{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,17]],"date-time":"2026-04-17T14:31:09Z","timestamp":1776436269817,"version":"3.51.2"},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Oxford University Press (OUP)","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2019,9,25]],"date-time":"2019-09-25T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1569369600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019,10,25]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n               <jats:p>Solitary confinement is not cruel and unusual punishment. It is cruel and unusual if one or more of its accompanying material conditions result in a wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain upon an individual. This requirement is met when such conditions involve a \u201cdeprivation of basic identifiable human needs\u201d to an extent that they inflict harm or create a \u201csubstantial risk of serious harm\u201d and they are enacted with \u201cdeliberate indifference\u201d by prison personnel. With limited exceptions, the Supreme Court and lower federal courts have perpetuated a narrow application of these standards. In particular, Courts have often discounted the generalized mental pain caused by extreme isolation. Accordingly, Courts have often neglected the duration of solitary confinement as an autonomous aspect of constitutional scrutiny. Growing neuroscientific research has emphasized that social interaction and environmental stimulation are of vital importance for physiological brain function. It has further highlighted that socio-environmental deprivation can have damaging effects on the brain, many of which may entail irreversible consequences. Drawing on these insights, this article suggests that solitary confinement is in and of itself cruel and unusual punishment even under the current standards. Avenues for a profound rethinking of solitary confinement regimes are presented and discussed.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1093\/jlb\/lsz014","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2019,8,17]],"date-time":"2019-08-17T19:12:34Z","timestamp":1566069154000},"page":"184-225","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":17,"title":["The brain in solitude: an (other) eighth amendment challenge to solitary confinement"],"prefix":"10.1093","volume":"6","author":[{"given":"Federica","family":"Coppola","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Columbia University in the City of New York, The Center for Science and Society, New York, NY, USA"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"286","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2019,9,25]]},"container-title":["Journal of Law and the Biosciences"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"http:\/\/academic.oup.com\/jlb\/article-pdf\/6\/1\/184\/30794221\/lsz014.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"syndication"},{"URL":"http:\/\/academic.oup.com\/jlb\/article-pdf\/6\/1\/184\/30794221\/lsz014.pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2019,11,15]],"date-time":"2019-11-15T09:20:14Z","timestamp":1573809614000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/academic.oup.com\/jlb\/article\/6\/1\/184\/5573653"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2019,9,25]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2019,9,25]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2019,10,25]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/jlb\/lsz014","relation":{},"ISSN":["2053-9711"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2053-9711","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published-other":{"date-parts":[[2019,10]]},"published":{"date-parts":[[2019,9,25]]}}}