This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by KING, R. D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Rise and Rise of Supermax

An American Solution in Search of a Problem?

University of Wales, Bangor, UK

In the last decade there has been a dramatic growth in the use of so-called super-maximum security custody in the United States. At the end of 1998 some 20,000 prisoners or 1.8 percent of all those serving sentences of a year or more in state and federal prisons were accommodated in such facilities. Most supermax facilities, including the Federal ADX at Florence Colorado and those in 30 states, have been newly constructed although some states have retro-fitted existing buildings either instead of, or in addition to, new build. In such facilities prisoners who loosely defined as the `worst of the worst' are kept in near total lock-down situations, sometimes for very long periods and often without clear entry and exit criteria, ostensibly to protect staff, other prisoners and the public. This article examines the origins and proliferation of supermax custody in the United States, and identifies some of the problems that are associated with its use and abuse, which will be explored in greater depth in subsequent papers. On the basis of comparisons with European experience, where resort to such levels of restrictive custody has been typically on a much smaller and more time limited scale, and has involved little new building, this article questions whether the development of supermax custody in the United States is either a necessary or a proportionate response to the problems actually experienced.

Key Words: control prisons • prisons • supermaximum security custody

Punishment & Society, Vol. 1, No. 2, 163-186 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/14624749922227766


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. D. King and S. L. Resodihardjo To max or not to max: Dealing with high risk prisoners in the Netherlands and England and Wales Punishment Society, January 1, 2010; 12(1): 65 - 84. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Naday, J. D. Freilich, and J. Mellow The Elusive Data on Supermax Confinement The Prison Journal, March 1, 2008; 88(1): 69 - 93. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Colvin Applying Differential Coercion and Social Support Theory to Prison Organizations: The Case of the Penitentiary of New Mexico The Prison Journal, September 1, 2007; 87(3): 367 - 387. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. P. Mears and M. D. Reisig The theory and practice of supermax prisons Punishment Society, January 1, 2006; 8(1): 33 - 57. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Martin Book Review: Going up the river: Travels in a prison nation Punishment Society, January 1, 2002; 4(1): 123 - 125. [PDF]

				D. DOWNES The Macho Penal Economy: Mass Incarceration in the United States - A European Perspective Punishment Society, January 1, 2001; 3(1): 61 - 80. [Abstract] [PDF]

				L. WACQUANT Deadly Symbiosis: When Ghetto and Prison Meet and Mesh Punishment Society, January 1, 2001; 3(1): 95 - 133. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. MORGAN Developing Prison Standards Compared Punishment Society, July 1, 2000; 2(3): 325 - 342. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Shichor Penal Policies at the Threshold of the Twenty-First Century Criminal Justice Review, May 1, 2000; 25(1): 1 - 30. [Abstract] [PDF]