RISK FACTORS DERIVING FROM AN OVEREMPHASIS ON SECURITY It is worth noting a number of procedural safeguards have been enshrined in the revised Standard Minimum Rules for disciplinary measures and procedures in general. First and foremost, there is the recognition that to the greatest extent possible, conflict prevention, mediation or any other alternative dispute resolution mechanism should be used to prevent disciplinary offences and to resolve conflicts. Moreover, sanctions should not include the prohibition of family contact, but rather be limited to restrictions for a limited time period and only as strictly required for the maintenance of security and order. A record should be kept of the imposition of disciplinary sanctions.105 Prisoners in isolation should be subject to particular attention by monitoring bodies. Monitors should ensure that their visits include a thorough examination of the use of isolation, segregation and solitary confinement, including its frequency and length. They should closely review the classification systems, and decisions to isolate prisoners, including whether these are based on an individual risk assessment. The use of isolation for ‘protection’ of vulnerable groups should be examined carefully. Monitoring bodies should also pay particular attention to the conditions in segregation units and their impact on the mental well-being of the prisoners, examining in particular the possibility for detainees to maintain meaningful human contact. Furthermore, monitoring bodies should inquire whether segregation is applied in a discriminatory way towards certain groups or individuals. This requires interviews in private with detainees in actual or recent solitary confinement, checking the relevant registers, and interviews with staff. 6. ‘Super-max’ prisons The increase of so-called ‘super-max prisons’ in various countries illustrates the excessive recourse to highsecurity facilities, even though violent prisoners who pose a high threat to staff and other detainees are generally only a small proportion of the prison population. ‘Super-max prisons’ are characterised by a very restrictive detention regime where detainees spend 22 to 23 hours in their cell, with only an hour’s outdoor exercise, usually alone in small courtyards. Limited human contact with staff, fellow inmates or family lead to social isolation and de facto solitary confinement, despite its sustained consequences on the mental health of prisoners (see above in Sections 2 and 5). High security and ‘super-max’ in Brazil In 2006, Brazil built three federal high security prisons to detain prisoners considered too dangerous to be kept in the state’s prison system. Detainees are locked in their individual cell for 22 hours a day, with two hours outdoor exercise. They are not allowed to receive newspapers and have no access to radio or TV. Family visits, including conjugal visits, are allowed every two weeks, and are difficult due to the remote location of these prisons. The staff, with a ratio of almost 1 guard to 1-2 detainees, are under the control of the federal police. In a report to the federal prison of Campo Grande, the Ministry of Justice considered that the quasi-absolute isolation of detainees was one of the main issues of concern, with consequences on detainees’ mental health, evidenced by the general use of anti-depressants.106 In such a system, human dignity is infringed in various ways, from deprivation of human contact to an increased risk of torture and ill-treatment and infringements of the right to mental health, with consequences beyond the duration of such confinement. While security considerations are used to justify such highsecurity regimes, experience demonstrates that isolation does not necessarily lead to a more secure environment but exacerbates misconduct and psychiatric disorders. In the state of Mississippi, USA, litigation filed in 2002 – which ultimately was settled out of court – resulted in reform within the Mississippi Department of Corrections, including the reduction of the segregated population in the Unit 32 Super-max facility from 1,000 to 150. The transfer of segregated prisoners to less restrictive regimes was based on a revision of the classification procedure,107 which limited segregation to detainees who committed serious infractions of the prison rules, are high-level gang members, or have made prior escape attempts. This was combined with a mental health treatment programme. The changes in policy were accompanied by a sharp reduction in prison violence.108 According to the study, monthly statistics showed an almost 70 per cent drop in serious incidents, both prisoner-on-staff and prisoner-on- prisoner.109 While prisoners remaining in the segregation unit continued to constitute a difficult population, following the change in policy they felt a greater sense of fairness and the rate of serious incidents remained relatively low.110 Following this positive experience, the extensive use of solitary confinement and super-max in the US has been questioned. In June 2012, the Senate Committee on 105. Revised Standard Minimum Rules, Rules 38, 43(3) and 8(e). 106. Ministerio da Justicia, Conselho nacional de política criminal e penitenciairia, Relatorio da visita de inspeçao ao Estado o Mato Grosso do Sul, 8-9 March 2010. 107. ‘When the classification staff employed the new criteria and reviewed all the prisoners in Unit 32, they discovered that nearly 80% of the population in administrative segregation did not meet the new criteria.’ See Beyond supermax administrative segregation – Mississippi’s experience rethinking prison classification and creating alternative mental health programs, 21 July 2009, p5. 108. Beyond supermax administrative segregation, op.cit, p3. 109. Beyond supermax administrative segregation, op.cit, p7. 110. Beyond supermax administrative segregation, op.cit, p11. 16 | Penal Reform International | Balancing security and dignity in prisons: a framework for preventive monitoring