Punishing status and the punishment status quo: Solitary confinement in U.S. Immigration prisons, 2013–2017
| DOI | 10.1177/1462474520967804 |
| Date | 01 April 2022 |
| Author | Caitlin Patler,Konrad Franco,Keramet Reiter |
| Published date | 01 April 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Punishing status and the
punishment status quo:
Solitary confinement in
U.S. Immigration
prisons, 2013–2017
Konrad Franco , Caitlin Patler and
Keramet Reiter
University of California, USA
Abstract
This study provides the first systematic, nationally representative analysis of adminis-
trative records of solitary confinement placements in any carceral setting. We examine
patterns in who experiences solitary confinement in Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) custody, as well as the stated reason for, and length of, their con-
finement. We reveal several findings. First, cases involving individuals with mental ill-
nesses are overrepresented, more likely to occur without infraction, and to last longer,
compared to cases involving individuals without mental illnesses. Second, solitary con-
finement cases involving immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean are vastly overrep-
resented in comparison to the share of these groups in the overall detained population,
and African immigrants are more likely to be confined for disciplinary reasons, com-
pared to the average. Finally, placement patterns vary significantly by facility and insti-
tution type, with private facilities more likely to solitarily confine people without infrac-
tion, compared to public facilities. This study offers a lens through which to more
precisely theorize the legal boundary-blurring of crimmigration and the relationship
between prison and immigration detention policies, to better understand the practice
of solitary confinement across carceral contexts, and to analyze the relationship
between national-level policy and on-the-ground implementation.
Corresponding author:
Konrad Franco, Department of Sociology, University of California, Davis, USA.
Email: klfranco@ucdavis.edu
Punishment & Society
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1462474520967804
journals.sagepub.com/home/pun
2022, Vol. 24(2) 170–195
Keywords
discretion, immigration detention, punishment, solitary confinement
Introduction
In 2019, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) imprisoned over
52,000 people per day, a daily population 22 times greater than in 1973 (Aleaziz,
2019; Patler and Golash-Boza, 2017). ICE subcontracts detention to three to five
hundred facilities per year, including local jails holding a mix of ICE detainees and
local prisoners or, in the majority of cases, for-profit prison corporations operating
standalone facilities (Saadi and Tesema, 2019). Immigration prisons
1
are physically
similar to jails and prisons more generally: imposing steel-and-concrete structures,
with limited access to outdoor areas and natural light, surrounded by barbed wire
fences and armed guards controlling all entrances and exits. These physically com-
parable facilities are also experienced similarly by detained people (Longazel et al.,
2016). Still, there are legal distinctions between imprisonment in the criminal and
immigration law contexts that underscore the importance of understanding con-
ditions of confinement. For one, detained immigrants are not serving sentences:
immigration detention is legally considered a non-punitive administrative process
meant to ensure compliance with deportation proceedings. Detention therefore
does not convey the same constitutional protections as in the criminal context,
including the right to a trial to determine whether prolonged detention is justified.
2
Detention can therefore extend indefinitely (Transactional Records Access
Clearinghouse (TRAC), 2013). Yet despite the vast and growing use of immigra-
tion detention in the United States, information on the conditions of confinement
within ICE facilities is extremely limited.
One of the least understood practices within detention centers is solitary con-
finement, leading scholars to describe the practice as a black box within a black box
(Patler et al., 2019). To date, the only national-level examinations of federal data
consist of in-depth analyses by investigative journalists and advocacy organiza-
tions, which describe immigrants locked in windowless cells, alone for 22–23 hours
each day, sometimes for weeks or months at a time, and often with long-term
negative effects (Schwellenback et al., 2019; Urbina and Rentz, 2013; Woodman
et al., 2019). Immigrants held in solitary confinement, “suffered hallucinations, fits
of anger, and suicidal impulses. Former [solitarily confined] detainees ... experi-
enced sleeplessness, flashbacks, depression, and memory loss long after release
(Woodman et al., 2019).” Only one existing academic study has examined solitary
confinement within the immigration detention context (Patler et al., 2019). That
study revealed similarly troubling patterns: mentally ill individuals were overrep-
resented in solitary confinement, the practice was linked to the onset or worsening
of mental illness, and privately-operated facilities were more likely to use the prac-
tice. However, the analysis included only facilities in California.
171
Franco et al.
To continue reading
Request your trial