ACLU Finds Dangerous Overuse of Solitary Confinement for Nebraska Youth
Some facilities send young people to solitary for as long as three months, despite medical evidence that extreme isolation can permanently damage adolescents’ brains.
LINCOLN, Neb – Today the ACLU of Nebraska released . The report presents first of its kind comprehensive research regarding solitary confinement in Nebraska county and state facilities. The ACLU found that a young person in some Nebraska youth facilities can be held in solitary confinement for as long as 90 days. Mental health experts have found that the depriving young people of contact with others for over 4 hours can have devastating long-term impacts on children's health and wellbeing. Placing a juvenile in solitary confinement leads to psychological damage, increase suicide rates, hampered educational outcomes, and overall stunted development.
“Before they are old enough to get a driver’s license, enlist in the armed forces or vote, some children in Nebraska are held in solitary confinement for days, weeks, even months. As the stories in our report show, the youth placed in solitary confinement are often in need of support – not a cage. The experts agree – what Nebraska is doing is harmful to youth and does nothing to improve public safety. This research makes clear that the polices and usage for solitary confinement among vulnerable Nebraskans truly shocks the conscience. We can and must do better,” said Danielle Conrad, ACLU of Nebraska Executive Director.
The research conducted by the ACLU looked at solitary confinement in five county facilities and two state facilities from 2014 to 2015. In addition to evaluating the polices and usage logs for solitary confinement in these facilities the ACLU has also been in contact with Nebraskans who experienced the system and these destructive punitive methods first hand. Among the personal stories included in the report is that of Jacob Rusher who spent time in solitary confinement on three separate occasions as a teen, on one occasion for defending himself when older kids tried to bully him.
“It was 23 hours a day alone, no TV or radio,” Rusher says in the report. “You were in there with one book, a blanket, a mat and a toothbrush…you’re a kid, you don’t even know how to deal with normal emotions yet—then you’re sitting there by yourself, nowhere to go and every negative thing you’ve been told about yourself seems to be coming true...they go to the system for correction—they go in as sheep—and they come out as wolves. If a factory pumped out a bad product over and over again, you wouldn’t blame the product, you’d go back to the factory and try to fix that instead.”
The ACLU found a wide range of policy and practice across the facilities it studied. Among the findings of most concern:
- Douglas County and Scotts Bluff County lack systems to track or log the amount of time spent in solitary confinement.
- Sarpy County has no written policy governing use of solitary confinement.
- Lancaster County permits use of solitary for rule violations such as “too many books in room” or “digging for cookies.”
- Nebraska Department of Corrections permits use of solitary for up to 90 days when experts agree that lasting damage to a young person happens after 4 hours.
- Northeast Nebraska Juvenile Services permits use of solitary for up to 9 days.
- Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services facilities permits the use of solitary for up to 5 days.
Among the reforms suggested in the report:
- Joining the growing number of states banning solitary confinement for youth.
- Limiting solitary confinement to a last-resort and for no more than 4 hours.
- Providing due-process and an appeals process.
- Requiring facility director permission for placement of a youth beyond four hours and mandatory mental health assessments of youth placed in solitary for this period.
- Mandatory reporting for facilities use of solitary.
- Mandatory staff training on alternatives to solitary.
“The ACLU of Nebraska calls for an end to this abhorrent practice. However, while our position is unequivocal we understand that change does not happen easily or overnight. Thus, we urge at the very least that our state should establish basic state level oversight over when and how vulnerable youth are placed in solitary confinement. We must come together to remedy this situation with all deliberate speed in order to protect vulnerable youth, mitigate legal liabilities, and ensure a safer and brighter future for all Nebraskans,” said Conrad.
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Criminal Law Reform
ACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law AllowsACLU Sues Bureau of Prisons for Keeping People in Prison Longer Than the Law Allows
WASHINGTON – A federal lawsuit brought today by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., and Jenner & Block LLP challenges the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) for unlawfully incarcerating people longer than the law allows under the First Step Act. The lawsuit contends that the BOP’s failure to implement the First Step Act according to its plain language violates the rights of thousands of people who should be returning to their communities and rebuilding their lives but instead remain incarcerated. Signed into law in 2018 by then-President Donald Trump, the bipartisan First Step Act was designed to reduce the population in federal prisons, reform extreme sentencing laws, and provide programming and reentry transition services to people in prison. Central to the First Step Act is a system of earned time credits, which allows people in prison to earn time off their sentences and time out of prison by participating in rehabilitation programs. Through the First Step Act, Congress unambiguously ordered BOP to move people out of prison when they meet certain requirements to use their earned time credits. Instead of faithfully following the mandatory law, BOP adopted a regulation treating the law as optional. As a result, thousands of people, who should already be back in their communities and with their families, remain in prison. “Every extra unlawful day our clients spend in prison is a serious injustice,” said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the Criminal Law Reform Project at the ACLU. “It is egregious that the Bureau of Prisons is imprisoning people for months longer than the law allows. The government must follow through on its legal obligation to get people out of prison on time and back into their communities, where they belong.” Additional comments below from: Vanessa Crowe, plaintiff: “Time is what I owed for my wrongdoing, and I have paid my time. But I should not have to spend more time in prison than the law allows. I often reflect on what I will miss during the months after when I should be out of prison. I will miss work and lose out on wages that would help me get back on my feet. I could be a tax paying citizen instead of a burden on society. But most of all, I will miss more precious time with my family. My family and I are ready to tum the page on this period in our lives — we are all ready to start a new life, a life with purpose, hope, and healing together. I want to start that life when I am legally entitled to start it-not five months later.” Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at ACLU of D.C.: “There’s no excuse for the Bureau of Prisons to pretend not to understand Congress’s clear command that people who have earned the right to early release must be released. This law has been on the books for six years. The Bureau of Prisons has had plenty of time to understand it. Law enforcers should obey the law.” Betsy Henthorne, partner at Jenner & Block: “It has been six years since the First Step Act was signed, but despite Congress’s clear directives, the Bureau of Prisons continues to hold thousands of people in prison longer than the law allows. We should and do expect better—it’s past time for the BOP to ensure that those who have earned their release are able to return home to their families and communities according to the law Congress passed.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
National Security
Prisoners' Rights
ACLU Statement on Senator’s Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya BerryACLU Statement on Senator’s Discriminatory Questioning of Civil Rights Leader Maya Berry
WASHINGTON — American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony D. Romero, released the following statement regarding Sen. John Kennedy’s questioning of Maya Berry, the executive director of the Arab American Institute: “The American Civil Liberties Union condemns this discriminatory and vitriolic attack on Maya Berry, a renowned civil rights leader, and joins the chorus of voices from across the political spectrum in denouncing these remarks. “To use a hearing about the disturbing rise in anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and antisemitic hate crimes to launch personal and discriminatory attacks on an expert witness they’ve invited to testify is both outrageous and inappropriate. This kind of racist rhetoric should be widely condemned. It has no place in Congress, or in politics. “Maya Berry is a courageous and compassionate leader who has spent her entire career working to strengthen our democracy and protect the rights of Arab American communities, and other vulnerable communities who face discrimination and targeting because of their ethnicity, race, or religion.” -
Ohio Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
State v. MorrisState v. Morris
This case in the Ohio Supreme Court concerns the scope of the state constitutional right to counsel. The police in this case interrogated the defendant, Isaiah Morris, without mentioning his already-appointed counsel or asking him to waive his right to counsel. This procedural circumstance risks confusing criminal defendants and undermining their state constitutional rights. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Ohio and WilmerHale, filed an amicus brief arguing that merely providing a defendant notice of Miranda rights falls short of the bare minimum requirements for a valid waiver. -
Oregon Supreme CourtSep 2024
Prisoners' Rights
Huskey v. Oregon Department of CorrectionsHuskey v. Oregon Department of Corrections
This case in the Oregon Supreme Court centers on whether Article I, Section 41(3) of the Oregon Constitution, which provides that Oregon prisoners lack legally enforceable rights to prison jobs and training, bars prisoners from collecting damages relating to lost prison jobs and training caused by the alleged breach of a settlement agreement by prison officials. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Oregon, filed an amicus brief arguing that that plaintiff Arnold Huskey, an incarcerated individual whose identity was used in Department of Corrections training materials, is entitled to damages notwithstanding Article I, Section 41(3), because plaintiffs in contract disputes never have to show standalone legal rights to the damages they claim. Instead, they need only show that the damages were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the alleged breach of contract.