Does disciplinary confinement fulfill its objectives?: a meta-analysis on the effects of disciplinary confinement on misconduct and recidivism
Solitary confinement, including but not limited to disciplinary confinement (DC), is practiced in a variety of correctional settings and continues to be a debated manner to address inmate violence. There is increasing evidence highlighting the detrimental effects of solitary confinement on both psyc...
| Authors: | ; ; ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2025
|
| In: |
Aggression and violent behavior
Year: 2025, Volume: 85, Pages: 1-6 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Keywords: |
| Summary: | Solitary confinement, including but not limited to disciplinary confinement (DC), is practiced in a variety of correctional settings and continues to be a debated manner to address inmate violence. There is increasing evidence highlighting the detrimental effects of solitary confinement on both psychological and behavioral outcomes, including misconduct and recidivism. Particularly, DC, referring to the temporary placement of an inmate in a segregated housing unit as punishment following a rule violation, has shown mitigated results. We therefore sought to conduct a meta-analysis to disentangle the association between DC and behavioral outcomes (institutional misconduct and recidivism). PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched. Studies on adult inmates in correctional settings were included if they met an operational definition of DC, measured misconduct or recidivism, and included a comparison group from the general inmate population. Random-effect models were used to assess the impacts of DC on misconduct and recidivism. Of the identified records, 11 met our inclusion criteria (n = 244,088 inmates). Our results show a small association between DC and criminal recidivism (OR = 1.53; 95 % CI = 1.46; 1.62). Although there were no significant associations for institutional misconduct in general, there was a significant association for those having a mental illness to engage in misconduct following DC than those without (OR = 1.54; 95 % CI = 1.18; 2.01). Taken together, current data show that placement into DC appears to lead to negative outcomes, thereby limiting the effectiveness of DC as a correctional measure. |
|---|---|
| Item Description: | Literaturverzeichnis: Seite 5-6 |
| ISSN: | 1873-6335 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.avb.2025.102097 |
