Providing for solitary confinement.
Senate Bill 787 would create a new chapter in Title 61 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes governing the use of solitary confinement in state and county correctional institutions, juvenile facilities, and certain interstate or contract detention settings, including facilities holding people for federal immigration authorities. The bill defines solitary confinement broadly and then sharply limits when it may be used, requiring a showing of immediate serious harm, a disciplinary sanction, medical and mental health screening, and approval by the chief administrator. It also requires prompt hearings, periodic review, legal counsel at hearings, written reasons for confinement, and strict time limits on confinement, generally capping it at 15 consecutive days and 20 days in a 60-day period, with additional limits during lockdowns and pending investigations.
The bill also creates special protections for people it defines as members of vulnerable populations, including inmates age 21 or younger, age 55 or older, pregnant or postpartum inmates, people who recently experienced pregnancy loss, people perceived as LGBTQ+, and inmates with certain mental health or intellectual/developmental conditions. These individuals generally could not be placed in solitary confinement and would instead be diverted to specialized units or other placements. The bill further restricts the use of restraints, chemical agents, and constant lighting, requires access to necessities and medical care, and bars direct release from solitary confinement to the public in the final 180 days of a sentence absent safety concerns.
In addition to limiting solitary confinement itself, the bill requires the Department of Corrections secretary to develop policies, step-down and transitional units, staffing patterns, and regulations to reduce isolation and expand alternatives. It mandates alternative disciplinary measures, rehabilitation services after release from solitary confinement, an independent investigator to monitor compliance, a hearing review board to adjudicate misconduct complaints, and quarterly public reporting on the use of solitary confinement and related incidents. It also authorizes affected individuals to seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for violations.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s sponsorship is reform-oriented and restrictive of solitary confinement, with the measure introduced by a group of senators associated with criminal justice and civil rights reform. No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence in the supplied materials showing support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the bill appears designed to reduce the use of isolation, increase oversight, and improve conditions for incarcerated people, especially those considered vulnerable.
The main points of contention likely would be the bill’s broad limits on when solitary confinement may be used, the short maximum durations, the requirement for counsel and independent review, and the exclusion of vulnerable populations from isolation. Correctional administrators and county facilities may object to the operational burden, staffing demands, and reduced disciplinary flexibility, while advocates for incarcerated people would likely support the stronger due process, health protections, and reporting requirements.
SB787 would substantially amend Pennsylvania’s prison and parole law by adding a new statutory chapter that regulates solitary confinement across state prisons, county jails, juvenile detention settings, and certain contract or interstate facilities. It would impose new procedural safeguards, substantive limits, reporting duties, oversight mechanisms, and enforcement remedies, while also requiring the Department of Corrections to promulgate regulations and develop alternative housing and disciplinary systems. The bill would affect correctional institutions, incarcerated people, medical and mental health staff, hearing officers, and the Department of Corrections, and it would create potential civil liability for violations.
The bill’s text reflects a strong reform and anti-isolation posture, emphasizing restraint, oversight, mental health protections, and alternatives to solitary confinement. Because no committee discussion or votes were provided, there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition in the supplied materials. The sponsorship pattern suggests a coalition likely sympathetic to criminal justice reform and prisoner rights, while the structure of the bill indicates anticipated resistance from correctional administrators concerned about safety, staffing, and institutional control.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s strict limits on solitary confinement, especially the 15-day and 20-day caps, the requirement that vulnerable populations be excluded from solitary confinement, and the mandate for counsel, independent hearings, and frequent clinical review. Correctional institutions and county facilities may argue that the bill constrains their ability to manage dangerous behavior, emergencies, lockdowns, and protective custody needs, and that it imposes significant staffing, training, and facility redesign costs. Supporters would likely focus on due process, mental health harms, suicide prevention, and protections for youth, older adults, pregnant people, LGBTQ+ inmates, and people with disabilities.