………………...56 A. Prisoner Narratives and Media on Solitary Confinement in Other States……….57 1. Prisoner Narratives………………………………………………………57 2. Media Reports on Solitary Confinement………………………………...61 B. Expert Data and Findings………………………………………………………..63 1. Mental Health Professionals……………………………………………..63 2. Solitary Confinement: A Criminological Perspective. ………………….79 C. National Campaigns and National Response……………………………………….101 1. Federal Response……………………………………………………….104 2. State Legislative Reform……………………………………………….106 3. Litigation………………………………………………………………..109 SECTION TWO: SUBSTANTIVE LEGAL ISSUES………………………………………………...112 I. Constitutional Inquiry………………………………………………………………...112 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………112 A. Eight Amendment Jurisprudence……………………………………………….114 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………..114 2. Historical Perspectives………………………………………………….118 3. Reboot: Building the Wall of Deference……………………………….120 4. The Modern Rule……………………………………………………….124 5. The Double Bind of the Courts’ Circular Logic………………………..127 B. Due Process……………………………………………………………………..130 1. General Due Process Principles………………………………………...131 2. Minimum Due Process Rights Due To Prisoners Who Face Assignment To Solitary Confinement: Insufficient on Their Face; Insufficient as Applied………………………………………………….133 3. Grievance Mechanism and the Lack of Due Process in North Carolina.140 4. North Carolina Data: No Meaningful Due Process………………………….141 C. Conclusion: Constitutional Issues……………………………………………...144 II. International Law Applies to Solitary Confinement in the United States…………145 A. The Convention Against Torture (CAT) Applies to the United States and Does Not Support the Use of Solitary Confinement in American Prisons……………..145 1. Substantive provisions of the Convention Against Torture and their relation to solitary confinement………………………………………...145 B. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Applies to the United States and Prohibits Torture………………………………………………...150 1. The ICCPR’s authority and applicability to the United States…………150 2. Substantive provisions of the ICCPR that apply in the case of solitary confinement…………………………………………………………….151 C. International Norms Prohibit the Use of Torture in Any Form and for Any Reason…………………………………………………………………………………..155 1. The Istanbul Protocol…………………………………………………...155 2. The Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners…………………...157 3. Revision of Standard Minimum Rules Of Detention To Include A Ban On Prolonged And Indefinite Solitary Confinement……………………….158 4. Actions of other countries that serve to create and establish international norms……………………………………………………………………159 D. The American Convention on Human Rights Prohibits the Use of Torture and Applies to the United States………………………………………………………..161 1. Substantive provisions of the American Convention and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man Relating to Solitary Confinement…………………………………………………………….161 III. Model National Standards: Overview……………………………………………….166 IV. North Carolina State Inquiry………………………………………………………...169 A. Dire Straits……………………………………………………………………...169 1. Tracking Federal Jurisprudence………………………………………...170 2. North Carolina Legislation and Regulations……………………………172 B. Path to Climb Out of the Quagmire…………………………………………….185 1. The North Carolina Constitution Can Provide Greater Protections…….186 2. North Carolina Can Reform Regulations to More Closely Track the American Bar Association’s Standards in Treatment of Prisoners…….192 3. Continuing North Carolina’s History of Righting Moral Wrongs……...193 SECTION THREE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION…………………………………...196 I. Basic Normative Claims………………………………………………………………196 A. Morals and Law………………………………………………………………...196 B. Effectiveness……………………………………………………………………197 II. Affirmative Recommendations……………………………………………………….199 A. Alternatives to Solitary Confinement…………………………………………..199 1. Technical Reforms……………………………………………………...199 2. Systemic Reforms………………………………………………………204 3. Comparative Legal Developments……………………………………...207 B. Advocacy Strategies………………………………………………………………... 207 1. Litigation……………………………………………………………….207 2. Legislation……………………………………………………………..210 3. Community Outreach and Organizing………………………………….211 C. North Carolina Specific………………………………………………………...212 1. Investigating Claims of Abuse by Corrections Officers………………..212 2. Rehumanization of Corrections Officers through Training…………….213 3. Reform through Leadership…………………………………………….214 D. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...215 APPENDICES I. Methodology II. Prisoner Survey III. DPS Data Statistics IV. Public Record Request V. The Use of Solitary Confinement: A Comparison Between the National Standards and North Carolina Standards VI. Class Offenses and Presumptive Punishments VII. Draft Proposed Legislation Executive Summary The Immigration/Human Rights Policy Clinic (I/HRP) (now the Human Rights Policy Seminar) at the University of North Carolina School of Law is committed to exposing violations of the basic human rights of both citizens and visitors of this state and nation.1 This policy report seeks to contribute to a growing national advocacy movement that has identified solitary confinement as cruel, inhuman, and degrading form of punishment that is—or at the very least approximates—torture and a severe form of human rights violation and seeks to bring about the end of its use. Torture is one of the basest violations of human rights and shared democratic ideals. Under North Carolina’s state constitution, the federal constitution, as well as international law, the nation and the state of North Carolina must not be complicit in any act that falls within this category of atrocity. The duty to take responsibility for human rights violations encompasses the obligation to enlarge an understanding of that which constitutes torture and how it is manifested in various institutions and implemented by various actors. In this interest, as citizens, as concerned human beings, and as advocates, students, faculty, and collaborating advocacy partners endeavored to investigate and shine a light on the realities of the use of solitary confinement within the prison system with a focus on the state of North Carolina. To this end, the authors have relied on a wide range of sources to parse out not only the practice and the outcomes of isolation, but also the evolution of the substantive response to this condition of confinement. This report examines the U.S. Constitution and its protections, the international standards that the United States as a nation has