Over the past week and a half rogue corrections officer walkouts have put prisons across the state into a panic. The officers say they want the Humane Alternatives to Long-Term Solitary Confinement Act, or HALT, repealed for safety reasons. But would repealing HALT actually make prisons more safe?
This week on the Disabilities Beat, WBFO’s Emyle Watkins spoke with Ify Chikezie, a staff attorney at the NYCLU about what a repeal of HALT would mean for incarcerated disabled people who are currently protected from solitary confinement under the law.
FULL INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript provided by a contractor and may be updated over time to be more accurate.
Emyle Watkins: Thank you so much for taking the time to chat with me on WBFO today.
Ify Chikezie: Yeah, of course. Happy to be here.
Emyle Watkins: To start, tell me a little bit about what you do at the NYCLU and how you became involved with or learned about the HALT Act.
Ify Chikezie: Happy to. I'm a staff attorney at the NYCLU. I litigate on a wide range of civil rights and civil liberties issues, which include issues related to prisons and jails across New York State. I got involved in this work because my pre-NYCLU life in law school and prior involves human rights work. I was involved in this work, including even in law school. I was on a case where we were challenging solitary confinement as applied to folks who are living with disabilities. So coming to the NYCLU, being involved in our state practice, I was excited by the opportunity to continue focusing on detention issues broadly and on solitary confinement specifically.
And here at NYCLU, one of the many cases that I am involved on directly relates to the HALT Act. I am counsel on Fields versus Marticello, which is a case brought on behalf of a class of folks incarcerated in prisons all across the state, challenging some of DOCCS's, unfortunately, many violations of the HALT Act, which is, of course, supposed to dramatically, dramatically limit the number of people DOCCS places in solitary confinement, prohibits certain populations from being put in solitary at any point in time, and then really dictates limits on when DOCCS can put people in solitary.
Emyle Watkins: For people who aren't familiar, could you just elaborate a little bit more on what HALT did when it was passed in 2021, or what it was supposed to do? Because I know that some aspects of it are being enforced through litigation as you mentioned.
Ify Chikezie: Yeah, for sure. So HALT was passed, like I said, to limit the use of solitary confinement. So it says a few things, but to start, it says that individuals who are above a certain age, below a certain age, who are living with disabilities, certain types of people can never be held in solitary confinement. Prior to HALT, DOCCS routinely held thousands of people in solitary confinement, and sometimes they were held there for years or decades. The HALT Act also says that, if DOCCS is to place anyone in solitary confinement, it can only do so in certain types of cases. So the HALT Act lists out the sorts of incidents that might result in placement in solitary confinement, and the HALT Act requires DOCCS to go above and beyond to find that an incident was so heinous, so egregious, so destructive, imperiled safety, imperiled safety of individuals, imperiled security before an individual can even be placed in solitary confinement.
The HALT Act also created alternative units to solitary confinement, which in theory are supposed to be less restrictive. So it involves the creation of residential rehabilitative units and for individuals who receive long-term disciplinary sanctions instead of being held in solitary, like I mentioned, for years and decades as DOCCS used to routinely do, they are supposed to be held in these other types of units. However, this is in theory all supposed to limit dramatically New York State's reliance upon solitary confinement. However, we've seen consistently since the law was passed, since the law came into effect that DOCCS has not been following the law.
Emyle Watkins: And as you mentioned, you're part of one of those cases. Can you talk about that case and any others about what are some of those ways that DOCCS allegedly hasn't been fully enforcing the HALT Act?
Ify Chikezie: Sure, I'm happy to. I'm counsel on a case called Fields versus Marticello, and this case challenges DOCCS's noncompliance with provisions that it is supposed to follow prior to putting anyone in solitary confinement. So one of the many things that the law does is say, "Okay, before anyone can be placed in solitary, two requirements have to be met." First, the individual must have committed one of a few listed acts. For example, if it's assault, it must have caused serious physical injury. And second, provided that an individual did commit one of those acts, DOCCS has to make a separate written finding based on some objective criteria that the act rose to a very high level of seriousness and catastrophe prior to putting anyone in solitary. That is the law. Our lawsuit though came about because we heard many, many, many reports of DOCCS not following these requirements and putting people in solitary confinement for actions that were not serious, were not harmful, were not included in the very specific list that the HALT Act listed.
We are counsel on this lawsuit with Prisoners Legal Services and they provide direct services to folks incarcerated across the state, and they also had seen many of these examples. So we brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of individuals, and actually just last summer, the court ruled in our client's favor. The court held that, yes, DOCCS Widespread been adopting a policy and practice that violates the HALT Act and the court order DOCCS to immediately comply with its requirements to adhere to those two requirements that I mentioned before it places anyone in solitary, and to the extent that it had not been adhering, all of those determinations under the court's order should be null and void.
Emyle Watkins: What are some of the actions that they were placing people into solitary confinement for that they shouldn't have been?
Ify Chikezie: Sure. So for example, they would place people into solitary confinement for having contraband or for a fact pattern we see sometimes is for maybe defecation, for threats, for many non-violent actions as well. Although, under the law, even for actions that allegedly are more serious, the HALT Act does say that there has to be a finding that they are above a certain level of seriousness. It's like a procedural requirement, that they're at a certain level of seriousness before anyone is held in solitary confinement.
Emyle Watkins: Why does the NYCLU oppose solitary confinement and support the HALT Act?
Ify Chikezie: We oppose solitary confinement because it's abuse, it is a torturous practice. I'd say this is extremely well established. There's a lot of research. There are international bodies have recognized. Courts actually many times have recognized that solitary abuse, depriving people of social interaction, depriving them of different types of stimuli, et cetera, have very, very serious consequences on people, long-lasting consequences on people. So we are opposed to solitary confinement in recognition of how severe and torturous practice is. In addition, there is great evidence, it's also very well established, that eliminating solitary confinement actually improves health and improves the safety of both individuals and facilities. So not only if solitary confinement an abusive practice but eliminating it actually has many benefits.
So we are supporting the HALT Act and feel very strongly that it must be followed to the letter of the law as the legislature clearly intended it to protect people who are on the inside, to protect people's health, and also because eliminating solitary confinement has safety benefits and avoids some of the negative irreversible consequences that we see.
Emyle Watkins: People with disabilities are specifically excluded from solitary confinement under the HALT Act. Why is that? Is solitary confinement especially dangerous for people with disabilities?
Ify Chikezie: Yeah, solitary confinement certainly is especially dangerous for people with disabilities. People with disabilities are also compared to some other groups more susceptible to be placed in solitary confinement. But as I mentioned, there's lots of data out there about the severity of the abuse, and this can be uniquely harmful for people who are living with disabilities. For example, the physiological consequences of solitary confinement can be particularly harmful. In addition, there's good data out there that placement in solitary confinement can exacerbate individuals' pre-existing conditions.
So based on some of that research, the legislature did say, "Okay, to the extent that DOCCS implements solitary confinement and what should be a very limited circumscribed way, it is never safe to put someone who is living with disabilities in solitary confinement due to," like I said, "the unique ways that it is especially detrimental for folks with disabilities."
Emyle Watkins: Some correction officers would like to see HALT repealed. They say that it would make prisons safer. What would really happen if HALT was repealed or suspended for a substantial amount of time? What realistically might that look like in prisons?
Ify Chikezie: Yeah, if HALT was repealed or suspended, it would do the exact opposite of what DOCCS is claiming it will do. It will make prisons more dangerous. It will lead to people being seriously harmed. It will lead to people dying. Solitary confinement is lethal and going back on the HALT ACT will result in more people being held in solitary confinement. We also know that when solitary confinement is used, disproportionately people living with disabilities are held in solitary. Disproportionately people who are Black and Brown are held in solitary. So to suspend the HALT Act or to repeal the HALT Act would have devastating immediate long-lasting consequences and will not improve safety and security. It will do the opposite. And I'll also note that since the HALT Act came into effect, there have been multiple lawsuits against DOCCS calling for it to adhere to the HALT Act.
And this attempt to suspend parts of the HALT Act is just one in a long line of attempts by DOCCS to avoid its obligations under the HALT Act. And I don't think it is a coincidence that it comes while the agency is under very well-deserved scrutiny for its abuse of people on the inside, including the murder of Robert Brooks by multiple DOCCS employees. So to the extent that there is this concern about the HALT Act and what it will do, I would say that the timing while DOCCS is under scrutiny arguably is not an accident. And all of the data that we have about solitary confinement and its impact suggests that HALT should be upheld, solitary should be eliminated, and not the opposite like DOCCS is trying to push now.
Emyle Watkins: What are some things that would make prisons safer both for people who are incarcerated and for the workers who enter those facilities every day?
Ify Chikezie: I don't know if I'm the best positioned on how to construct prisons and jails because obviously they are inherently punitive institutions. There's a lot of a lack of transparency, which going back to the murder of Robert Brooks, we saw correctional officers filming themselves abusing and ultimately murdering this individual. There are reports all of the time of folks who are assaulted or beat up by staff, and we don't always have the visibility that we have now. But I would say that a starting point based on the data that we do have is to eliminate unduly punitive practices, abusive practices, torturous practices. So I would say, and obviously I litigate on solitary confinement, but I would say that a very, very important starting point is to eliminate the use of solitary confinement across prisons across the state of New York.
Emyle Watkins: But it sounds like this isn't a simple issue where you can just add one law, repeal a law, and these prisons are instantly safer.
Ify Chikezie: I would say, unfortunately, we can't say just adding a law will do enough. And I think this is part of what the story of the HALT Act is. The legislature took both an important stand and a very evidence-based stand in passing HALT, and what we've seen is passing that law was not enough to result in a change of practices. For example, on the case on which I'm counsel, we are continuing to try to make sure that DOCCS complies both with the HALT Act and with the court ruling, and we've seen continued efforts to thwart and avoid that. Unfortunately, just the mere passage of the law isn't enough to change practice, but I do believe that if DOCCS were to adhere with the strict limits that exist, that would be to the benefit of folks who are on the inside and it would make conditions safer for all people.
Emyle Watkins: Something I've heard while covering this is a lot of language around: "there's good guys and there's bad guys," and in all of this, I'm trying to make sure we also humanize incarcerated people because I think that's something that gets lost in this conversation, is who the people are that we're talking about that could be potentially placed under solitary confinement. I'm wondering, as an attorney, can you tell me anything about the people that you've represented or served or just how would you characterize the people that you represent in court?
Ify Chikezie: Sure. The people that I represent are brave plaintiffs. Our class members are all people who are deserving of dignity, who are not deserving of abuse, who are not deserving of torture. And with the HALT ACT being suspended, these same people are going to be subject to conditions that we know are torturous and extremely serious, extremely harmful, often lethal. And that is something that folks on the inside are not deserving of. And for example, one of our plaintiffs in Fields versus Marticello was sentenced to solitary confinement allegedly for tossing sugar packets in the direction of a correctional officer. This is but one example of many where folks are being penalized very, very harshly and without the scrutiny that the HALT Act says should be applied for actions for which they're not deserving.
But at the end of the day, our clients are people who are incarcerated and just because that they are behind bars does not mean that we as a society should suspend our dignity, suspend any semblance of morality, and sentence these people to die, which often is what it means to put someone in solitary confinement for significant periods of time. And even at short periods of time, we know that putting someone in solitary is extremely detrimental and irreversible. And so I'd want people to know that no one deserves that. Clients don't deserve that. Folks who are incarcerated and who are currently subject to extreme lockdowns who are currently not being given access to food, to medicine, just no one deserves to live under conditions like that.
Emyle Watkins: Thank you so much for taking the time to elaborate on such a difficult and complex issue.
Ify Chikezie: Yeah, no worries. Thank you for speaking to me about this.
