Article 8: Solitary Irrationality: Inefficient and Ineffective Bureaucratic Restrictions on Human Beings

There are two primary arguments against placing human beings in restricted housing units within carceral institutions, and one overarching argument for the practice. The arguments opposing restricted housing rest on the explicit and implicit harm caused to individuals via the practice (Haney, 2018; Luigi et al., 2020) and the lack of positive outcomes that the practice yields (Cloud et al., 2021; Woo et al., 2019). These contentions generally stem from research scientists from psychology, social work, criminology, and sociology and humanitarian advocates working with or for a litany of non-profit and governmental organizations. On the other hand, penal institutions and their associated staff and stakeholders typically favor using restricted housing as a means of instituting control, safety, and/or security within carceral environments to ensure the well-being of both staff and incarcerated individuals (Labrecque, 2015). Framing the current arguments against the use of restricted housing, this paper uses rigorous scientific/research findings to suggest that this practice is not only harmful to incarcerated individuals and does not yield better outcomes (such as misconduct reduction) but it is also a hugely inefficient and ineffective process that resembles organizational irrationality rather than sound decision making in carceral spaces. The paper concludes with background regarding decision biases and how to overcome these challenges to improve both correctional practice and human lives.