From 1984 to 2014

I first visited prisons in North America in 1984. At that time I was working in the Head Office of the Scottish Prison Service where one of my tasks was to review the methods that were being used for the management of prisoners serving long sentences. We were aware that changes in this area were underway in prisons in the United States and Canada and the purpose of my visit was to learn about these developments and to assess how they might contribute to new thinking in Scotland.

My visit coincided with a period of particularly dramatic change in prison circles in the United States, especially within the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP). At that time the BOP was responsible for around 45,000 prisoners, a far cry from the 210,000 whom it holds in 2014. It was also a traumatic time in respect to escalating prison violence. One of the main responses of the BOP to this violence had been to create a control unit within its maximum security penitentiary in Marion, Illinois. The level of security within the control unit had to be higher than maximum (language sometimes takes on a whole new meaning in the prison world) and so was born the concept of “supermax.” Violence continued even within the control unit and in October 1983 two prisoners were able to attack correctional officers with fatal results. The BOP’s response was to create a new 10-place segregation unit within the control unit which was within the maximum security prison—their own version of Dante’s nine circles of hell.

In the course of my 1984 visit, I had discussions with BOP Director Norman Carlson and several members of his senior operational team. They had a definite concern that their immediate pragmatic response to specific violent incidents might be forcing them down a blind alley from which there would be no return and that the creation of isolation units within “supermax” facilities would be self-perpetuating. Their fears were justified. The concept of “supermax” facilities spread throughout the United States and has since been exported to other countries. For a number of prisoners they have become places from which there is no return. One example is Thomas Silverstein who was placed in solitary confinement after murdering an officer in Marion in October 1983 and who remains in that situation over 30 years later, currently in ADX Florence.

A Professional Challenge

No person would make a free choice to go to prison but most of those who are in prison accept the reality of their situation. Provided they are subject to appropriate security measures and fair treatment they will accept the legitimate restrictions that are placed on their liberty not try to escape or to seriously unbalance the normal routine of the prison. On the other hand, in any prison system there may be a small number of prisoners who will be prepared to do everything within their power to disrupt the safety and good order of the prison and who, therefore, have to be held in conditions of high security.

The manner in which the authorities seek to achieve a balance between the threat that such prisoners present to the safety of staff or other prisoners and the obligation that the state has to treat all prisoners in a decent and humane manner can be seen as a measure of its professionalism. The greatest test of professional prison management is to be able to deal in a humane yet firm manner with the small number of prisoners who have demonstrated a determination to assault and even kill prison personnel or other prisoners. This was recognized at the outset of the “supermax” era in a report presented to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives:

One of the greatest challenges to penal policy makers is the need to control the most violent prisoners in the country while at the same time exercising creativity in trying to devise and then try, on an experimental basis, activities that will not contribute to further deterioration of these inmates­–deterioration which can lead in turn to greater risks of serious injury to staff, other prisoners, and often to the community upon the inmate’s eventual release.1

International Good Practice

International human rights standards relating to imprisonment make it quite clear that solitary confinement should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances; whenever possible its use should be avoided and steps should be taken to abolish it. These standards acknowledge the fact that periods of solitary confinement are potentially prejudicial to the mental health of the prisoner. For example, the General Assembly of the United Nations has approved a set of Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners. Principle 7 states that, “Efforts addressed to the abolition of solitary confinement as a punishment, or to the restriction of its use, should be undertaken and encouraged.”

The United States, of course, is an active member of the UN General Assembly.

In August 2013, the UN General Assembly received a report from the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.2 Paragraph 60 of the report stated:

Prison regimes of solitary confinement often cause mental and physical suffering or humiliation that amounts to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment... Solitary confinement should be imposed, if at all, in very exceptional circumstances, as a last resort, for as short a time as possible and with established safeguards in place after obtaining the authorization of the competent authority subject to independent review.

Principles of Good Prison Management

There are a number of basic principles about the good management of prisoners who must be held in conditions of maximum security.

• Minimum Number. The number of prisoners held under maximum security conditions should be kept to a minimum for a number of reasons. High security prisoners are required to be kept under close supervision at all times and their freedom of movement and contact with other people is likely to be kept under close surveillance. When implemented in a proper manner, high security supervision will be very resource intensive in financial, technical, and staffing terms. In addition, staff are more likely to be able to provide the appropriate level of intense supervision if the label of high security prisoner is not applied indiscriminately.

• Individual Assessment. There should be a clear, well-defined system for identifying which prisoners require to be held in high security conditions. The degree of risk that they pose should be assessed individually on a continuing and regular basis.

• Only Necessary Restrictions. The responsibility of a prison system to detain all prisoners in conditions that are decent and humane, regardless of the crimes of which they have been convicted or accused, applies also to the treatment of high security prisoners, and the restrictions that are imposed on these prisoners should be no more than are necessary to ensure that they are detained securely and safely.

• The Balance of Security. Good management will distinguish physical, procedural, and dynamic security from each other and will acknowledge the fact that these should be complementary. A system that uses the dynamic security that comes from staff interactions and intelligence is likely to be more effective than one that relies exclusively on very restrictive hardware and technology.

• Regular Review of Security Levels. Security levels for individual prisoners should be reviewed at regular intervals throughout the sentence. It may well happen that prisoners who are classified as high security risks early in their sentences will become less so as a result of good management during sentence. The prospect of progressing to a lower security category during the sentence can also act as an incentive for good behaviour.

• Specially Trained Staff. Working with high security prisoners requires a special degree of professionalism, and staff who work in this environment need to be given special training and continuing support.

Two Case Studies From Europe

On July 22, 2011, the world was shocked by news of an orgy of killing in Norway. Anders Behring Breivik first bombed government buildings in Oslo killing eight people and then travelled to a holiday camp on a nearby island where he killed more people, most of whom were teenagers. In August 2012, Breivik was convicted of mass murder and was sentenced to 21 years in prison, the maximum term allowed under Norwegian law. His case will be reviewed at regular intervals and, depending on assessments, it is possible that he will spend the rest of his life in prison. The Norwegian authorities have made clear that, while he will be held in very secure conditions, Breivik will be treated throughout his sentence in a humane manner in conformity with national ideals of fairness and justice. He is currently held in a maximum security prison in a three-cell suite where he has regular access to fresh air and has the use of a computer (without internet access), exercise equipment and a television. It is worth noting that the government buildings which Breivik bombed housed the Ministry of Justice and several of its officials were killed or injured. As a nation, Norway has taken pride in the fact that it has responded to the Breivik atrocities in a calm and dispassionate manner.

he second case study is from Scotland and concerns a man who I had under my care when I was warden of Scotland’s maximum security prison a few years after my earlier visit to the United States. In 1970, Thomas McCulloch had been convicted of attempting to murder two people. He was assessed as being mentally unfit for sentence and was ordered to be detained indefinitely in the State Secure Psychiatric Hospital. In 1976, McCulloch and another patient broke out of the State Hospital armed with an axe and a knife. In the course of their escape they murdered another patient, a member of the nursing staff, and a policeman. Both men were apprehended and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. When I took up command at the maximum security prison McCulloch was held in a special suite, which included a cell where he slept at night, a living area and a workroom. Three members of staff were present with him inside his unit and directly supervised his movements at all times. At the outset it seemed likely that he would never be released. In subsequent years staff continued to work with McCulloch and his progress was continuously assessed. After a number of years his security was reduced and he was eventually transferred to lower security prisons. In 2013 the national Parole Board decided that he could safely be released. He will remain under supervision in the community for the rest of his life.

A Test of Humanity, a Test of Professionalism

The manner in which a nation responds to a person who has shown by his actions that he has little or no respect for other human beings can be a real test of everyone’s humanity. Such a person will undoubtedly have to be detained in very secure conditions which will ensure that he cannot ever again repeat his crimes. At the same time, a professionally trained prison staff should treat such person in a humane manner and will continually work towards his reformation, whether his name be Thomas Silverstein, Behring Breivik or Thomas McCulloch.

End Notes

1. Ward, D. & Breed, A. (1985). Report on the U.S. Penitentiary Marion, presented to the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

2. UN General Assembly, A/68/295 (August 2013).

Andrew Coyle, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor of Prison Studies at the University of London, and was previously warden of several high security prisons in the United Kingdom.