An Analysis of the Deterrent Effects of Disciplinary Segregation on Institutional Rule Violation Rates

• Published date: 01 June 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403417699930
• Date: 01 June 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403417699930

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2019, Vol. 30(5) 765 –787

© The Author(s) 2017

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403417699930

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

An Analysis of the

Deterrent Effects of

Disciplinary Segregation

on Institutional Rule

Violation Rates

Joseph W. Lucas1 and Matthew A. Jones2

Abstract

In light of the limited resources available in the criminal justice system, and given the

financial costs and inmate mental health risks associated with disciplinary segregation, the

practice warrants testing and evaluation. Limited research exists on the effect disciplinary

segregation has on subsequent inmate misconduct in state prisons. Institutional

violation rates for a cohort of male inmates incarcerated by the Oregon Department of

Corrections were analyzed. Controlling for other factors, the results of this study indicate

that disciplinary segregation was not a significant predictor of subsequent institutional

misconduct. The findings also indicate that the experience of disciplinary segregation does

not reduce subsequent prison inmate misconduct and therefore suggest that it may not be

an effective institutional practice. These results signal that disciplinary segregation should

be used in a more judicious and informed manner and that further research should be

performed to determine whether disciplinary segregation has a general deterrent effect.

Keywords

disciplinary segregation, inmate segregation, institutional violations

Introduction

The practice of disciplinary segregation is widely used in institutional correctional

environments in the United States (Frost & Monteiro, 2016). In this practice, inmates

who are officially found to have committed a prison rule violation may be removed

1Harney County District Attorney’s Office, Burns, OR, USA

2Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Corresponding Author:

Joseph W. Lucas, Harney County District Attorney’s Office, 450 North Buena Vista Avenue, #15, Burns,

OR 97720, USA.

Email: joseph.lucas@co.harney.or.us

699930CJPXXX10.1177/0887403417699930Criminal Justice Policy ReviewLucas and Jones

research-article2017

766 Criminal Justice Policy Review 30(5)

from the general inmate population and confined in a separate cellblock, frequently

referred to as disciplinary segregation units. The purpose of disciplinary segregation,

at least in part, is to provide a punitive action to deter inmates from engaging in sub-

sequent prison misconduct (i.e., committing rule violations). Although the practice is

viewed as anecdotally useful by correctional administrators (Mears & Castro, 2006),

scientific evidence regarding its effectiveness is scant (Frost & Monteiro, 2016;

Labrecque, 2015; Lucas, 2015; Morris, 2016).

The weight of the extant research on prison segregation indicates that the practice

can have negative psychological and physiological effects on inmates, although these

effects might only be associated with longer periods of isolation, and such research has

focused primarily on solitary confinement. There is limited research examining prison

segregation in relation to deterrence, so it is currently unclear whether segregation

practices have a deterrent effect on prison inmate misconduct. Furthermore, there is

very little published research concerning disciplinary segregation. Arrigo and Bullock

(2008) noted this “absence of studies focused specifically on short-term segregation

for disciplinary and/or punitive purposes” (p. 638). This quantitative study assists in

filling this gap via an examination of the effectiveness of disciplinary segregation in

deterring prison inmate misconduct within the Oregon Department of Corrections

(Oregon DOC) prison system.

Disciplinary Segregation and Solitary Confinement: Differences and

Similarities

Although there is limited research on disciplinary segregation, there is much research,

however, on the topic of solitary confinement. Although disciplinary segregation and

solitary confinement are sometimes viewed synonymously, in practice that is not

always the case. The primary differences between solitary confinement and the Oregon

DOC’s disciplinary segregation unit are as follows: (a) the offenders serve their pun-

ishment in a two-person cell (and sometimes have a cellmate, depending on the hous-

ing situation), whereas in solitary confinement they are housed in one-person cells (J.

Duncan, personal communication, March 13, 2014), and (b) the length of stay in dis-

ciplinary segregation is shorter, with the maximum length generally being about 6

months (Oregon Administrative Rule 291-105-1066(10), 2014).

Some of the characteristics that disciplinary segregation (as used by the Oregon

DOC) and solitary confinement have in common are as follows: (a) the prisoners are

isolated from the general prison population in a separate cellblock; (b) they are held

within their cells for 22 to 24 hr each day and only permitted 1 hr of exercise, and they

are placed in restraints when removed from their cells; and (c) they are housed in cells

that are continuously lit all day and night by artificial light, with no prisoner control

over how brightly their cells are lit, and their exposure to physical and social stimula-

tion is severely limited (Arrigo & Bullock, 2008; Briggs, Sundt, & Castellano, 2003;

J. Duncan, personal communication, March 13, 2014; Haney, 2003; Haney & Lynch,

1997; Lippke, 2004; Pizarro & Stenius, 2004; Smith, 2006).