Providing for solitary confinement.
SB 788 would add a new chapter to Title 61 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes to prohibit solitary confinement in correctional institutions and facilities. The bill defines solitary confinement broadly to include confinement for disciplinary, administrative, protective, investigative, medical, or other classification purposes when an inmate is held alone or with others for about 20 hours or more per day with severely restricted activity, movement, and social interaction.
Instead of solitary confinement, the bill requires prisons and other covered facilities to use alternative disciplinary measures. Those alternatives include limiting contact visits, restricting visitors to immediate family, loss of work opportunities, additional unpaid work duties for up to 14 days, temporary loss of phone, entertainment, yard, or commissary privileges, confinement to the inmate’s own cell in the general population area, and reprimands or warnings. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.
The bill would significantly change correctional policy in Pennsylvania by barring the use of solitary confinement in state prisons, county jails, juvenile facilities, and certain contracted or interstate detention settings, including facilities holding people for federal agencies such as ICE. It would create a new statutory chapter in Title 61 and require covered institutions to adopt non-isolation disciplinary options, limiting the use of prolonged restrictive housing and reshaping disciplinary, protective, and administrative practices for inmates and juveniles.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee transcripts or votes, the available context suggests a reform-oriented proposal aimed at restricting harsh incarceration practices. The sponsors’ introduction of the bill indicates support for ending solitary confinement, but there is no recorded vote history here to show broader legislative sentiment. Overall, the measure appears to be framed as a humane corrections reform rather than a punitive change.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s categorical ban on solitary confinement, including in situations traditionally justified for safety, protection, investigation, medical management, or discipline. Opponents may argue that correctional administrators need isolation as a tool to manage dangerous behavior, protect vulnerable inmates, or maintain order, while supporters are likely to emphasize the psychological and physical harms of prolonged isolation and the availability of alternative sanctions. The bill’s broad application to state, county, juvenile, and contracted detention settings may also raise operational and cost concerns for affected agencies.