Criminal Justice Research

Introduction

The purpose of the study was to examine the long-term effects of restrictive housing. Wilderman & Andersen (2020) submitted a hypothesis that inmate in the restrictive housing faces unusual punishment. The data to prove the hypothesis stated that restrictive housing should be abandoned for four significant reasons. First, it is unethical to put inmates in solitary confinement; second, long exposure in restrictive housing damages the mental health of inmates; third, restrictive housing increases the violence rate and threatens the security of inmates and staff, and finally, restrictive housing increases recidivism. The author says that the criminologists have not paid attention to these consequences as they believe that inmates commit crime because already they have mental problems. Secondly, criminologist is not concerned about understanding the effect of restrictive housing or they do not conduct an assessment to evaluate the long-term consequences.  In addition to the inattention to the consequences, it is difficult to test or measure the consequence because inmates in restrictive housing need to provide information about consequences, yet they do not give the report. Secondly, analyses of the post-release information and preadmission information concerning the restrictive housing is not done, and low attribution among the inmates. Note that these are the most effective sources of data to measure the long-term consequences, yet the data is minimal.  However,  the Danish registry data and the Danish Prison and probation data provide evidence that restrictive housing has long-term consequences in that placing inmates in these facilities prevents successful reintegration and affects their mental health.  However, future research needs to use rigorous research methodologies to examine restrictive effects before and after release to implement the evidence-based interventions and help the correctional systems achieve its intended goals.

 

Summary

The main point of the article is that restrictive housing is a punishment cell, and it is unethical to place inmates in these facilities due to some reasons. The arguments are that restrictive housing causes psychological harm. This is because, while being in these facilities, inmates have insomnia, lack of concentration, lack energy and enthusiasm, they fell unhelpful, they do not think clearly, and they plan about suicide due to depression (Wildeman & Andersen, 2020). These psychological problems occur immediately they enter in the restrictive housing and after the release. The problems do not go away, and this means that they suffer from mental health throughout their lives. Due to mental health problems, they do not enter the labor market, or in other words, they lack employment.   It is important to note that there is a relationship between the lack of employment and crime, and this is an indication that inmates engage in criminal activities (Wildeman & Andersen, 2020). Another important point is that inmates are unable to return to the community due to poor re-entry programming, and labelling inmates as 'problem inmates'.  These two factors:  disruptions to programming and the labelling of inmates makes the inmate expertise the worse outcomes.

The authors derive qualitative evidence from Danish registry and Danish Prison and Probation and find that inmates' restrictive housing in Denmark experiences the challenges that other inmates experience in other developed democracies (Wildeman & Andersen, 2020). Inmates are placed in the administrative segregation due to disruptive behaviors.  In Denmark, the administrative segregation is known as   'the hole'. The doors are closed, and inmates stay there for 22-23 hours per day.  The data also shows that inmates placed in the administrative segregation increase the recidivism rate. In addition, the inmates do not participate in the labor force because of poor mental health.   This indicates that when inmates are released, the rate of employment is low (Wildeman & Andersen, 2020).  There is also evidence that inmates who are placed in solitary confinement are more likely to be convicted again or to increase recidivism than inmates who are punished with other disciplinary actions.  These reasons show that restrictive housing is associated with long-term consequences.

 

Critique

Overall, this is a good article that provides a reasonable argument that restrictive housing has long-term consequences.  The article uses quality research method; that it, qualitative research to support that restrictive housing. The sources of data   provides a rich set of information about the entire population, mental health, crime history, among other critical information (Wildeman & Andersen, 2020).  The authors correct data from 2006 to 2013 to compare the inmates and measure their experiences.  This article is well-written because it meets the hypothesis that restrictive housing contributes to life-course outcomes.   This is because, inmates are affected mentally, and this contributes to other negative effects such as poor participation in the labor market.  The title of the article is clear, and the authors have fulfilled   the purpose of the article in analyzing the long-term consequences of restrictive housing.  The article has provided an objective argument by providing facts from quality sources of data (Wildeman & Andersen, 2020).  The whole discussion is relevant in that   solitary confinement is the main cause of psychological distress in inmates, and the worse thing is that it increases criminal behavior.  This is an issue that needs because it is a constitutional and humanitarian issue. Even though correctional officials use solitary confinement as a management tool,   there is evidence that inmates experience unusual punishment (Wildeman & Andersen, 2020).  Significant results have been provided by the Denmark data that shows that inmates in restrictive housing have poor community re-entry.

While the article has merits, it has some limitations that need to be rectified in future research to assists the criminologist in understanding the consequences of restrictive housing.   First, the study lacks internal validity in that when analyzing the inmates in the restrictive confinement; there was no fandom distribution (Wildeman & Andersen, 2020).  Thus, it was difficult to measure the difference between the treatment and control groups. In addition, it was difficult to derive a cause and effect relationship as well as support the evidence.  In such cases, an exogenous variation is needed to explain the difference.  Another limitation is that the study does not test the common trend assumption. Note that the latter helps in differencing out the specific effects that may occur.   In conducting the research, it is important to note that the Difference in difference model contains change models that may affect the treatment and control groups (Wildeman & Andersen, 2020). Due to the lack of causal effects, it is difficult to test the level of mental health as a result of being confined in the restrictive   housing.  The last limitation   is that the study generalizes the results, yet the research on restrictive   housing shows a dramatic difference between Denmark criminal justice system and other prisons.  Even though some things are equal, it is difficult to associate the disciplinary segregation of different prisons. In future research, it is important to use cross-guard variation in order to detect the indecent variables and ultimately, the dependent variables.

 

 

Conclusion

 Even though the criminal justice system believe that restrictive housing is the best way to control the behaviors of the intimates, it is important to understand the mental health problems and behavioral issues that arise. Through a qualitative study, the article has provided evidence that inmates are mentally affected.  On this same note, the mental health effect is not short-term but it affects the entire of the life of the inmates. As a result, the inmates continue to engage in criminal behaviors since their re-entry in the community becomes unsuccessful. Moving forward, it is important for criminal justice to find alternative ways to punish inmates. This is an indication that new programs are needed in that the current method of punishes lacks effectiveness. Rather than shaping behaviors, it leads to repetitive misconduct and disorders and therefore, it is important to address these issues.  Focusing on the study, it is important to  advance the study   in a way that rather that  examining whether  the restrictive housing  is associated with  long-term consequences or not,   future studies should  examine if the restrictive  housing  is  achieving  its intended goal. The goal of the restrictive housing is to   promote safety and punishment, but according to the study, it brings more harm than good.  This is because, the inmates develop psychological effects and rather than changing their behaviors, they increase recidivism.  It is also advisable that future qualitative studies should not only focus on the effect of restrictive housing, but they should go further to analyses the effects prior to placement. This will help figure out of the long-term consequences occur due to conditions of the facility or they were preexisting conditions. A better way to come with compelling evidence is to examine the issue before placement and after release. If an inmate's changes his or her misconduct after being places in the restrictive housing, it means that there a justification in placing them in the facilities. However, if the restrictive housing does not achieve its intended goal or rather, it influences the inmates in engaging in criminal activities after release, it means that the practice is questionable.

 

 

 

Reference

Wildeman, C., & Andersen, L. H. (2020). Long‐term consequences of being placed in

disciplinary segregation. Criminology.