Quick Facts
Assault reports may be rising, but research shows prison violence is closely tied to trauma, mental illness, and environmental stress rather than sudden behavioral change.
No. Decades of research show solitary confinement increases aggression, worsens mental illness, and elevates long-term violence risk.
Isolation causes emotional dysregulation, paranoia, and impulse control loss, making people more volatile during staff interactions.
The United Nations and World Health Organization warn that prolonged solitary confinement can constitute cruel or inhuman treatment.
Solitary confinement isn’t safety. It’s a proven risk factor — for prisoners and staff alike.
Recent reporting by Bridge Michigan highlights an increase in assaults on prison staff, raising alarms about safety inside Michigan facilities. Much of the public conversation focuses on whether assaults are rising.
But the more human question is simpler, and harder:
Why would anyone expect assaults not to happen inside a system designed around control, deprivation, and chronic stress?
Prison Is an Engineered Trauma Environment
Decades of interdisciplinary research agree on one point: prisons are not neutral spaces. They are structurally traumatic environments that amplify distress for everyone inside them.
Key features include:
- Constant surveillance and loss of autonomy
- High noise levels and overcrowding
- Rigid power hierarchies enforced through threat
- Separation from family and community
- Untreated mental illness and withdrawal
- Hypervigilance as a survival strategy
These conditions do not produce calm behavior. They produce fight-or-flight responses, emotional dysregulation, and adversarial thinking.
This is not a moral judgment. It is neurobiology.
Trauma, Not Pathology, Explains Much of Prison Violence
Research in psychology and neuroscience shows that prolonged exposure to coercive environments alters behavior.
People under chronic stress experience:
- Reduced impulse control
- Heightened threat perception
- Faster escalation from frustration to aggression
- Difficulty interpreting authority as neutral or safe
Incarcerated populations have extraordinarily high rates of prior trauma, PTSD, brain injury, and serious mental illness. When those vulnerabilities are placed inside a punitive environment, conflict becomes more likely.
As psychiatrist Bruce Perry has noted, dysregulated systems produce dysregulated people.
That applies to staff, too.
The Adversarial Design of Prison Life
Prisons are built on an “us versus them” model. Every interaction is filtered through authority, compliance, and enforcement.
Sociological studies of correctional institutions consistently find that:
- Violence increases when relationships are purely custodial rather than relational
- Staff burnout correlates with higher confrontation rates
- Lack of program access and idle time increase tension
- Inconsistent rules and arbitrary discipline escalate conflict
When people are treated primarily as risks to be managed, they often respond accordingly.
This is not an excuse for assault. It is an explanation for why assault risk is baked into the structure.
Trauma Ignorance From Union Leadership Is Still Dangerous
Byron Osborn, president of the Michigan Corrections Organization (MCO), has publicly advocated for expanded use of solitary confinement as a response to rising assaults in Michigan prisons.
This stance is not just dangerous, but stupid. That position reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of trauma, mental illness, and human behavior under confinement.
For Byron, or whoever else needs to hear this today: Solitary confinement is not treatment. It is not stabilization. It is not prevention. Decades of medical and psychological research show that isolation worsens mental illness, increases aggression, and heightens the risk of future violence, particularly among people already struggling with psychiatric conditions.
Inflicting solitary confinement means you are literally making things worse on his staff and putting them in danger. Interestingly, Byron works at Chippewa Correctional Facility, which is constantly cited as the prison with the “worst” and most unprofessional COs.
Furthermore, framing solitary confinement as a safety solution does not demonstrate seriousness about staff protection. It demonstrates trauma illiteracy.
What does it say about Michigan, let alone America, when our “Correctional professionals” can’t even follow best practices set by the United Nations?
An Open Letter to Byron Osborn
I penned a letter to Byron Osborn. I’m publishing it here in hopes that he provides responses to important questions:
Byron,
I am writing because your public advocacy for expanded use of solitary confinement as a response to assaults in Michigan prisons is flatly inconsistent with the scientific literature, international human rights standards, and modern mental health practice.
Solitary confinement is not a safety intervention. It is not treatment. It is not de-escalation. Decades of peer-reviewed research show that isolation worsens mental illness, increases aggression, destabilizes behavior, and elevates the risk of future violence. This is not a contested claim. It is settled evidence.
The American Psychiatric Association opposes prolonged solitary confinement, particularly for individuals with mental illness. The World Health Organization has documented its severe psychological harms. The United Nations, through the Mandela Rules and the Special Rapporteur on Torture, has warned that prolonged solitary confinement can constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and in some cases torture.
When you respond to trauma-driven behavior with isolation, you are not restoring order. You are intensifying the very conditions that lead to assaults in the first place.
That matters for one reason above all others: it puts your own staff in greater danger.
Isolation increases emotional dysregulation, paranoia, and impulsivity. It degrades impulse control. It produces people who are more volatile when they eventually return to general population or interact with staff. In practical terms, reliance on solitary confinement makes facilities less predictable and more dangerous for the officers you represent.
If you continue to promote solitary confinement as a safety solution, there are questions you owe both the public and your members clear answers to:
- What peer-reviewed research supports solitary confinement as an effective violence-reduction strategy in correctional settings?
- How do you reconcile your position with the American Psychiatric Association’s formal opposition to prolonged segregation for people with mental illness?
- What evidence do you have that solitary confinement reduces assaults over time rather than increasing post-isolation volatility?
- How do you account for the elevated suicide rates, psychiatric deterioration, and aggression associated with isolation?
- What alternative, evidence-based interventions have you advocated for that address trauma, mental illness, and staff burnout?
- How does placing destabilized individuals back into general population after isolation improve officer safety?
- At what point does continuing to use a practice widely recognized as harmful become a liability to the staff you represent?
This is not about being “soft.” It is about being accurate and responsible.
Modern correctional safety is built on trauma-informed practice, adequate mental health staffing, crisis intervention, predictable routines, and environmental stability. Punitive isolation is an outdated tool that persists despite overwhelming evidence of its failure.
As president of the Michigan Corrections Organization, your words shape policy and public perception. That carries a responsibility to engage with current science, not legacy practices that feel intuitive but are demonstrably counterproductive.
Your members deserve leadership grounded in evidence. Continuing to advocate for solitary confinement in the face of this research does not protect staff. It increases risk and postpones real solutions.
Solitary confinement is not the answer. And ignoring the science does not make the consequences disappear.
Respectfully,
Rita Williams
Clutch Justice
Solitary Confinement Is Clinically Known to Increase Violence Risk
The effects of isolation are not speculative. They are well documented:
- Increased anxiety, panic, paranoia, and rage
- Worsening psychosis and hallucinations
- Heightened emotional dysregulation and impulsivity
- Dramatically elevated suicide risk
People with serious mental illness are disproportionately placed in solitary and predictably deteriorate once there. The American Psychiatric Association explicitly opposes prolonged segregation for people with mental illness. The United Nations has classified extended solitary confinement as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and in some cases torture.
Using isolation to address trauma-driven behavior does not reduce danger. It compounds it.
Punishment Is Not a Substitute for Mental Health Care
Assaults inside prisons frequently involve individuals with untreated mental illness, traumatic brain injury, or complex trauma histories. That is not conjecture. It is established correctional research.
Evidence-based responses include:
- Crisis intervention units staffed by clinicians
- Trauma-informed housing and de-escalation protocols
- Predictable routines and reduced environmental stressors
- Adequate mental health staffing and continuity of care
Solitary confinement removes precisely the supports that reduce violence: human contact, observation, regulation, and treatment.
Advocating isolation as a default response signals not resolve, but a failure to understand mental health at even a basic level.
Why This Matters
Union leaders influence public perception, policy direction, and legislative response. When leadership frames mental illness as a discipline problem and torture as a solution, it narrows the policy imagination to harm-based responses that fail both staff and incarcerated people.
Safety is not created by breaking people further.
A person who does not understand trauma should not be shaping trauma policy — regardless of title.
Cameras Do Not Create Violence. They Create Witnesses.
Body-worn cameras change the environment in one crucial way: they introduce an external witness into moments that were previously disputed, minimized, or ignored.
Cameras may increase reported assaults because:
- Incidents that once ended informally now require documentation
- Video removes ambiguity about what occurred
- Staff are more likely to report incidents that are clearly captured
- Administrators can no longer quietly downgrade events
But cameras do not explain why assaults happen. They explain why we are finally counting them. The underlying behavior flows from the environment itself.
What the Research Actually Says About Reducing Violence
The evidence base does not support purely punitive responses to prison violence. So what really does reduce assaults?
- Stable staffing and reduced overtime, which lowers burnout
- Trauma-informed training for staff
- Mental health treatment access, especially crisis intervention
- Predictable routines and procedural fairness
- Environmental improvements that reduce noise, crowding, and idleness
Violence drops when people experience less chaos and more dignity. That is not softness. It is systems engineering. And the best part, is that it doesn’t require traumatizing anyone to do any of it.
Why This Matters
If assaults are rising, the response cannot be limited to discipline and security theater. And if assaults have always been common, the response cannot be denial.
Either way, the conclusion is the same: prisons create the conditions for violence, then express shock when violence appears.
Until policymakers are willing to confront the human cost of adversarial confinement, cameras will keep recording what trauma looks like when it has nowhere to go.
Scholarly Sources & Research
Bridge Michigan
Prison officer assaults up in Michigan; union asks state for change
https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-government/prison-officer-assaults-up-in-michigan-union-asks-state-for-change/
Haney, Craig (2012).
Prison effects in the age of mass incarceration
The Prison Journal, 92(1), 75–98
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032885512448604
Haney, Craig (2018).
The psychological effects of solitary confinement: A systematic critique
Crime and Justice, 47(1), 365–416
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/696041
Grassian, Stuart (2006).
Psychiatric effects of solitary confinement
Washington University Journal of Law & Policy, 22, 325–383
https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol22/iss1/24/
Liebling, Alison (2004).
Prisons and Their Moral Performance: A Study of Values, Quality, and Prison Life
Oxford University Press
https://academic.oup.com/book/50590
Useem, Bert & Kimball, Peter (1991).
States of Siege: U.S. Prison Riots, 1971–1986
Oxford University Press
https://academic.oup.com/book/54403
American Psychiatric Association (2012, reaffirmed).
Position Statement on Segregation of Prisoners with Mental Illness
https://solitarywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/APA-Position-Paper.pdf
World Health Organization (2014).
Prisons and Health
https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289050593
United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture (2011).
Interim Report on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/SPECIAL_RAPPORTEUR_EN.pdf
Perry, Bruce D. (2006).
Applying principles of neurodevelopment to clinical work with maltreated and traumatized children
In Working with Traumatized Youth in Child Welfare
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-01104-003
UN General Assembly (2015).
The Mandela Rules (Revised Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners)
https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/Nelson_Mandela_Rules-E-ebook.pdf
