By The HALTSolitary Campaign & Mental Health

New York State prisons had an epidemic of suicides in 2024, with the widespread use of solitary
confinement in violation of the HALT Solitary Confinement Law contributing significantly to this
crisis. According to data provided by the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) and
published by the Correctional Association of New York, 25 people died by suicide in 2024. The
number of people who died was more than double the previous year, the highest number since
at least 2000, more than triple the rate of deaths by suicide annually in New York prisons from
2000 to 2023, and more than four times the rate of deaths by suicide in prisons across the
country.

Looking at the locations where these deaths occurred reveals that a vastly disproportionate
number of deaths by suicide took place in solitary confinement. The Department of Corrections
and Community Supervision (DOCCS) has been systematically violating the HALT Solitary
Confinement Law. Among other violations, DOCCS has been locking people who have mental
health needs in solitary in violation of the law’s explicit ban on such confinement. DOCCS has
also been operating so-called alternatives to solitary – including Residential Rehabilitation Units
(RRUs) and Residential Mental Health Units (RMHUs) – as solitary by another name by denying
people the out-of-cell time and group programming required by the law.
These violations have caused devastating harm and death, as the recently released data
shows. In 2024, at least nine of the 25 people who died by suicide, or 36%, were in official
isolation units – namely three people in Special Housing Units (SHUs), three people in RRUs,
and three people in RMHUs. Given that these units hold a relatively small percentage of people
in DOCCS prisons, the rates of death by suicide among people in one of these isolation settings
are vastly disproportionate compared to the rates of death by suicide among people in
non-isolation settings.

Specifically, people died by suicide in isolation units at a rate more than seven times higher than
people in non-isolation settings, including nearly 23 times higher in SHU, three times higher in
RRU, and nearly 32 times higher in RMHU than in non-isolation settings.
Looking at self-harm more broadly, over 60% of self-harm incidents took place in isolation
settings, including SHU, RRU, and RMHU, as well as the Behavioral Health Unit/Therapeutic
Behavioral Unit (BHU/TBU), Residential Crisis Treatment Program (RCTP), and protective
custody. These isolation units had rates of self-harm over 15 times the rates of self-harm in
non-isolation settings, with the rates in SHU 19 times higher than in non-isolation settings, rates
in the RMHU 35 times higher than in non-isolation settings, rates in the BHU/TBU 316 times
higher than in non-isolation settings, rates in the combined disciplinary Residential Mental
Health Treatment Units (RMHTUs) of nearly 50 times higher than in non-isolation settings, and
rates in the RCTP 162 times higher than in non-isolation settings.

By Ray  Madding  Mcconnell

Ray Madding McConnell’s Criminal Responsibility and Social Constraint first appeared in 1912 as one of the more philosophically ambitious works of the American Progressive Era. Though rarely cited today, the book occupies a fascinating place in the early twentieth-century dialogue between philosophy, criminology, and legal reform. Its author, who died shortly before the book’s publication, taught social ethics at Harvard and belonged to a generation deeply convinced that clearer thought could repair the accumulating confusions of modern criminal law. His book is therefore both a legacy and an argument: a legacy of Progressive rationalism and an argument for reconsidering the foundations of punishment in an age increasingly aware of causation, psychology, and social science.

More than a century after its publication, Criminal Responsibility and Social Constraint offers a valuable perspective for scholars, legal theorists, and reformers. It is a window into the moment when American thought on crime and punishment began to absorb scientific psychology, social statistics, and philosophical determinism. It presents an early, coherent version of a consequentialist theory of punishment that still structures major parts of modern practice. And it invites readers to confront the perennial tension between causation and accountability: how can a society committed to science and determinism still punish, censure, and regulate?

McConnell’s answer is that responsibility is a socially constructed tool—one that must be justified by its utility rather than by metaphysical claims about freedom. Whether one accepts or contests that answer, it remains a stimulus to deeper thinking about the moral and practical foundations of the criminal law. In that sense, McConnell’s book continues to speak forcefully to our age, reminding us that the architecture of justice must rest on reasons we can defend, not merely on traditions we have inherited.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. p.234.

By John Tillson and Winston C. Thompson.

In this chapter we analyze general views on punishment in order to consider what behavioural requirements schools may establish for students and which (if any) they may enforce through punishment, during compulsory education. Punishment, as we use the word, is the intentional imposition of burdensome treatment on someone – usually on the rule breaker – for having broken a rule, partly because the treatment is burdensome. By carefully analyzing various aspects of punishment, we aim to identify principles that should guide and constrain which behaviours schools punish, and how and why they punish them. In brief, we develop the following principles regarding legitimate requirements that can be made of students and the ways punishment may be used to enforce them. Before children are autonomous, schools may establish both paternalistic, and other-regarding requirements, but not requirements imposed from within comprehensive conceptions of the good. 2 They may punish children in order to ensure a fair distribution of the burdens and benefits of social arrangements. Schools may punish children for paternalistic reasons, including developmental reasons, but not for reasons of general deterrence. When children become autonomous, compulsory schooling may establish only other-regarding requirements of student conduct. 3 They may punish to ensure a fair distribution of the burdens or benefits of social arrangements; this includes punishing for reasons of general deterrence, due to children’s responsible choices enhancing their liability, as well as for other-regarding developmental reasons.

Pedagogies of Punishment: The Ethics of Discipline in Education.. Bloomsbury Academic. 2023. pp. 35-62

By Alexandra Gannoni and Samantha Bricknell

“The purpose of this paper is to provide a picture of trends and characteristics of Indigenous deaths in prison and police custody in the 25 years since the RCIADIC. A key focus is to describe the circumstances of Indigenous deaths in custody and how these compare with those reported by the RCIADIC and over time."The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) was established in 1987 in response to growing concern over the deaths of Indigenous people in custody. The RCIADIC (1991) found Indigenous people in custody did not die at a greater rate than non-Indigenous people in custody, but were considerably more likely to be arrested and imprisoned. The RCIADIC (1991) recommended an ongoing program be established by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) to monitor Indigenous and non-Indigenous deaths in prison, police custody and youth detention. In response, the National Deaths in Custody Program (NDICP) commenced in 1992. Since then, the NDICP has collected comprehensive data on the extent and nature of all deaths in custody in Australia.”

Australian Institute of Criminology. Statistical Bulletin. No. 17. Feb. 2019. 15p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

By Sheldon Glueck And Eleanor T. Glueck

The book provides a comprehensive analysis of the after-conduct of discharged offenders, focusing on the implications for reforming criminal justice:

● Causal Relations: It emphasizes the importance of understanding the multiple causal factors, both biological and environmental, that influence criminal behavior.

● Predictive Techniques: The document discusses the feasibility of using predictive tables to aid in sentencing and parole decisions.

● Reform Proposals: It suggests reforms for criminal justice based on scientific insights, such as re-designing correctional equipment to address causes rather than symptoms.

● Scientific Insights: Follow-up studies are highlighted as a means to gain scientific insights into the effectiveness of sentencing, treatment, and parole practices.

These key insights aim to shift the focus from punitive measures to a more rehabilitative approach that considers the complex interplay of factors contributing to criminal behavior.

Cambridge University. London 1945. Kraus Reprint Corporation New York 1966. 129p.

By Curtis Prout and Robert N. Ross

Care and Punishment: The Dilemmas of Prison Medicine delves into the ethical and practical challenges faced by healthcare providers in correctional facilities. Authors Curtis Prout and Robert N. Ross examine the complex intersection of healthcare, criminal justice, and human rights within the confines of prison walls. Through a series of compelling case studies and rigorous analysis, this book sheds light on the dilemmas that arise when medical care interacts with the punitive nature of incarceration. A crucial read for anyone interested in the intersection of medicine and justice, Care and Punishment offers valuable insights into the complexities of providing healthcare in carceral settings.

University of Pittsburgh Press, 1988, 276 pages