Prison Solitary Confinement Reform

Summary#

SB-1192 would amend Michigan’s Corrections Code of 1953 and add rules on solitary confinement, alternative units, lockdowns and restraints in state prisons. Its stated goal is to establish regulations for certain uses of segregation. The bill is introduced, is not law, and would take effect only if SB-1193 is also enacted.

  • It defines solitary confinement as isolation from the general prison population for 16 or more hours a day, whatever the placement is called. It bars that placement for prisoners in a defined “vulnerable population,” and sets limits and conditions for other prisoners.
  • It requires health checks, treatment options, minimum services and access to visits and calls for prisoners in specified placements. It also sets rules for protective custody when a prisoner fears for their safety.
  • It limits lockdowns and requires reports about placements, lockdowns and restraints. It also restricts forced-flexion restraints and some uses of chemical agents.
  • The Department of Corrections would run these rules. Its facilities, staff and health professionals would have new duties; the legislative corrections ombudsman, the legislature and protection-and-advocacy organizations would receive reports.
  • It changes prisoner-hearing rules, including a five-day deadline for a hearing after a misconduct notice, required supports for meaningful participation, and a right to have an advocate or health care provider at hearings about misconduct that could lead to punitive solitary confinement.

What it means for you#

  • Prisoners: The bill’s vulnerable-population list includes people 21 or younger or 65 or older; people with specified mental-health, developmental, cognitive, medical or sensory conditions; people who are pregnant or recently gave birth, miscarried or ended a pregnancy; people who are or are perceived to be LGBTQ or intersex; and people with certain histories or signs of mental-health needs. They could not be placed in solitary confinement, but could be placed in an alternative unit with a step-down program or therapeutic space.
  • Other prisoners: Solitary confinement would generally be limited to 15 consecutive days and, for punitive placement, no more than 45 cumulative days in 180 days. Punishment would be limited to 10 days for one policy violation, or 15 days for two or more violations arising from one incident. The bill also sets health-check, treatment, service and communication requirements.
  • Prisoners fearing for their safety: The department would have to consult them on a safety plan. Protective custody would require the prisoner’s recorded consent, valid for one year, and would have to include at least eight hours a day outside the cell for activities including calls and contact visits.
  • Prison staff and health professionals: They would have new duties to check on prisoners, arrange examinations and treatment, keep records and follow limits on placement and restraints. The bill does not set staffing levels.
  • General public and taxpayers: The bill requires public reporting, but does not directly change taxes, fees or benefits.

Money#

No cost estimate or funding source is included in the supplied material. No publicly available information.

  • The bill would require staff time, health assessments, record-keeping, reports and working camera equipment, but gives no cost figures.
  • It requires the department to develop a restraint policy within 180 days. It does not specify a budget for that work.

What is unclear#

  • The Corrections Code sections being amended were not supplied, so the current law and exactly how these changes differ from existing rules could not be verified.
  • The bill does not give a start date. Its passage is uncertain, and it would not take effect unless SB-1193 also becomes law.
  • The text does not explain how the department would decide whether a prisoner meets some listed conditions, or how the bill’s rules would interact with existing prison policies and services.
  • It does not set out a full process for challenging placement decisions. It gives a review process for a qualified prisoner who contests a decision that they are not in a vulnerable population, but does not clearly explain the ombudsman’s role in reviewing that decision.
  • The bill requires therapeutic spaces and working cameras but does not say how many are needed or how facilities must meet those requirements.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it sets clear time limits and health checks for isolation, rather than leaving those protections to facility practice.
  • It bars solitary confinement for a broad set of prisoners who may be especially at risk, while providing alternative placements and access to services.
  • Required logs and public reports could make it easier to track how often isolation, lockdowns and restraints are used.
  • A safety plan with the prisoner’s consent could offer protection without treating protective custody as punishment.

Case against#

  • The bill imposes detailed duties on facilities but does not provide a cost estimate, funding source or staffing plan.
  • Some terms and decision processes are not fully explained, which could make it unclear how rules apply in particular cases.
  • Required health checks, reporting and camera records could be difficult to carry out consistently across facilities; the bill does not describe oversight of compliance beyond its reporting requirements.
  • The bill allows some placements in alternative units, but does not fully explain how those units will differ in practice from solitary confinement or how enough therapeutic spaces will be provided.