Will Nelson Mandela's Solitary Confinement Inspire Positive Change?

It's a short walk from my hotel here in Cape Town to the waterfront. From there you can see Robben Island, the notorious prison where Nelson Mandela and other freedom fighters were incarcerated during the darkest days of apartheid.

During his 27 years of captivity, Mandela suffered hunger, forced labor, and physical abuse. Despite all the hardships Mandela endured, he found solitary confinement to be "the most forbidding aspect of prison life."

That history, and South Africa's subsequent transformation from international pariah to a human rights leader in Africa, is one reason why Cape Town is the logical choice for the Intergovernmental Expert Group Meeting on the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (SMRs). This coming week, I will be representing the ACLU to ensure robust protections against solitary confinement are a top priority of the SMRs.

The SMRs are the leading international standards for the treatment of incarcerated persons. While not binding, the SMRs are widely respected throughout the world. They've been cited by the U.S. Supreme Court, and the State Department uses them to evaluate the conditions under which U.S. citizens are incarcerated abroad.

In a 2011 report, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, Juan Mendez, concluded that "solitary confinement is a harsh measure which may cause serious psychological and physiological adverse effects on individuals regardless of their specific conditions," and that it can constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and even torture. He called for a ban on the solitary confinement of children and persons with mental disabilities as well as an end to indefinite or prolonged solitary confinement, which he defined as anything longer than 15 days.

The main problem is that the SMRs were written in 1955, and they haven't been comprehensively revised since then. Not surprisingly, they're outdated in many ways – they don't address the rights of LGBT prisoners or those with disabilities; they fail to account for advances in technology over the last 60 years; and they use terms that we now recognize as inaccurate and offensive, like "insane" and "mentally abnormal." And with the global prison population now standing at nine million, the need for the SMRs has never been more pressing.

Unfortunately, the U.S. delegation has not always played a progressive role in the SMR review process. At an earlier meeting in Buenos Aires, it opposed any meaningful limits on solitary confinement, such as a maximum duration or the exclusion of vulnerable populations, like children and persons with mental illness.

In the days to come, I will be meeting with delegates from around the globe to zero in on the rights of prisoners who are suffering unnecessarily as a result of solitary confinement. Ensuring protections for those who cannot protect themselves will be the crux of my work in Cape Town.

We can only hope the official U.S. delegation has the same end goal in mind.

Learn more about solitary confinement and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alertsfollow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

View comments (2)
Read the Terms of Use


I am astonished at the fact that U.S. Delegate will not update or even modify the use of solitary confinement in the SMRs. Due to its high importance and widely known respect; these rules should be updated or modified as times change. In a modern world with technology around us, the SMRs fail to see how the world has changed and how more people’s rights are advocated for.

Long-term or indefinite solitary confinement is not humane and does not support prisoner’s rights. The common use of this punishment in prisons has been taken advantage of. This punishment should be available to those prisoners as a means of safety from other prisoners or as a punishment for the highest degree. The effects of solitary confinement are consequential to the human mind and body and can have severe complications after the punishment is over. As in, the prisoner will believe any wrongdoing on his part will automatically send him to confinement. That is not how prisoners should feel. Yes, they are in prison to correct their wrongdoings but keeping them in confinement is not the right way for them to be able to reform. The fact that China, in the United Nations’ meeting proposed for a maximum of 15 days of solitary confinement means that some countries are looking through the right glass. If China can do it, the United States should definitely be pressured to do the same.

Not only do the SMRs set the standards for treatment of prisoners they help institute their rights. I believe in your cause, and I wish you luck on your Cape Town expedition.


Depuis la montre beaucoup, qu'est-ce que cela signifie pour nous? Depuis la date de naissance de la , il a une mission de base - pratique. Les montres sont plus pratiques que la montre de poche, une table ultra-fine, bien sûr, plus pratique que les montres ordinaires, car elle est assez mince, donc peu importe le genre de vêtements que vous portez, il peut facilement se cacher dans les poignets, pas coincé là-bas , tandis que le poids général de la table ultra-mince Léger, ne pas presser la main, la porter très facilement. De plus, en raison de la petite taille, il est facile de transporter n'importe quelle boîte à table, ou même dans la poche. De l'usure quotidienne et du point de vue, la table ultra-mince a sans aucun doute des avantages évidents. La table ultra-fine représente également l'élégance.

Stay Informed