Super Max Confinement Case Study

TO: Thomas R. Krane, P.h.D., Acting Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons
FROM: Roger Rael, Graduate Student University of Colorado-Denver
DATE: Tuesday, May 10, 2016
RE: Evaluating the consequences of continued super-max confinement

I. Issue The issue is broad and national in scope. Whether the Federal Bureau of Prisons should continue supporting the use of super-max facilities is a matter of extreme societal and legal questions. Solitary confinement, for an extended or indefinite period of time, implicates constitutional rights and questions our morality as a society. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Wilkinson v. Austin, decided more than a decade ago that the state of Ohio 's Super Max facilities did not violate those prisoner 's due process rights long established under precedent. Although the prisoners lost their case, the controversy is very much alive (Lobel 2008). This issue affects every American citizen. Although all citizens will not face confinement in a super-max facility, but a due process analysis in the higher federal courts has serious implications. The American legal system is built

Second, the Bureau could prohibit the construction of new super-max facilities and implement alternatives to limit the negative impact of indefinite super-max confinement. Although it is clear that super-max facilities will continue playing some role in American prisons, some adjustments could be made to alleviate the risk of mental harm afflicting inmates. The state could adopt a number of different alternatives. First, the State could disperse or concentrate the most violent and disruptive inmates throughout the system by meticulously planning the best options (Mears 2006). Second, the State could build segregation cells in each prison for each facilities ' most disruptive inmates (Mears 2006). Third, the State could concentrate more resources on staff training. Fourth, the State could offer more rehabilitative services