In supermaxes with a pattern of excessive staff violence, management has tacitly condoned the abuse by failing to investigate and hold accountable those who engage in it. Internal Review and Public Scrutiny Corrections authorities must be able to exercise discretion and professional judgment in choosing where to confine inmates, but the exercise of such discretion carries the inherent risk of arbitrariness or error. Because of the extreme nature of supermax conditions, particular precautions are needed to minimize those risks and to ensure that no inmate is sent to, nor kept unnecessarily in, supermax confinement. Unfortunately, in most jurisdictions, the criteria for determining entry to and exit from supermax confinement are so vague that arbitrariness and unfairness are inevitable. Few jurisdictions, moreover, have adequate internal review systems to provide a check to unnecessary supermax confinement.
Inmates also have scant opportunity to challenge supermax decisions.
Some jurisdictions do not provide inmates with a hearing. Where hearings are provided, they are frequently meaningless formalities. Once an inmate is in a supermax, there is usually some sort of periodic review to determine if there is a need for continued segregation or, in facilities with progressive incentive levels, whether an inmate should be moved up or down. Unfortunately, the reviews are often perfunctory, concluding with reiterations of stale justifications. Principled leadership, careful staff training and supervision, and effective internal review processes can help minimize the possibilities of unnecessary supermax confinement as well as abusive conduct by correctional officers.