•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Every day, thousands of humans and millions of nonhumans endure solitary confinement. Human prisoners held in this way are confined for twenty-two to twenty-four hours a day for weeks, months, or even years on end in cells the size of a parking space. For these humans, the experience is tortuous. Captive animals held in solitary confinement similarly spend much of their lives locked into tiny spaces, isolated, and deprived of the types of interactions and environment essential to their wellbeing. And, like humans, they are driven mad. In human and nonhuman settings, the agony of solitary is chillingly alike and harmful. And, in neither setting is it justifiable or necessary.

This Article uses a comparative format to examine the moral, penological, and scientific shortcomings of solitary confinement across species. Part I describes how solitary confinement is used in human and nonhuman settings and shows the deep wounds that it inflicts in both. Part II examines why the legal structures under which solitary confinement is imposed (on humans and nonhumans) offer inadequate protections from its depredations. Part III argues that incarcerated beings have no legal protections because they are powerless and invisible. In Part IV, the authors write individually. The author with expertise in prison law (Mushlin) describes how solitary confinement would end in penal facilities if prisoners were empowered and their rights protected. Next, the author with expertise in animal law (Cassuto) explains why solitary confinement for animals in zoos, aquariums, and laboratories should and could be abolished. The authors conclude with a call to empower creatures subjected to solitary confinement. If all vulnerable beings are adequately protected, the unnecessary suffering inflicted by solitary confinement will finally end.

Download

Share

COinS