Federal Bureau of Prisons Considering Restraints Instead of Solitary Confinement

While most of us were focused on healthcare, last week the Office of Management and Budget quietly published the Trump administration’s Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, which outlines the administration’s regulatory goals and expected actions in the coming year. Buried in the exhaustive list of potential rule changes is one by the Bureau of Prisons calling for the increased use of physical restraints on inmates in federal correctional facilities.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is a law enforcement agency responsible for the administration of all federal prisons, which house inmates convicted of violating federal law. They also house inmates who have committed felonies in Washington, D.C.

The proposed rule from the Bureau reads:

"the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) proposes to amend its regulation on the use of force and application of restraints on inmates to permit the use of restraint equipment or devices to secure an inmate to a fixed object to facilitate participation in education, treatment, recreation, or religious programs."

The effort seems connected to two issues -- the desire to reduce the use of solitary confinement and address reduced staffing numbers as a result of budget cuts.

Concerns about the overuse of solitary confinement has long been an issue with prisoner right’s activists, but it catapulted into the mainstream following the suicide of Kalief Browder. In a detailed article the New Yorker explained the tragedy surrounding the incarceration of the young New Yorker:

"[Browder] spent three years on Rikers Island without being convicted of a crime. He had been arrested in the spring of 2010, at age sixteen, for a robbery he insisted he had not committed. Then he spent more than one thousand days on Rikers waiting for a trial that never happened. During that time, he endured about two years in solitary confinement, where he attempted to end his life several times.”

Browder also suffered repeated assaults at the hands of guards and other inmates. After his release he continued to suffer from resulting mental health issues. On June 6, 2015, he took his own life. He was 22 years old.

Browder’s story and subsequent death sparked outrage in New York, as well as catching the attention of federal officials. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-MI) and Rep. Sheila Lee (D-TX) introduced H.R. 3155, The Effective and Humane Treatment of Youth Act of 2015 or Kalief's Law, named in honor of Browder. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy referenced Browder’s experience in an opinion on an unrelated case, Davis v. Ayala (2015). And in January 2016, President Barack Obama signed an executive order banning the use of solitary confinement on juvenile inmates in the federal prison system. He also penned an op-ed in the Washington Post explaining the rationale and research behind the order. He encouraged state and local correctional facilities to take similar steps.

Since then some state and local facilities have taken steps to reduce the use of solitary confinement, notable among them Rikers Island, where Browder was incarcerated. The steps have included the expansion of the use of restraints as being proposed by the Bureau. Propublica recently published a story about the New York City Board of Corrections report on the change. They described the use of "restraint desks", considered a more “humane alternative” to solitary confinement:

"The school-like desks, outfitted with chains and locks, are located in specialized cell blocks... inmates who have committed violent infractions — caused injury to another inmate or guard, or attempted to stab or slash someone in jail — can leave their cells for a minimum of seven hours every day, but must be locked to the desks for much of that time. The inmates chained to desks are surrounded by inmates in cells who yell and taunt them.”

The report noted that the desks are also used in other jurisdictions, but all limit restraint to no more than two hours at a time.

The federal rule currently being considered seems to try and address this concern, though it does not go as far as stipulating specific time constraints:

"Restraints may be used in this manner to facilitate programming only while under staff supervision, only for as long as necessary to participate in the activity, and only if consistent with the inmate’s medical and mental health conditions."

Critics of the rule, however, are concerned that it will be used to justify restraint of inmates who do not need to be restrained. The Hill interviewed David Fathi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) National Prison Project, who discussed the pros and cons of the practice:

"If this means prisoners who would otherwise be locked in their cell for 23, 24 hours a day get to come out and get meaningful interaction with other humans, that’s a positive, but there’s always a concern in a prison setting that restraints will be overly or improperly used or used on people who don’t need to be restrained."

He also raised concerns about the proposed rule classifying the use of restraints as not being a "use of force," which require extensive documentation and justifications:

"In prisons, he said, any time staff uses force there’s extensive documentation required to provide accountability and transparency in how it’s being used. If the use of restraints is not considered force...that could lead to little to no documentation or oversight.”

Dr. Homer Venters, the former chief medical officer for the New York City jail system and currently the director of programming at Physicians for Human Rights, says he fought against the use of the desks during his tenure. Venters told The Hill they fly in the face of rehabilitation and humane treatment:

"Whatever the type of treatment that’s being delivered, the first prerequisite is to engage with the patient, and patients cannot engage in a meaningful way when they are chained up like an animal."

When questioned about the proposed rule the Bureau insisted to The Hill that concerns were premature:

"Further discussion or comments beyond our initial response on the summary language at this stage of the process would be premature as the rule had not even been formally proposed."

What can you do?

Do you support this potential rule, increasing the use of equipment like restraint desks to allow inmates that might otherwise be kept in solitary confinement access to programming? Should the rule be expanded to address human rights concerns, detailing how long inmates may be restrained or requiring thorough documentation of the equipment’s use? Should the Bureau be required to assess the use of this equipment in state and local settings before instituting its use in federal correctional facilities?

Use the Take Action button to tell your reps what you think!

Take Action

— Asha Sanaker

(Photo Credit: Wikimedia / Creative Commons)