UNIT-IV

CORRECTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY
From a psycho-social perspective, there are basically 5 ideologies of corrections and in turn
influence the goals of corrections.

INCAPACITATION
As an ideology, incapacitation posits the fact that the end goal again in this case of corrections
within the ideology of incapacitation becomes simply to incapacitate the individual from
committing future crimes. One of the most straightforward way of doing that is to sentence an
individual to prison. The idea being that if an individual is imprisoned then the individual will
not be able to engage in future crimes and therefore to that extent the individual then becomes
incapacitated from the perspective of engaging in future criminal activity. The fundamental
principle underlying incapacitation is slightly problematic from the perspective that even when
an individual is imprisoned, the person can still engage in crimes in different ways. For instance,
the person can engage in violent behavior within the prison set up. So if an individual has
criminal propensities then this individual can engage in violent and aggressive behavior within
the criminal set up. And that in turn adds to the coercive environment of the prison.
Secondly, individuals who are specially engaged in organized crimes or are part of organized
groups then these individuals can continue to influence criminal activity outside of prison
through these organized groups. These individuals can still have an indirect impact and be
indirectly a part of organizing the crimes which happen through organized crimes.
Lastly the drawback being is that- a lot of times, individuals who are released from prisons will
again continue to engage or go back to the criminal activities if no other intervention is done
while they are in the prison. So in its purest form the extent to which incapacitation is talking
about imprisonment of individuals and incapacitating them to that extent. Once an individual is
released from the prison, the individual is likely to get back to one’s criminal ways and to that
extent again this ideology fails.
In light of this, the ideal case in which incapacitation works is a case where life imprisonment is
offered to an individual. So never released and thus cannot get back to engage in criminal ways.
But offering or sentencing the individuals to life imprisonment for just any and every crime that
these individuals are committing, is clearly excessive and also adds to the financial burden and
also to the resources of the State and to that extent it is not even practically possible to do that.
Then an altered version of the pure ideology of incapacitation which was propagated was the
idea of selective incapacitation- technically meaning that individuals who are persistent
criminals are imprisoned rather than individuals who engage in first time crimes or who are not
persistent criminals. In those cases, for instance, laws which say that if you engage in a crime 3
times or multiple times then that would warrant life imprisonment as compared to someone who
engages in crime for the first time- that person would be left off with a lenient sentence or fine.

1
Even in cases of selective incapacitation, the idea of keeping an individual in prison for a
lifetime has certain other limitations. One of the major limitations which still continues to have
an impact on the legal set up- is the idea of overcrowding and immense burden on the resources
of the State. So if you keep imprisoning repeated offenders then that that would result in
overcrowding in the State prisons and the State does not have enough resources to cater to that.
Also the idea that life imprisonment is a solution to a lot of crimes, again has stark limitations
because it is clearly excessive for certain crimes. Someone engaging in petty thefts and the
person keeps on engaging in such petty thefts, is offering life imprisonment to that person a
solution to anything at all? Perhaps not. The punishment should be in accordance with the crime
committed and therefore to that extent the number of times the crime is committed is not the sole
criteria that should decide the nature of the punishment given to this individual.
From a psychological perspective within the current set up, assessing and testing individuals is
essentially problematic and suffers from inherent limitations. The kind of assessment which is
done to assess and gauge whether an individual will engage in future acts of crime or not is the
kind of assessment which is termed as- risk assessment. Risk assessment in itself till date despite
a lot of research and modifications in the assessment procedures, it’s still not a full proof risk
assessment system in itself. Therefore risk assessment is inherently controversial which has its
own limitations and thus basing an individual sentence on a psychological tool which in itself at
max offers probabilistic statements is highly unethical.
From an ethical standpoint- ethically it is argued when you sentence an individual for life
imprisonment based on a logic or reasoning that this individual should be sentenced to life
imprisonment because this individual would not engage in future crimes. This again is unethical
because you are basing your punishment on what the individual would or would not do in the
future rather than what the individual has objectively already done. So, punishing an individual
for future behavior which still hasn’t occurred is problematic and unethical rather than punishing
the individual on the basis of what the person has already done.

RETRIBUTION
Punishment should be commensurate with the severity of the wrongful act.
. Currently there is a shift from retribution to rehabilitation as being promoted by psychologists
as the most effective way. Towards the end of the last century, retribution from a psychological
standpoint was evaluated to be one of the most impactful ideologies. Retribution is the ideology
which talks about the fact that the offender should be made to compensate for the crime that the
offender has committed and this compensation should be in accordance with the severity of the
crime which is committed by the individual. Basically the punishment should be able to make the
offender pay for or compensate for the criminal act. This is the ideology which is similar to ‘eye
for an eye’ ideology, that if you blinded someone then you in turn should be blinded.

2
Just deserts, as a philosophy of punishment, argues that criminal sanctions should be
commensurate with the seriousness of the offense
This ideology is starkly different from that of selective incapacitation in the sense that selective
incapacitation talks about increased severity of punishment even for the same crime based on the
number of times the crime is committed. But in the context of retribution, irrespective of the
number of times the crime is committed, it is only the intensity and severity of crime which is
evaluated and that in turn will determine the severity of punishment which his attributed to the
individual irrespective of the number of times the crime is committed. Even if the act is
Commited for the first time and is serious enough, it will be punished irrespective of it being the
first time.
.

Why retribution was a superior ideology as compared to

rehabilitation?
. In this context in 1970s, there was an APA task force which was set up and it essentially
evaluated the role of psychology in the criminal justice system. It highlighted the
importance and greater effectiveness of ideology of retribution over rehabilitation
To begin with, the APA taskforce highlighted that institutionalized rehabilitation or rehabilitative
approaches or interventions within an institutionalized system such as a prison or within the
criminal Justice system is inherently problematic and in this context the interventions or
treatments offered do not have a very effective impact on the changes of behavior of the
offender.
Predominantly, the 2 important aspects which the APA taskforce pointed out was the presence
and the prevalence of coercion within the criminal justice system and the environment within the
prison.
They pointed out that one of the reasons why treatments or interventions failed within an
institutionalized set up is because institutionalized treatment presupposes or is based on the
assumption that treatment or psychological change can be imposed on an individual which is
actually not true. In fact, the ability and the willingness of the individual to change is actually a
precondition for treatment to be effective even within the traditional setup. So when a person
walks in the clinic of psychologist with certain mental health problems, the individual has certain
motivation which has led to this individual entering in to the clinic and the individual wants to
change in some way or the other and therefore treatment becomes effective. But in an
institutionalized set up, the treatment has been imposed on to the individual by the State and
therefore the individual is not inherently motivated to change. And since the willingness and
motivation in the individual is missing, therefore it becomes inherently problemati c.
The second important aspect highlighted by the APA taskforce- is the environment within the
criminal justice system. Not congenial to intervention programs or positive psychological
change.The environment within a prison is a negative one where there is high levels of violence,

3
victimization, aggression or deviant behavior, abuse, isolation, crowding and a lack of control. It
is also a phenomenon where a large number of deviant individuals are put together and that
impact then in turn is essentially the same as socialization within a deviant peer group. There is a
very strong element of social reinforcement- if an individual engages in criminal behavior,
comes back to the deviant peer group, the person doesn’t even need to be directly reinforced in
order to perpetuate that behavior. But simply because everyone in this group is engaging in that
deviant behavior and that is similar to the kind of behavior that the person is engaging in that in
itself inherently acts to reinforce the behavior of a person. Social reinforcement here is typically
indirect reinforcement rather than direct. Also there is a strong element of modelling here. So,
the impact of observational learning- an individual views high levels aggression, high levels of
modelling and therefore we perhaps are perpetrating violent, aggressive behavior in an individual
through observational learning that took place during the time person spent in prison.
Along with that negatively violent, aggressive environment, a congenial social support system is
essentially missing. Every therapy presupposes a strong social support group and if that social
support group is missing then long term impact of therapy is likely to fail. One of the purposes of
the group is to create a social support system for people who do not have an adequate support
system. Someone who engages in substance abuse or is addicted to alcohol, a group of individual
who have had alcohol addiction in the past or currently are going through alcohol addiction, that
group acts as a social support group for the individual who is addicted to alcohol. So a group of
positive people which likely to support the growth and development of this individual is missing
within a prison culture and this has a negative impact on the effectiveness of the therapy which is
treatment intervention therapy which is taking place here.
The other aspect which the taskforce pointed out was that, the fact that specially in cases where
an individual is sentenced to a long term within the prison, in that context- spending time within
prison is inherently detrimental to the psychological development of the individual an therefore
the APA taskforce shunned the idea of spending more time within the prison than what was
required. In this context, it highlighted that at least the ideology of retribution delineates the
amount of time which an individual is required to spend within the prison, in contrast to the
rehabilitation strategy- which does not really delineate a specific time which an individual is
required to spend within prison. But on the other hand the individual is given a more flexible
sentencing and is supposed to remain within the prison till the time the individual does not get
rehabilitated. Typically meaning that if an individual is taking more time to show any significant
changes in behavior, then this individual will be asked to spend a greater amount of time in
prison.
The APA taskforce thus highlighted that this element of flexible sentencing or indeterminate
sentencing (against human rights)by the APA taskforce is inherently problematic because again
the person might be required to spend a greater amount within that coercive negative
environment which is detrimental to human growth and development. In rehabilition the person
is released when the person will show positive changes

4
 Today there are also a lot of community based rehabilitation programs which are present. In
that context the APA now supports the community based rehabilitation programs rather than
institutionalized rehabilitation programs.
Today,rehabilitative ideology is used as community based because institutionalization is
detrimental where the individuals are allowed to live within the community. In the Indian context
, there are even open jails on account of good conduct which allow leaving prison to go for work
outside.

DETERRANCE
The ideology suggests that the law shall be to prevent the criminal from committing crimes
rather than punishing people for what they have done. In this context deterrence is understood as
being of 2 types-
(i) GENERAL DETERRANCE- It is typically what law is meant to do and it acts
through the threat which law places on people and this is the threat of punishment,
this in turn is likely to prevent the person from engaging in particular kind of act.
(ii) SPECIFIC DETERRANCE- It results from the personal experiences of punishment.
When an individual is actually punished for something illegal that he has done and
once he is punished he does not repeat the act again because of the fear that the
person might be punished again. This is the ideology of specific deterrence.
From psychological perspective, the entire notion of deterrence is predominantly based on the
principles of operant conditioning (basic principle of OC- if a behavior is punished or there is a
threat that a behavior will result in punishment then individuals are less likely to engage in that
kind of behavior). But the question is- the manner in which the philosophy of deterrence is
implemented through law, is that actually effective in having a deterrent effect? Research
psychology suggest that it perhaps not so.
Basic conditions to ensure the punishment to be effective.
 Immediacy and Contingency- For any punishment to be effective, it should
immediately follow the act which needs to be terminated so that the person is able to
draw a valid association between the act which is committed and the punishment or the
reinforcement which follows. For example- if the child misbehaves in the morning and
the mother scolds the child in the evening, will the child be able to develop a valid
association or link between the misbehavior and the scolding? No. Even if there is a link
it won’t be that strong. Immediacy is also an important pre-condition to establish
contingency. While defining the phenomenon of OC we define ‘reinforcer’ as- reinforcer
is any environmental event which increases the likelihood of occurrence of the behavior
that caused it when it is made contingent upon that behavior. By this contingency it
means that the relationship between the act and the punisher or reinforce should be amply
clear to the individual and should be clear that the environmental event (punisher) is a
consequence of the behavior of the individual. So, when the mother scold immediately

5
 after the misbehavior of the child then this child will be able to understand that this
scolding is a consequence of the behavior of the child.
 Consistency- The punisher should also be consistent. Means that every time the child
misbehaves, it is important that the child is checked and scolded every time because if the
child is not checked every time, the child will probably think that I can misbehave and
there is a possibility that I might get away with. Therefore consistency is an important
condition to ensure that a punishment is effective.
Why consistency is not an important precondition for reinforcement. Kind of
reinforcement schedule which is most effective is-
- CONTINUOUS REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE- That every response of the organism
is reinforced. When the organism knows that some behavior is likely to result in a
reinforcement but also knows at the same time that it is not necessary that every
behavioral response will lead to the reward. It means that the organism will engage in the
particular behavior that results in reinforcement with the expectation that it will lead to a
reward.
- INTERMITTENT REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE- This is the most effective one.
Means that you are not reinforcing every behavioral response but intermittently every
now and then you are administering the reinforcement. The organism engages in the
behavior, even if that behavior is not reinforced the organism will still engage in the
behavior the second time in the hope that response is likely to lead to a reinforcement.
Gambling- This explains the gambling behavior wherein a lot of cases the individuals do
not win when they are gambling, there is still this hope that the more they engage in
gambling the more likelihood it is that it will result in a win and thus continue engaging
in the behavior.
 Intensity- The punishment or the reinforcer should stand out against the background as
far as the intensity or the amount of reinforcement is considered. For instance, in shaping
the behavior of the child, the mother is always cribby and is always scolding and
checking the child for every little thing, then in that case if the mother also checks the
child in the context of the negative behavior that the child has performed- is that going to
stand out in comparison to the general behavior of the mother? No. Then in that case also
it might be difficult for the child to understand that this scolding is coming as a
consequence of the behavior of the child and the association might be missing. On the
other hand if the mother scolds the child in response to this particular behavior with
enough intensity and enough amount of scolding then the child is going to develop a
valid association resulting in the decrease in the likelihood of occurrence of that behavior.
 Reinforcement of the Desired Behavior- (This condition is not that much essential in
the context of deterrence). In shaping everyday behavior, punishment in itself might be
an ineffective technique if a lot of reinforcement of positive behavior is not really done.
Meaning that if the child is constantly scolded for engaging in negative behavior but is
never really reinforced when the child displays positive behavior then in that case the
child will perhaps learn to do what the child is not supposed to do but will not be able to
adequately learn what good behavior constitutes and what the child is supposed to do.
This kind of parenting has long-term consequences on personality development of the

6
 child. One of the most obvious off shoots of this is- high level of self-doubt and low self-
esteem. So, the child constantly knows that he is engaging in negative behavior but the
child doesn’t know of his strengths.
When we say how punishment is administered by law- None of the 3 conditions (sticking
only to the first 3, 4th one is additional) are adequately met. Case like- tax evasion. So, we
have laws in place that would punish or penalize an individual who does not pay tax
regularly. But despite those laws there are so many individuals who actually do not pay
taxes. So, is that law effective? No. Why not effective? Considering that an individual while
making a choice between whether to pay taxes or not pay taxes, the lack of payment of taxes
or if he decides not to pay taxes- that ensures certain immediate rewards for the individual.
Reward- if he doesn’t pay he saves that much money and so the reward is certain and is
immediate in nature. As compared to the negative long-term consequences of tax evasion, the
punishment in this case is definitely not certain. Consistency is missing- someone might be
caught, somebody might not be caught. Even if the person is caught- there is a process,
depending upon the outcome the person might be penalized or might not be. Also immediacy
is missing and lacking- if at all the person is penalized there are likely to be long delays in
the process and is going to be a delayed punishment.
As far as intensity is considered, the punishment might be intense, depending upon if the
person is found guilty of it. But even though if the punishment is intense, the amount of
punishment actually loses its value because it is delayed in nature. Studies in operant
conditioning tell us that intensity does not work in isolation, it works together. When
intensity is evaluated, the amount of punishment is evaluated- it evaluated with the time lapse
or the delay in punishment. Intensity in this case because it is delayed might not have its
adequate impact on the behavior of the individual or might lose the value that the punisher
has because of the amount of delay in administering the punishment. This idea is simple to
impulsive behavior. For instance- if a child is asked- if he wants 1 chocolate right now or 2
chocolates tomorrow, then he is likely to choose 1 chocolate right now. Considering how
intensity or the amount of reinforcement and the time delay are both playing a role here.
Amount of reinforcement is small here (1 chocolate) but it is immediate as compared to 2
chocolates (intensity of reinforcement increased) but because there is a time delay it loses its
value. In time delay- there is an element of uncertainty which creeps up inherently because
something that is future oriented is uncertain in itself.
These are the reasons why deterrence is not adequately implemented by law. And the law
fails to have the deterrent effect that it desires to have.

Why deterrence fails

DEATH PENALTY- This is an element which is important to understand in this context.
The greater the penalty for an extremely heinous crime greater is the deterrent effect that it is
likely to have. It again has to do with intensity- greater the intensity greater would be the
deterrent effect. But this logic in itself is flawed. Also studies in psychology do not support
the idea that death penalty has any effect of reducing heinous crime in a society . Flawed-

7
because intensity works along with immediacy and consistency and therefore even in death
penalty cases usually the execution or the punishment is very long delayed and therefore as
far as its impact on society in general is concerned- the intensity here sort of loses its value.
And the basic premise on which it is based is flawed as far as the ideology of deterrence is
concerned.
Along with this, research tells that when individuals are evaluating information with respect
to whether they want to commit or engage in an extremely heinous crime, the information
processing that takes place at that time is a fairly complex phenomenon and is complex both
at the cognitive level as well as at an affective level. At the cognitive level, the individual
does not consider the potential negative consequences of the heinous crime in isolation. It is a
comparison of the pros and cons that the person makes. Relative risks and benefits which are
associated with the commission of the act. While comparison the basic principles of OC play
their role- when the comparison then becomes between certain immediate benefits (whatever
the motive of the person is behind committing the act, is sort of catered to) v. uncertain
delayed punishment. Immediacy and consistency is extremely important. So, those certain
immediate rewards always take an upper hand as compared to long term uncertain negative
consequences of the act.
A lot of studies also tell us that at the moment where an individual is taking the final decision
to whether commit a heinous act or not, in those cases a lot of times the decision is more of
an affective decision rather than a cognitive decision. So more of an emotion decision rather
than cognitive decision. In this case, usually the emotional decision making is sort of
delinked from the cognitive decision making of an individual. Emotional decision making at
a neurological level also involves a totally different brain part. Limbic system- involved in
emotional decision making v pre-frontal cortex- cognitive decision making. The reason why
decision making in these cases is more like to be emotional in nature because most of these
situations are high arousal situations, which in turn ensure that emotionality of situation is
very high and therefore the emotional brain (limbic system) is more dominant in taking the
decision and therefore the emotional brain to that extent sort of disengages or delinks itself
from the thinking brain (pre-frontal cortex or frontal cortex). Therefore, decision making in
this kind of a situation is more emotional rather than rational and not based on reason, logic
or rationing. The decisions become feeling based rather than thinking based. So even if at the
rational level the person is convinced that the person should not engage in a crime like that,
the individual is still in a high arousal situation where emotionality is high, the person is still
likely to engage in emotional act because the feeling brain is taking the decision. Rational
rewards are not considered and emotionality outweighs rationality.
BRUTALIZATION EFFECT
Third aspect. Research in this area are not conclusive but a number of researches suggest that
execution by the state might actually have a aversive response rather than a positive
effect.Researches studied the trends in the number of murders committed and they note that
post the execution by State, there is a slight peak in the number of murders which have been
recorded in various societies. This phenomenon is frequently called ‘the brutalization

8
 effect’- means that the death penalty or the execution by the State might actually be having
the reverse effect as compared to what is desired. The reverse effect in terms of actually
increasing the number of murders committed in a society. Why this happens? Few common
explanation cited for it-
The paradox The fact that when an individual executes someone is actually seen as murder
by the State and is seen as sending across dual message that is inherently contradictory in
nature to the society that at one hand while the State is condemning murder on the other hand
the State itself is committing the same action that it condemns. State engages in execution,
murder by state.
Social Modeling –Increase in potential of crimes. The second ideology propagated- is that of
modelling or social learning. The individuals which hold the State in high authority, that
State is committing murder and that in turn results in observational learning or modelling of
murder related behavior in citizens in general. Therefore post execution for a while till this
modelling continues to have an impact on behavior, people are more likely to commit
murder. Also why it is called brutalization effect- there are theories which propose that not
just murder, the effect might not be limited to murder per se but translate into aggressive
behavior in general. So, the State is engaging in aggression and therefore people in general
are likely to engage in high levels of aggression
This essentially is seen as not just legitimizing the act of committing the murder but also sort
of devaluing human life. Devaluing human life is a cultural phenomenon and has to do with
the idea of what is the amount of value or what is the amount of worth that we as a society
place in the life of an individual It shapes how the nation in general values human life.
Nahi likhawayi hain- And it is depicted in our everyday lives through basic behaviors that we
engage in. For instance- on the road there is an ambulance which is buzzing the siren and
taking an individual to the hospital, noticing how many people make a deliberate attempt to
move aside to give way to the ambulance. Quite a few. This idea is very strongly enforced by
the State in a lot of western countries. In Germany the law says that if there is a traffic jam
then people are inspected to stop and park the cars on the extreme sides of the lane. So in the
west the State is strongly propagating a culture which ensures high values which are instilled
as far as the worthiness of human life is concerned.
.
11/10/2019

REHABILITATION
The goal is betterment in the person and changes in society and community. The
focus of the inventions here is the individual in turn largely benefitting the society

9
It is an approach which sort of promotes psychological intervention in just about any case of
criminal behavior. This approach says that what is important is not to punish individuals for the
act that they have committed but to understand why is it that they have committed a particular
kind of act and if that act is an act that potentially harms the society then what is important is to
remedy that act rather than punish the individual for committing the act.
Reducing criminal propensities
So from this perspective, psychological intervention are stressed upon and are targeted basically
at decreasing significantly just about any criminal propensities in an individual. And are
specifically targeted at affective, cognitive and behavioral improvement of the individual
concerned. Working on the cognitive and emotional aspect of the individual which might be
leading to deviant behavior in a person. Correcting the cognitive elements which would include
any deviant belief systems, any assumptions which the individual might be carrying which are
leading to the deviant behavior or simply any thought which might be significantly impacting the
individual’s appraisal and perception of reality resulting in deviant behavior in an individual.
When those are rectified, by default there is likely to be some improvement in the behavior of the
person but to ensure significant behavioral changes usually intervention strategies of the
behavior therapy type are involved in order to rectify the overt manifest behavior of the
person.Work can be done to appraise umambiguous stimuli in a more positive manner
This emanates from a school of thought which is from behavioristic school of thought which
focusses predominantly at external environmental factors and behavior being learnt as a result of
stimuli. Stimulus- Response Paradigm- there is an external stimulus and there are certain ways in
which the individual learns how to respond to those stimuli. So once a behavioral pattern is
developed even if there are changes at the level of cognition or emotions in an individual, the
individual is still likely to continue engaging in certain learnt behavioral patterns because they
have almost become a habit as far as the individual is concerned and becomes automatic in
nature. So to rectify those then along with cognitive behavior therapy which targets the cognitive
and emotional aspect of an individual and breaking the automated response pattern which an
individual has learnt or developed over a period of time. Nahi padhayi
Resource building
Resilience building
Along with that, the psychological interventions are also targeted at building up a skill set in
individual- job training, skill training and are essentially targeted at providing the individual with
enough skills such that after the person is released back to the society, the individual can be well-
integrated within the social set up in more socially congenial and adaptive ways. One of the ways
in which that can be ensured is by ensuring that the individual has enough skill set to, for
instance- seek gainful employment. That targets the crime which is usually understood as anomy
related crime. Anomy theory says that an individual engages in criminal behavior because there
is no other alternative means or behavior which the individual is aware of. For instance- if an
individual has no money, has no job and the person is hungry. Then the person is likely to steal
money or food but the only alternative which the person sees is stealing as a way to ensure

10
survival. Anomy theory also talks about more complex situations where emotions are also
involved. An unemployed person whose mother is very ill. This person is more inclined towards
stealing because now there is also this emotional push which the person has- the need to take
care of the mother, the survival of the mother is also involved.
In these cases specifically, the rehabilitative approach argues that punishing an individual and
releasing him back to the society is not ensuring behavioral change or termination of criminality
in anyway because once the person is released back to the society an the person does not have
alternate, means to reach one’s goal- the person is going to fall back into the trap of criminal
behavior. That is the condition of anomy- a lack of alternates available to the individual creates a
condition of anomy where the person keeps going back to his own previous deviant ways. So in
that case- education, skill set building, job training, all of these kinds of training are done as part
of a rehabilitative approach and also as part of psychological intervention.

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
In India at least it is a very new concept and is significantly and substantially implemented in the
West. As compared to others, this is a relatively new ideology. It shifts the perspective from the
State being the decision maker to the community being the decision maker. This perspective
highlights that when a crime is committed that crime has been committed against a society or the
community and the crime has been committed against the victim rather than the crime being
committed against the state. Therefore, rather than a judge which is a state appointed individual
being the decision maker with respect to what should be done in order to rectify the crime, it is
the community and the victim that should be involved and integrated with the justice process in
order to take a decision with respect to what should be done to rectify a crime.
Also as the name suggests, restorative justice talks about bringing together the victim, the
community and also to whatever extent it is possible- reintegrating the offender with the
community at an appropriate stage. It is also making heal the community in terms of integrating
the victim as well as the offender with the community and along with bringing together these
institutes at a psychological as well as at a social level, it also talks about the positive growth and
development of the community as a whole. From that perspective there is again a shift in
perspective in focus from punishment or on the crime which is committed to the development or
betterment and the growth and well-being of the community/victim in which the crime is
committed/against whom the crime is committed.
The methods which are used under restorative justice are starkly different. The procedures are
more likely to include mediation processes or simply the meetings between the offender, the
victim and some important other community members/ The aim is to create a common ground, is
to bring a victim and the offender at a common level of understanding through the process of
mediation, process of dialogue and conversation, even negation – a more rational process where
emotions are more controlled and it is assumed that if rationality is built up then that would also
sync back to have positive emotional impact on all parties involved. Instead of punishing the
individual and instead of simply rehabilitating the offender, the focus is at positive change and

11
development as far as socio psychological aspects of the victim as well as the offender are
concerned and in turn the community also grows and develops in the process.
19/10/2019

PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF IMPRISONMENT

Philip Zimbardo, a theoretician in the field of psychology was a professor in the University of
Stanford and was interested in studying the entire phenomenon of imprisonment and what effect
does imprisonment have on people in general including the prisoners and the staff and the
authorities which are involved in the entire institution. He created an artificial prison in the
basement of the Stanford University, very extensively created, complete with lock up and
uniforms for the guards and all weapons. The findings of the experiment were starkly different
from what the initial expectation of the experimenters was. The experiment was designed to
continue for about 15 days but it had to be terminated within 6 days of its initiation. He
highlighted that as a result of the experiment it was seen that it seemed as if an entire lifetime of
values were unlearnt in a matter of 2-3 days. What turned out to be an extremely horrendous
display of dehumanized behavior wherein guards actually ended up treating the prisoners as
slaves and animals! And they also started behaving like de-humanized robots. Zimbardo and
other researchers noted the fact that during those 6 days even sustaining the experiment for 6
days became problematic because there was extreme aggression, extreme violence that became
the part of the entire process. To answer the question- who was powerful in that kind of a set up?
(There were 2 groups of people. One set of volunteers who were acting as prisoners and the other
set acting as guards and these were all white-middle class, middle socio-economic status male
individuals. They were all similar as far as their demographics were concerned but it turned out
in a way in which the prisoners were subjected to extremely violent and aggressive behavior by
the guards) It was neither the guards who were in control of the situation nor the prisoners who
were in control of the situation. It was actually the institution that was controlling the situation,
which is why Zimbardo used the term- ‘power of the institution’ or ‘institutionalization of the
prisoners and the guards’ which resulted in such horrendous display of dehumanized behavior
within the prison set up. While studying the behavior of an individual (prisoner or the guard)
what is important is to study the power that the institution then begins to practice on all human
players within the institutional set up. It is the phenomenon which is inherent in the nature of the
prison. What is peculiar about the nature of the prison which makes the prison practice such
power on people? It is the notion of absolute control. Whenever absolute control of certain
number of people in terms of their curriculum, their discipline, what they are doing in life, is
invested in the hands of certain other group of people, then that results in what is known as-
complete de-humanization of the individual. It is not the various groups of people which then
continue to practice their control, it is this kind of a setup, this kind of offering absolute control
and in turn the institution that becomes all powerful and damages the psyche of not just the
prisoners but also the guards.
Lack of expectancy external validity

12
There were also widespread criticism of this experiment per se and one of the criticism was that
this experiment was not an actual replica of what actually happens because this was an artificial
setup where the guards and the prisoners also came in with certain pre-established expectations
with respect to how they are supposed to behave and they were simply role playing. They were
behaving in the manner in which they were expected to behave. But this contention with respect
to artificiality and with respect to people role playing and performing in the manner in which
they were expected to perform has also been counter-challenged by several circles wherein they
say that when we say that individuals are simple role playing then that is what we are essentially
doing in our daily lives. There are certain pattern of behaviors which we have internalized
through socialization, there are expectations which are imposed onto us, we are expected to
behave in certain ways by virtue of our backgrounds and most of us are just behaving in those
ways. So even when in an actual set up, a prisoner goes to a prison then even an actual real
setting, the prisoner begins with enacting the certain role of a prisoner and to that extent the
external validity of the experiment and the results of the experiment cannot be entirely
invalidated. To that extent they are also similar to what actually happens in the real set up. But in
the light of all the contentions that were raised around the entire set up, Zimbardo did modify his
explanation of the outcome or the results of the experiment a bit towards the end. So, initially
when he spoke of the power of institution he was essentially taking a completely situational
model at hand in the process. So everything that happened could be blamed simply on the
situational arrangement. So, the power of the institution was essentially a situational model that
was initially posited by Zimbardo. But then eventually he moderated his position and took a
more interactionist approach. There was a clear transition from a situational approach 9from
considering the institution as all powerful) to an interactionist approach (wherein the
characteristics of the situations were important but at the same time along with that the human
players who were a part of the situation were also important). Under the interactionist approach,
Zimbardo gave due recognition to the fact that the situation constitutes not just the rules, not just
the condition of absolute power but it also consisted of human players (in this case- the prisoners
and the guards) and those players also gotten certain characteristics within the situation. So what
resulted was not only the off shoot of the situational arrangement but also an off shoot of the
interaction between the situational arrangement, the characteristics of the prisoners and of the
guards. So he acknowledged that the condition of absolute power is pathological in itself but
those pathologies are either maximized or minimized depending on the characteristics of the
people involved and the people interacting in the situation.
With that understanding, the process of imprisonment and the environment of the prison is
psychologically damaging not only for the prisoners which is a common understanding but it is
also damaging for the guards and the authorities of the prison.
WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF IMPRISONMENT ON PEOPLE AND HOW DOES
ADJUSTMENT OR LIFE WITHIN PRISON PROGRESS AND WHAT ARE THE
ASSOCIATED PROBLEMS WHICH MIGHT BE FACED BY THE PEOPLE.
3 DOMAINS WITH REGARDS TO THIS

13
ADJUSTMENT WITHIN THE PRISON
Adjustment is an individual process. So, how an individual adjust to a prison environment is
absolutely variable depending upon the person concerned. But over a certain period of time there
are patterns in the adjustment process which have been delineated by researchers. Adjustment is
most problematic usually in the initial phases of adjustment. Adjustment is an issue within the
prison and is clear by the fact that the number of suicides within a prison are way more as
compared to the number of suicides in the outside world in general. Prisons are almost twice
more susceptible to suicide as compared to suicide rates outside the prison. Studies within the
area of suicides tells that suicide rates are maximum within the initial period of imprisonment-
suicide rates in jails and lock-ups are way more as compared to suicide rates in full term prison,
once an individual is sentenced and is sent to prison. This is because, lock ups and jails are where
people are initially kept during the trial and therefore adjustment during that phase is most
difficult.
A summary of findings, highlighted by Toch and Adams. Highlights certain patterns in the way
people tend to adjust to prisons. To begin with, they highlight that emotional stress or emotional
mis-adjustment is maximum during the beginning of the imprisonment phase and because of this
emotional distress then individuals also tend to be most destructive and violent towards the
beginning of their imprisonment. So, the internally felt distress is externalized during the early
phases of imprisonment and that results in behavioral problems- destructive behavior, denying
the following of rules and also violent and aggressive behavior. Also, age is an important
mediator to the 20s and early 30s who are more likely to engage in externalization of the distress
and more likely to engage in disruptive or violent behavior whereas individuals who are
relatively on the higher side of age (40s and 50s) are more likely to engage in a relatively more
calm behavior and more likely to dissociate or detach themselves from the deviant prison
environment and use more of their internal sources to cope with the adjustment problems or
emotional distress which they might be facing. With these initial problems that are seen during
the process of adjustment within the prison, gradually what sets in is what is known as
‘prisonization’- an idea which is very similar to socialization. Like you get socialized within the
community that you are living in similarly once an individual adapts to the environment, gets
used to the customs within the prison then that process of adapting to the prison environment is
called prisonization. This term was coined by Donald Clemmer. He coined this term with the
reference of socialization- just like you get socialized with the community, you get prisonized
within the prison culture. He also described very specific characteristics of the process of
prisonization and said that the interest that an individual initially took in the outside world that
decreases gradually and eventually gets extinct which is followed by some amount of
understanding that prison is now home. Specifically true for people serving long-term sentences.
This results in the lack of the ability in the individual to take independent decisions meaning that
all activities are now governed by rules and regulations of the prison and to that extent they
become almost automatic in nature. Gradually what sets in and is the mark of prisonization is
complete deindividuation of the individual- the person instead of looking at oneself as an
autonomous independent individual, he now starts describing every expect of himself within the
context of the prison.

14
In terms of gender related phenomenon and prisonization, there are theories which highlight that
women adapt to the prison culture slightly differently than men. The process of prisonization is
true for both but the external behavior differs at certain levels. To begin with, in the process of
adapting both men and women tend to form these groups which become their social groups.
These groups differ for men and women in the sense that women tend to form more family
oriented groups and men tend to form more gang oriented groups. In a gang oriented group there
is a sense of brother hood whereas in a family oriented group there is a greater sense of familiar
relationships rather than a uniform sense of brotherhood irrespective of age which is more so in
the case of men forming these groups.
These groups are a characteristic of a way of adjustment of people during the initial phases of
adjustment, people who are serving long-term sentences over a period of time also tend to move
away from these groups and lead more isolated and solitary lives and it is true for both men and
women. These people serving longer sentences tend to spend more time with themselves, tend to
spend a greater time reflecting on their own lives, they also spent greater amounts of time
building up on their own abilities and talents. Eventually the person becomes more self-focused
and self-absorbed with fewer friends around. This also is the time when positive change begins
to set in. Also this is the time of high level of existential reflection where people start thinking
about their larger goals in life and how they want to attain them and that then defines their future
actions. There are also different social groups with different social status within the prison. Like
individuals who have committed crime against people like- rape and murder, are considered
lower down in the social hierarchy, they are also more susceptible to sexual assault and sexual
violence against that person. Or somebody who has murdered or engaged in a violent crime
against people is also more susceptible to violence against himself within the prison. On the
other hand, people engaging in non-human crimes- monetary crimes or material acquisition
related crimes, these individuals are considered to be higher up in the social hierarchy.
The assumption that all kinds of prisons are harmful for people- the question becomes important
when we mention that gradually down the line people who are serving longer sentences do
engage in existential self-reflection, do engage in seeking=g the larger motives in life, then from
that perspective- is all kinds of imprisonment always detrimental to the well-being of an
individual? No. a set of studies by Toch and Adams, essentially studied prisons where the
atmosphere was relatively congenial- basic hygiene maintain, basic amenities provided to the
prisoners, they were not substantially over-crowded, there were opportunities for extra-
curricular- sports grounds, libraries maintained, reading areas provided. And in these prisons,
individual did actually benefit from being a part of these prisons. So they (Toch and Adams)
took estimates of their psychological and mental well-being over a period of time through the
years and said that over the first couple of years (one and a half to two years) there was no
substantial improvement that was seen but then there was no substantial psychological damage
that was done except for the fact that these individuals were not as motivated to change. But after
a period of one and a half to two years, there was a slight understanding which was more leaning
towards change. There was also an acceptance that behavioral change is required and this
essentially was a reflection of the existential evaluation by the individual. Along with that, an
understanding with respect to the consequences of behavior, that positive behavior will lead to

15
positive consequences and negative behavior would lead to negative consequences. Also along
with this understanding, a more pro social behavior also developed in these individuals. Toch
and Adams point out that the very fact that an individual is subject to some kind of discipline,
some kind of structured living and routine in life, that in itself can be beneficial for the well-
being and mental health of an individual if the individual is given a congenial environment to
live in, environment which is congenial for the positive growth and development of the
individual.
23/10/2019

IMPACT OF CROWDING ON THE PEOPLE

Overcrowding is a well-known problem within the prisons and the impact of overcrowding has
also been studied by psychologist from a psychological standpoint. It has been established to
have a negative impact on the psychological development of individuals and generally the
psyche of the prisoners in terms of greater reports, incidents and greater severity of
psychological disorders and specifically disorders related to anxiety and mood related disorders.
From a physiological standpoint, there are greater health issues or physical health related
problems which are reported by prisoners living under conditions of overcrowding. To a certain
extent, the kind of physical disorders which are indicated by these individuals include conditions
like- high blood pressure, heart related problems, ulcers, sugar related problems and all these
problems to an extent are psycho-social in nature. High levels of stress in general have been
associated with these psychosomatic conditions and these quintessential basic psychosomatic
conditions include exactly these set of conditions. Overcrowding then from that perspective
contributes to stress and high levels of stress then becomes an important mediator between
overcrowding and physical problems which are reported by these individuals.
Greater amount of externalization is also which is seen in individuals living in conditions of high
overcrowding. Anxiety and mood related disorders has to do with internalization and greater
amount of externalization is manifested in greater behavioral problems- higher levels of
expressed aggression and violence in individuals, greater disruptive behavior, violation of rules.
So from all the perspectives- overcrowding has been established to have a negative impact on the
prisoner or any individual even outside the prison. For instance- psychosomatic problems are
higher in individual who are staying in lower socio- economic neighborhoods because these
neighborhoods are more crowded.
There are 2 important aspects of crowding that are under study-
1. SENSE OF PHYSICAL CROWDING- Physical crowding is an objective phenomenon
and simply has to do with actual distance and space between 2 individuals. It is also
reflective of the population density of a particular place. So, greater is the population
density greater will be the level of crowding and that can be measured in a very objective
way. Crowding has to do with- the average distance separating 2 individuals within a
particular space.

16
 2. PSYCHOLOGICAL CROWDING- It is to do with psychological space or a sense of
personal space that an individual might have and it is a subjective phenomenon.
Irrespective of the objective population density, the psychological space- there is a
subjective phenomenon and psychological crowding then is a subjective discomfort
which an individual feels as the number of individuals in ones surroundings increase.
Psychological crowding is subjective and differs from person to person. Some people
might have a high tolerance for crowding wherein some people might feel active
discomfort when the space is too crowded.
A lot of studies point out that it is not necessarily the physical crowding which is of importance
esp. when we study psychological impact of crowding but it is the psychological crowding which
has a determining role wherein even if there are exactly the same number of individuals within a
particular area, if a sense of psychological crowding is decreased then the negative psychological
impact is likely to decrease or go down. So, what is more important is to control the
psychological crowding and not physical crowding per se. This would be done by- say, if the
number of people in one cell is too many then even if it is necessary to have so many people in
one cell of a prison then give them a sense of personal space. This can be done by ensuring some
amount of privacy or blocking direct visual contact between different prisoners. Privacy shall be
ensured.
Psychological crowding is an individual phenomenon and there will always be individual
differences but if one has to pinpoint certain very basic variables which have an impact on the
individual’s adjustment to crowded situations, important variable being the socio-economic
status of the individual. Studies tell that individuals who belong to lower socio-economic status
can easily adapt to more crowded situations and has to do with the fact that because of their poor
socio-economic background they are used to more crowded situations (physical as well as
psychological) and therefore can adapt more easily to crowded prisons. Another variable being-
education level of the individual. Roughly studies tell that specifically as far as adaptability to
crowding is concerned- higher the education level lower is the level of an individual to adapt to
crowding per se. But if the general adjustment of the individuals who are highly educated is
concerned then studies tell that this inability to adapt to overcrowding does not necessarily
replicate to the inability to adjust to the prison setting in general because individuals who are
more educated usually find more creative ways and different aspects of the prison and use them
to adjust to the prison situation in general. The general adjustment skills of individuals who are
highly educated sort of mitigate or negate the negative impact or their inability to adapt to the
crowding in the prison situation
The third important aspect here I s ones prior experience or exposure to the prison system in
general. Persistent criminals, who are imprisoned over and over again find it difficult to adjust to
overcrowding and the finding is very contrary to what one would expect. One would expect that
because an individual is exposed to a prison system therefore would be able to adjust to the
conditions including overcrowding within the prison easily. But usually psychological studies
tell that it is not the case and in fact the persons who are persistent criminals and exposed to the
justice system again and again find it difficult to adjust and adapt to overcrowding and that

17
adjustment is not limited to overcrowding, it is to do with adjustment and adaptation in general.
Therefore their prior experience with the prison system play an important role and what is
important is that inherently they are unable to adapt and adjust to life conditions in general and
that also is replicated in their adjustment to overcrowded prison situations.
So, usually a lot of studies majorly talk about these 3 variables as offering some amount of
consistency with respect to one’s ability to adjust and the impact on psyche and physical health
of an individual.
 RHODES V CHAPMAN (1981)
The argument that was raised in this case was that overcrowding in itself was cruel and unusual
punishment. Therefore, overcrowding as a phenomenon in itself should be declared illegal by
law. The court here did not recognize the negative impact that overcrowding has on the psyche
of an individual. The court held that such an argument can only be considered in a contextual
way, in the context of several other factors and a totality of circumstances approach needs to be
taken in this case- where overcrowding cannot be evaluated in isolation but if we talk about
overcrowding within a prison setup then what is important is to consider the general context and
the general environmental conditions which are prevalent in the prison and these environmental
conditions would then include- whether basic hygiene is maintained or not, whether all the
amenities are provided or not, enough opportunities for extra-curricular activities are provided or
not. So, several other factors which contribute to the lifestyle of an individual should then be
considered and taken into account while evaluating whether overcrowding should be declared as
being a cruel punishment in itself and therefore in this case, the argument was rightoutly rejected
barring one dissenting opinion which referred to literature and which highlighted the details of
the aversive impact or negative impact which overcrowding can have on the psychological and
physical health of an individual. Barring this one reference to literature and what psychology has
to say about the impact of overcrowding on the health of an individual, there was not much
reference to studies that was taken up in this case. And a totality of circumstances approach was
taken rather than overcrowding being evaluated in and of itself. So even though psychological
studies highlight the aversive impact which overcrowding in itself can have on the psychological
and physical health of an individual, legally so far it has not been recognized.

IMPACT OF ISOLATION
From the perspective of psychology, isolation essentially talks about what a deprivation either
sensory (this deprivation has to with a cut-off of sensory stimuli), social (individual not allowed
to socially engage, not allowed to interact) or psychological stimuli and the deprivation of
necessities (the basic necessities and basic aspects from a survival perspective are not being
catered to- food, water to drink, clothing, clean hygienic environment.) does to an individual at a
physical or a psychological level. Most psychological studies have actually focused on social and
sensory stimuli. A deprivation of necessities is not so much at the center of the debate because
most courts in the West have reiterated the importance of ensuring the basic necessities to an
individual. But what psychologically is studied is the impact of social and sensory deprivation on
the psyche of an individual.

18
Isolation in a legal set up usually happens under 3 broad categories-
1. ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION
It is to do with isolating an individual or locking up prisoners in general within their cells.
Usually administrative segregation is short-lived. So, as far as its long term impact on the psyche
of the individual is concerned there is not much controversy over that. Locking up individuals in
their own cells could be because of multiple reasons- shortage of staff, investigation happening
in the prison.
2. DISCIPLINARY SEGREGATION
This happens when an individual has broken the rules of conduct of the prison or if an individual
has displayed violent behavior or is considered as a threat to people in general. It is a kind of
punitive segregation and a kind of punishment given because the individual has engaged in
violence against others or has broken some rules.
3. PROTECTIVE SEGREGATION
Isolation because of protective custody. Protective custody is essentially given to an individual in
cases where there is some threat which is perceived against the individual concerned. So, if other
prisoners are seen as a potential threat against the individual concerned then to ensure the
protection of the individual he is sent into protective custody. Also in case where the individual
is considered a threat against himself or herself. The cases where there is a high potential for
suicide, the individual is typically kept in an isolated setting and also kept under observation.
From a psychological standpoint, administrative segregation is not that important but disciplinary
segregation or punitive segregation and protective custody have been the focus of study under
most psychological studies.
The understanding that if an individual is sent to an isolated set up is likely to lead to a positive
behavioral change in an individual, is a notion which is extremely prevalent in the guards or the
officials of the prison and is an incorrect notion. A lot of studies tell that guards and the officials
of the prison tend to believe that if an individual is sent to an isolated setting by virtue of the
amount of control that is practiced on the individual while in an isolated setting that in itself is
likely to lead to a positive behavioral change in an individual even if that is seen as a
punishment. So, that is likely to have a deterrent effect on the level of violence which is depicted
by an individual in the prison because people would avoid going to an isolated setting because it
is seen as a punishment by these individuals.
But research tells that that is not necessarily true. A set of studies tell that a lot of individuals
actually favor or they like going to these isolated settings in order to avoid the overcrowding
which is so rampant within the prisons. And these individuals deliberately engage in violent
behavior when they know that perhaps an isolated segregation would be punitive step taken
against them and that becomes more desirable in light of the overcrowding which is prevalent in
prisons. So the fundamental idea which the notion of disciplinary segregation function is actually
a misnomer.

19
In fact studies tell that isolating an individual for long periods of time can actually have a more
negative and detrimental effect as far as the psyche of an individual is concerned and specifically
as far as the aggression and violence level in an individual is concerned. So when an individual is
deprived of social stimulus (social deprivation has been implied as far as the aggression of an
individual is concerned) then these individuals are more likely to engage in anti-social behavior
(higher levels of aggression and violence) against people once they are allowed to mingle with
people in general and this specifically becomes a problem when these people are released
directly into society. So instead of having a positive impact, this social deprivation is likely to
have a negative impact as far as the social behavior of the person is concerned.
The second aspect is to do with protective custody. From a psychological standpoint, it has been
extreme point of controversy esp. when it comes to protective custody which is offered to
mentally ill prisoners. Several instances have been documented in literature wherein because an
individual was mentally ill, the individual was sent to protective custody because he was seen as
more disruptive by other prisoners in general. A commonly witnessed misnomer in guards and
officials in prison officials in general is that mental health can be addressed by isolating an
individual. This idea is an archaic idea and grounded in history and emanates from the idea from
where there used to be prisons for mentally ill individuals. If history of mental health is traced
back- initially mental health was addressed by simply sending an individual to a prison or a jail
where the individual would be isolated and would probably be there for the rest of his life
because there was no actual improvement in the condition of the individual but the notion
prevailed that the only way to tackle mental health issues is to send an individual to an isolated
facility. This misnomer in guards and officials is widely prevalent and is further reinforced by
the lack of psychological services which are available to prisons in general. Again studies tell
that esp. for mentally ill individuals, sending them into isolated facilities can further deteriorate
their symptoms and mental health especially if no treatment is offered to these individuals.
 MADRID V GOMEZ (1995) ‘Pelican Bay Prison Case’
In the US there was a newly created facility which was the pelican bay prison facility and this
facility was a very isolated one and meant for extremely violent individuals. One of the
individuals who was diagnosed as suffering from several mental health conditions, this
individual was sent into an isolated facility and he eventually over a period of time (this was long
term isolation, long term sensory and social isolation deprivation) reported that the mental health
actually worsened resulting in extreme paranoia, greater levels of fear, hallucinations and
multiple levels of fear.
The impact of prolonged sensory deprivation even in an individual who is absolutely normally
functional, it is likely to result in hallucinations in these individuals and this has to with the basic
human need for sensation. In these facilities- Walls painted in a unicolor, bedsheets and
equipment in a single color, a bright light which is always on or if no window then absolutely
dark, no sound, a complete lack of visual and auditory stimuli. As a result of such kind of
sensory deprivations, humans have a need for visual and auditory variation, even when there is
complete silence there are still certain environmental sound which an individual might not be
aware of but an individual is still exposed to. When this kind of sensory deprivation takes place,

20
when externally the environment does not offer any stimulus to the individual, the human psyche
itself starts playing games with the individual and thus starts creating the stimuli for himself.
Auditory and visual hallucinations have been associated with sensory deprivations and is a very
common phenomenon. And these hallucinations resulted in extreme fears in the individual where
he was hearing and seeing things and probably knew that it was not real but still experienced it
and thus multiple fears.
In this case, the person was already mentally ill but sensory deprivation can have adverse impact
on the psyche of the individual even when the person is not mentally ill. The courts to an extent
did recognize that isolation is extremely a harsh punishment and certain guidelines shall be in
place while evaluating whether an individual should be sent to isolation or what kind of isolation
shall be ensured for this kind of individual. Though the recognition to guidelines was given in
this case but the guidelines came in later cases.
Most courts recognized the minimum quality of care which should be guaranteed to all prisoners.
This minimum quality of care included- basics which every individual has a right to- food, water,
fresh air, ventilation, an opportunity to exercise and basic hygienic conditions. These should also
be ascertained in cases of isolation which is why the maximum period for which isolation is
allowed is 23 hours of a day and 24 hours isolation is non-existent. Basic amenities and hygiene
are sufficient for short-term isolation. For long-term isolation then treatment also becomes a part
of the minimum quality of care. Working on the pretext that there is some major cause of
concern or some problem with the person concerned if the person is being kept under long term
isolation and therefore cannot be kept under long-term isolation if not offered some kind of
psychological treatment.
When it comes to disciplinary or punitive segregation then courts have recognized that in cases
of disciplinary segregation, an individual has the right to be heard.
 WOLF V MCDONALD
The court presented certain guidelines which should be undertaken before sending an individual
to punitive segregation and these important guidelines or aspects which should be catered to
revolve around- ensuring the right to be heard to this individual concerned. First aspect included-
right to a written statement or a right to a written notice meaning that if some kind of a
proceeding is taking place against an individual then this person should be given a written notice
with respect to this proceeding and the charges against this person.
2nd aspect-When given a notice he also has the right to know the charges against him and the
evidence which the prison officials have against the individual.
The third aspect- hearing by an unbiased, impartial body. This body does not necessarily have to
be a legal body or a court but could simply be panel of officials of the prison who do not have a
bias against the individual.
4th aspect-And the individual also has the right to defend oneself. This right is not the same as the
right to have an attorney. It is not a legal proceeding and just an internal proceeding which is

21
happening within the court and the individual can represent oneself and ask other people to
present the evidence.
Safeguards given because the court recognized that punitive segregation can be detrimental to
the psyche of an individual.
Sandin v conner

22