[Ppnews] Pawns in a Failed Experiment: Craig Haney on Solitary Confinement

[Political Prisoner News]

“Pawns in a Failed Experiment”: Testimony of Dr. 
Craig Haney on Solitary Confinement

September 1, 2011
http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/

by Sal Rodriguez

Dr. Craig Haney, Professor of Psychology at the 
University of California at Santa Cruz, testified 
before the California Assembly’s Committee on 
Public Safety on August 23rd, 2011 regarding the 
issue of California’s Security Housing Units 
(SHUs). Dr. Haney provides a historical overview 
of the use of solitary confinement, litigation 
and research on solitary confinement, and 
comments on the current state of the California prison system.

A Word Document of this testimony can be 
downloaded here: 
http://solitarywatch.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/statement-of-professor-craig-haney-to-california-assembly-committee-on-public-safety.docx

Statement of Professor Craig Haney at Hearing of 
California Assembly Public Safety Committee, August 23, 2011

My name is Craig Haney. I am a Professor of 
Psychology at the University of California, Santa 
Cruz. I have been studying the psychological 
effects of prison confinement, including the 
effects of solitary confinement, for well over 30 
years. That research has included in-depth 
analyses of the conditions of confinement in many 
if not most of the facilities in the California 
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 
(CDCR), including the Pelican Bay Security 
Housing Unit. I have testified as an expert 
witness in most of the major prison conditions 
lawsuits that have occurred in California over 
the last several decades, including ones directly 
pertinent to today’s hearing­Toussaint v. 
McCarthy,<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_edn1>[i]Coleman 
v. 
Gomez,<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_edn2>[ii]Madrid 
v. 
Gomez,<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_edn3>[iii] 
and the most recent case of Brown v. 
Plata.<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_edn4>[iv] 
In the 10 short minutes I have available to me I 
want to make several brief points that hopefully 
will put today’s important issues in a somewhat larger context.

The first is some historical context. It is that 
CDCR officials certainly knew­or should have 
known­at the time they created the Pelican Bay 
Security Housing Unit in the late 1980s, that it 
would expose prisoners to psychologically 
dangerous conditions of confinement. Indeed, as a 
society we have known since at least the mid-19th 
century that the practice of solitary confinement 
was psychologically harmful and could 
significantly damage those persons who were 
subjected to it on a long-term basis. Indeed, a 
hundred or more years before Pelican Bay was 
designed and built, public figures like Charles 
Dickens and Alexis De Tocqueville wrote 
eloquently about the evils of prison solitary 
confinement and its power to drive prisoners mad.

Our own United States Supreme Court acknowledged 
as much in an 1890 case known as In re Medley, 
when Justice Miller wrote that this form of 
imprisonment had been universally abandoned 
because, in his words: “A considerable number of 
the prisoners fell, after even a short 
confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from 
which it was next to impossible to arouse them, 
and others became violently insane; others still, 
committed suicide; while those who stood the 
ordeal better were not generally reformed, and in 
most cases did not recover sufficient mental 
activity to be of any subsequent service to the 
community.”<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_edn5>[v]

If CDCR officials were unaware of these vivid 
historical precedents, they certainly were aware 
of many more immediate ones. Indeed, for the 10 
years preceding the construction of Pelican Bay, 
the Department was engaged in continuous and 
contentious litigation­ from the late 1970s 
through the 1980s­that focused on exactly these 
issues: the harmful effects of solitary or 
isolated confinement and the wrongheadedness of 
attempting to use it as a technique to control 
prison gangs. Both issues were at the very heart 
of a federal court case in which federal judge 
Stanley Weigel repeatedly chastised the 
Department of Corrections for the inhumane 
conditions that were being operated in the 
so-called lockup units in San Quentin, Folsom, 
Soledad, and DVI. I know this personally because 
I provided much of the testimony that helped to establish many of those facts.

Instead of taking that expert information and 
those judicial admonitions to heart, CDCR 
officials simply and cynically ignored them, and 
moved on to create yet another lockup unit, this 
one on a vast, unprecedented scale that was 
explicitly designed to impose hitherto unimagined 
levels of isolation in the “supermax” prison at 
Pelican Bay. There can be no doubt that they knew 
the risks they were taking with the psyches of 
the prisoners who were confined there; as I say, 
I and many other experts, and at least one 
federal judge, had clearly and repeatedly told 
them so throughout the Toussaint litigation. In 
fact, in the entire 10-plus year period of that 
litigation, the Department never presented one 
single expert witness to dispute the facts that 
we presented about this potential to do great 
harm. They just deliberately and indifferently ignored them.

Indeed, notwithstanding the clear and undeniable 
evidence that long-term solitary confinement 
exposed prisoners to extreme psychological 
dangers, and despite the unprecedented and 
uncharted levels of nearly complete isolation to 
which they knew Pelican Bay would expose 
prisoners, there is no evidence that CDCR 
officials ever bothered to consult with any other 
psychological or mental health experts about the 
design of the facility to obtain advice about 
what the effects of the kind of isolation they 
were planning to impose might have on the 
prisoners in order to determine how those effects 
might be ameliorated by one or another design 
feature or approach. As one sign of how little 
they appeared to care, CDCR officials chose to 
open Pelican Bay prison and operate it for well 
over a year with only one single master’s level 
psychologist on staff to administer to the needs 
of the entire population of approximately 4000 
prisoners at the entire prison, including the 
1500 who were housed under truly dangerous levels of isolation in the SHU.

When those isolated and deprived conditions and 
their psychological effects were finally 
scrutinized in federal district court a few years 
later, Judge Thelton Henderson acknowledged that, 
in his words, the Pelican Bay SHU “may press 
against the outer limits of what humans can 
psychologically 
tolerate.”<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_edn6>[vi] 
As you no doubt know, Judge Henderson ordered 
some significant changes in certain practices 
that took place at the prison, most notably in 
its use-of-force policies and the screening and 
removal of the most seriously mentally ill 
prisoners. He did not shut the prison down, 
although perhaps in retrospect wonders if he should have.

What is important to keep in mind, however, is 
that although he did not shut the Pelican Bay SHU 
down, the facility had only been in operation for 
a few years at the time of the hearing in Madrid, 
and had been operating for a mere 6 years at the 
time of he issued his strongly worded Madrid 
opinion. Back then, in 1995, as Judge Henderson 
himself noted, “[we could] not begin to speculate 
on the impact that Pelican Bay SHU conditions 
[might] have on inmates confined in the SHU for 
periods of 10 or 20 years or 
more.”<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_edn7>[vii] 
Of course, it is now more than20 years since the 
facility was opened. Unfortunately, we no longer 
need to speculate. Indeed, some of the men who 
were on that first busload of prisoners brought 
to this stark, barren, and desolate place in the 
late 1980s are still there, never having left.

It is critically important in this hearing that 
we not lose sight of the fact that all of the men 
confined at the Pelican Bay SHU and in other 
housing units like it in CDCR continue to be 
treated very badly, routinely worse than 
prisoners in any civilized nation anywhere else 
in the world are treated, under conditions that 
many nations and international human 
organizations regard as torture. They live their 
entire lives within the confines of an 80 square 
foot windowless cell, which they leave for an 
hour a day when are allowed to enter a concrete 
encased but otherwise barren outdoor exercise 
pen. Save the small glimpse of overhead sky they 
have when they look directly up inside this pen, 
they have no contact with the natural world, not 
even to touch or see a blade of grass.

They have no contact with the normal social world 
either. Indeed, the only regular physical contact 
they have with another human being is the 
incidental brushing up against the guards who 
must first place them in handcuffs and chains 
before they escort them out of their cells and 
housing units. They visit loved ones through 
thick glass and over phones, and are thus denied 
the opportunity to ever touch another human being 
with affection. This has gone on unabated, for 
years and years, for some of these men for several decades now.

Not surprisingly, this mistreatment has had 
terrible consequences for many of them. In our 
studies of prisoners at Pelican Bay, we have 
documented the multiple ways in which they are 
suffering. The list of symptoms is far too long 
for me to recite in the short time available to 
me (but it is contained in the written material I 
have provided to your 
staff).<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_edn8>[viii] 
In short, prisoners in these units complain of 
chronic and overwhelming feelings of sadness, 
hopelessness, and depression. Rates of suicide in 
the California lockup units are by far the 
highest in any prison housing units anywhere in 
the country. Many SHU inmates become deeply and 
unshakably paranoid, and are profoundly anxious 
around and afraid of people (on those rare 
occasions when they are allowed contact with 
them). Some begin to lose their grasp on their 
sanity and badly decompensate. Others are certain 
that they will never be able to live normally 
among people again and are consumed by this fear. 
Many deteriorate mentally and emotionally, and 
their capacity to function as remotely effective, 
feeling, social beings atrophies

These prisoners are paying a terrible price as 
pawns in this failed experiment, a price in terms 
of the pain they feel during the time they are 
housed in isolation, and a perhaps an even 
greater price when they are released and find 
they are unable to cope with the demands of a 
normal social life outside prison. To my mind, 
there is now clear and convincing evidence that 
this misguided attempt at managing California 
prison gangs simply does not work: when Pelican 
Bay came on line in the late 1980s California had 
a serious prison gang problem; it now has the 
worst one in the entire nation. Indeed, do not 
believe the CDCR can present one single shred of 
reliable evidence that its 
gang-control-through-isolation policy is 
effective. In fact, I believe that a compelling 
argument can be made that the SHU units actually 
have made the state prison system’s gang problem 
much worse rather than better. Thus, the 
suffering of the SHU prisoners is not only in vain, it is counterproductive.

The specter of gangs is being used as a 
justification to continue to impose these 
draconian conditions, but it must not be allowed 
to. People join gangs in prison for the same 
reason that they join them on the streets­because 
they believe their own safety and self defense 
depends on it, and because they have no other way 
to gain access to things they need (like a sense 
of belongingness and purpose in a world that 
seems to deprive them of it) and things they feel 
they want (sometimes illicit things, ones that 
are made more attractive by the deprived 
circumstances under which they live). But this 
also means that gangs can be effectively 
controlled in prison in much they same way that 
they are effectively controlled on the streets. 
To be sure, steps have to be taken to make the 
“neighborhoods” in which prisoners live as safe 
as possible, by limiting access to the worst 
aspects of gang life­weapons and drugs. (In 
prison, frankly, this also means doing a better 
job of policing correctional officers as well as prisoners.)

More importantly, however, gangs are effectively 
controlled on the streets by providing members 
and potential members with meaningful and hopeful 
alternatives, pathways to genuinely better 
futures that they can choose instead of gang 
life, and which their gang involvement would 
sacrifice. In prison, just as on the streets, 
gangs flourish where these kinds of alternatives 
are limited or non-existent. The overcrowded 
wasteland that the California prison system has 
become over the last 30 years, one almost 
completely lacking in meaningful rehabilitation 
programs, vocational or educational programming 
goes a long way in explaining the proliferation of the gangs.

In 2002, for example, only a little more than 
half of all prisoners in California were employed 
in prison jobs of any 
kind.<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_edn9>[ix] 
By 2006, the situation had gotten worse rather 
than better: more than 50% of California 
prisoners were released from prison that year 
without having participated in a single 
rehabilitation or job training program nor having 
had a single work assignment throughout their 
period entire prison 
sentence.<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_edn10>[x]

The gangs have stepped in to fill this void. 
Because the CDCR offers most prisoners little or 
nothing in the way of programming or pathways to 
a better 
future,<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_edn11>[xi] 
many feel they have little or nothing to lose. In 
the same way that gang abatement programs on the 
street that focus entirely on punishment and 
suppression are doomed to fail, the CDCR’s 
SHU-based isolation- and deterrence-only model 
will never work in the absence of genuine, 
meaningful pathways for prisoners to do productive time.

Finally, I am aware that the CDCR intends to make 
some due process modifications in the procedures 
and practices that are in use in the Pelican Bay 
SHU (and presumably the other SHU units in the 
state), and that we are going to hear about them 
momentarily from Department of Corrections 
officials who will testify next. As best I 
understand them, these changes represent first 
steps along the path of creating a system that is 
fairer and more humane. For this, the Department 
is to be applauded. These new procedures suggest 
that the CDCR has come a very long way since 
those early days when it insisted on stubbornly 
ignoring the warnings that many of them give them 
about the path they had embarked on. It has taken 
a long time­far too long, in my opinion­but at least the process has begun.

However, as a veteran of the process of trying to 
create improved prison conditions and practices 
in California, I have to remind you that 
announcing intentions are not the same thing as 
solving problems or actually making 
changes.  Moreover, these first steps are not 
final solutions and they do not begin to 
effectively address the core injustice and 
inhumanity of the Pelican Bay­the profound 
isolation it imposes and the sheer lengths of 
time to which so many men are subjected to it.

I have no reason to believe that Department 
officials are insincere, and I am willing to take 
them at their word that they are trying to 
improve this notorious facility. But Pelican 
Bay’s legacy­its history of mistreatment, misery, 
and willful neglect­is long-standing. It will 
take a great deal of effort, and oversight to 
overcome the atmosphere of distrust and abuse 
that has surrounded this place. I am hopeful that 
this Committee will remain vigilant in this 
regard, and help the Department follow through on 
its new commitment, a commitment to at least 
begin the process of meaningful change.

___________________________

<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_ednref>[i] 
Toussaint v. McCarthy, 553 F. Supp. 1365 (1983); 
722 F. 2d 1490 (9th Cir. 1984) 711 F. Supp. 536 (1989).

<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_ednref>[ii] 
Coleman v. Gomez, 912 F. Supp. 1282 (1995).

<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_ednref>[iii] 
Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146 (N.D. Cal. 1995).

<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_ednref>[iv] 
Brown v. Plata, 131 S.Ct. 1910 (2011).

<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_ednref>[v] 
In re Medley, 134 U.S. 160, 168 (1890).

<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_ednref>[vi] 
Madrid at 1268.

<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_ednref>[vii] 
Ibid.

<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_ednref>[viii] 
In my own study of a representative sample of 
prisoners in the Pelican Bay SHU, for example, 
every symptom of psychological distress that I 
measured but one (fainting spells) was suffered 
by more than half of the prisoners. Many of the 
symptoms were reported by two-thirds or more of 
the prisoners in this isolated housing unit, and 
some were suffered by nearly everyone. Well over 
half of the Pelican Bay SHU prisoners reported a 
constellation of symptoms­headaches, trembling, 
sweaty palms, and heart palpitations­that is 
commonly associated with hypertension. I also 
found that almost all of the prisoners evaluated 
reported ruminations or intrusive thoughts, an 
oversensitivity to external stimuli, irrational 
anger and irritability, difficulties with 
attention and often with memory, and a tendency 
to socially withdraw. Almost as many prisoners 
reported a constellation of symptoms indicative 
of mood or emotional disorders­concerns over 
emotional flatness or losing the ability to feel, 
swings in emotional responding, and feelings of 
depression or sadness that did not go away. 
Finally, sizable minorities of the prisoners 
reported symptoms that are typically only 
associated with more extreme forms of 
psychopathology­ hallucinations, perceptual 
distortions, and thoughts of suicide. See Craig 
Haney, Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary 
and “Supermax” Confinement, Crime & Delinquency 
49, 124-156 (2003). [Previously provided to Committee staff.]

<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_ednref>[ix] 
Specifically, only 53.6% of the more than 150,000 
California prisoners were employed in any type of 
work assignment at the end of the year 2002. 
California Department of Corrections, CDC Facts, 
January, 2003 
(<http://www.cdc.state.ca.us/cdcfacts.htm>http://www.cdc.state.ca.us/cdcfacts.htm).

<http://solitarywatch.com/2011/09/01/pawns-in-a-failed-experiment-testimony-of-dr-craig-haney-on-solitary-confinement/#_ednref>[x] 
California Department of Corrections and 
Rehabilitation Expert Panel on Adult Offender 
Reentry and Recidivism Reduction Programs, Report 
to the California State Legislature: A Roadmap 
for Effective Offender Programming in California (2007), at p. 7.





Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110

415 863-9977

www.Freedomarchives.org  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/ppnews_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20110901/540e520b/attachment.htm>