LogIn / RegistrationArticles for sale
- Head office address: Moscow, 123317, Moscow City, 8th Floor, Presnenskaya Embankment, 6, bldg. 2
- article@123mi.ru
- Сортировка:
- по горящим
- по цене
- по дате
#11801. Correction to: Window dressing: possibilities and limitations of incremental changes in solitary confinement (Health & Justice, (20XX), 9, 1, (21), 10.1186/s40352-021-00145-7)
| July 2026 | publication date |
| Proposal available till | 20-05-2025 |
| 4 total number of authors per manuscript | 0 $ |
| The title of the journal is available only for the authors who have already paid for |
| Journal’s subject area: |
| Law; Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health; |
| place 1 | place 2 | place 3 | place 4 |
| Free | Free | Free | Free |
| 2350 $ | 1200 $ | 1050 $ | 900 $ |
Contract №11801.1   | Contract №11801.2 | Contract №11801.3 | Contract №11801.4 |
1 place - free (for sale)
2 place - free (for sale)
3 place - free (for sale)
4 place - free (for sale)
Abstract:
In light of mounting evidence of the physical and psychological harms associated with solitary confinement, many correctional systems, state legislators, courts, and even international human rights bodies are increasingly recommending and implementing reforms to mitigate the harms of solitary confinement, if not abolish the practice entirely. In this piece, we examine three specific infrastructural changes to solitary confinement conditions and practices implemented in prisons with such harm minimization goals in mind: (1) building so-called “nature imagery rooms” to play videos of outdoor spaces, (2) eliminating punishments for self-harm, and (3) conducting daily cell-front wellness checks. Results Drawing on 183 in-depth qualitative interviews with both staff working in and people imprisoned in solitary confinement units in 2017, we find that these three reforms not only resulted in limited successes but also generated new conflicts. The limits of these reforms are due in part to individual choices made by people imprisoned in solitary confinement and staff working in these units, as well as the larger cultural norms that shape life in restrictive housing units. Even the most well-intentioned reforms, like those attempted, should be scrutinized in order to determine if they are producing the desired outcomes, or harms people imprisoned in solitary confinement.
Keywords:
Correctional health; Corrections; Policy; Reform; Segregation
Contacts :
2 place - free (for sale)
3 place - free (for sale)
4 place - free (for sale)
Abstract:
In light of mounting evidence of the physical and psychological harms associated with solitary confinement, many correctional systems, state legislators, courts, and even international human rights bodies are increasingly recommending and implementing reforms to mitigate the harms of solitary confinement, if not abolish the practice entirely. In this piece, we examine three specific infrastructural changes to solitary confinement conditions and practices implemented in prisons with such harm minimization goals in mind: (1) building so-called “nature imagery rooms” to play videos of outdoor spaces, (2) eliminating punishments for self-harm, and (3) conducting daily cell-front wellness checks. Results Drawing on 183 in-depth qualitative interviews with both staff working in and people imprisoned in solitary confinement units in 2017, we find that these three reforms not only resulted in limited successes but also generated new conflicts. The limits of these reforms are due in part to individual choices made by people imprisoned in solitary confinement and staff working in these units, as well as the larger cultural norms that shape life in restrictive housing units. Even the most well-intentioned reforms, like those attempted, should be scrutinized in order to determine if they are producing the desired outcomes, or harms people imprisoned in solitary confinement.
Keywords:
Correctional health; Corrections; Policy; Reform; Segregation
Contacts :
