Florida's machinery of death keeps on churning

 The 17th Execution of 2026

Florida put to death one of its oldest prisoners in its history on Tuesday, a 74-year-old convicted murderer who was one of three older inmates scheduled for execution within the span of a month in the nation’s busiest death penalty state, reported The Associated Press.

Dennis Sochor was pronounced dead at 6:16 p.m. following a three-drug injection at Florida State Prison near Starke. He was convicted of killing Patricia Gifford on Jan. 1, 1982, just hours after meeting the 18-year-old woman at a New Year’s Eve party.

Sochor was already strapped to a gurney with an IV in his arm when the curtain to the death chamber went up at the 6 p.m. execution time. Asked by the warden if he had any last words, Sochor said he did.

He apologized several times to the Gifford family, saying he was “deeply sorry” and also thanked his own loved ones for their support over the years. Then he commended his spirit to Jesus Christ shortly before the drugs began flowing at 6:03 p.m.

Sochor underwent about a minute of heavy breathing and then some seconds of sputtering. After two minutes in which Sochor appeared to go still, the warden looked into his eyes, shook his shoulders and yelled his name without getting a response. A medic was summoned at 6:14 p.m., soon after pronouncing Sochor dead.

Another 74-year-old inmate just a week younger than Sochor at the time of execution was put to death last month. And later this month, the state is preparing to execute an 80-year-old, the state’s first octogenarian facing a lethal injection.

The execution plans highlight the aging death row population in the U.S. and the busy death chamber in Florida, which has now carried out 10 of the 16 executions conducted in the nation this year — more than every other state combined.

Marilyn Gifford, Patricia’s sister, said after witnessing the execution that Sochor’s death brings some closure to the family, but it’s bittersweet since her body has never been found. She encouraged anyone with information that could lead to the remains to contact authorities.

“He had 45 years to return Patty’s remains to us, but he cruelly chose not to,” Gifford said, reading from a statement. “We never got a chance to lay her to rest in God’s arms. Without closure, every happy memory of Patty is immediately crushed by the tragedy of her murder.”

Gifford also pointed out that Sochor got to live more than twice as long on death row as her sister lived her entire life. “Tonight’s execution was appropriate because Dennis Sochor was a lifelong brutal and sadistic man,” she said.

It’s unclear why Florida scheduled the executions of the three prisoners consecutively.

Maria DeLiberato, legal director of Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty, noted that in Florida the governor has practically sole discretion when it comes to scheduling executions. In many other death penalty states, the scheduling is up to the courts.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office did not respond to emailed requests for comment about the recent pace of the executions.

A New Year’s Day killing

According to court records, Gifford was celebrating the upcoming New Year with a friend at a Fort Lauderdale area bar when they met Sochor and his brother.

The four spent hours talking, but after the friend became ill and went to sleep in her car, Gifford left with Sochor and his brother to get breakfast. But instead of going for food, Sochor stopped his truck in a secluded area and attacked Gifford, according to investigators.

Sochor was later arrested in Georgia in 1986 on unrelated charges and extradited to Florida. Sochor’s brother told police Sochor was responsible for Gifford’s disappearance, and Sochor himself confessed on tape to choking Gifford and disposing of her body. A jury convicted him of first-degree murder and kidnapping in 1987, and he was sentenced to death.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Sochor’s final appeal without comment.

Oldest inmates executed in Florida

On June 25, Florida executed 74-year-old Dusty Ray Spencer for the killing of his wife Karen. Until Tuesday, Spencer was the oldest inmate executed in Florida.

According to Florida Department of Corrections records, the oldest inmates previously executed by the state were both 72: Samuel Lee Smithers on Oct. 14, 2025, for the 1996 killings of two women and R. Charlie Gifford on Feb. 21, 1951, for the 1950 shooting of a state representative, Charles Schuh Jr.

Meanwhile, Dominick Anthony Occhicone, 80, is scheduled to be executed July 28 for the killings of his ex-girlfriend’s parents.

If executed as planned, he would become the second oldest prisoner known to be put to death in modern U.S. history after 83-year-old Walter Moody Jr. Moody was executed in Alabama in 2018 for killing a federal judge and a Black civil rights attorney during a wave of Southern mail bombs.

To read more CLICK HERE

CREATORS: How Does The 25th Amendment Protect Democracy?

Matthew T. Mangino
CREATORS
July 15, 2026

A 2016 article in Psychology Today explored whether having a mental illness would make it difficult for a candidate to get elected president. The author, Guy Winch, Ph.D., cited a study by Jonathan Davidson of Duke University Medical Center that found that of the first 37 U.S. presidents, "half of those men had been afflicted by mental illness — and 27% met those criteria while in office, something that could have clearly affected their ability to perform their jobs."

The study found that 24% of presidents met the diagnostic criteria for depression, including James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Franklin Pierce, Abraham Lincoln, and Calvin Coolidge.

Davidson and his team also found evidence of anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder and alcohol dependence among sitting presidents.

Although the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can prevent an incompetent president from remaining in office, the amendment was not created specifically for that purpose.

The 25th Amendment addresses what happens to the presidency and vice presidency if the president and/or vice president dies, resigns or becomes incapacitated or disabled.

About two years after the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy, Congress recommended a succession amendment. On Feb. 23, 1967, former President Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy's successor, who, by the way, may have suffered from bipolar disorder, signed the 25th Amendment into law.

Imagine in 1867 or 1967 if the president made a profane-laced statement in reference to Iran that "a whole civilization will die tonight," or a president who frequently naps at meetings took on the Pope as "WEAK on crime, and terrible for Foreign Policy." Is an 80-year-old, at times rambling, president with — as noted by The Hill — dark, unexplained bruising spanning the back of both hands — appropriate for the 25th Amendment consideration?

Succession has been a problem since the infancy of America. The original Constitution allowed for the vice president to become acting president if the president died.

That wasn't good enough for John Tyler who became "Vice President Acting President" in 1841 when former President William Henry Harrison became the first president to die in office. Tyler moved into the White House and assumed full presidential powers, including giving an Inaugural Address.

The first few sections of the 25th Amendment are straightforward. First, if the president dies or resigns — think Richard Nixon — the vice president takes over. Second, if the vice president dies or resigns — think Spiro Agnew — the president appoints a replacement approved by Congress.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment is a little trickier.

Whenever the vice president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president.

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment has never been used, although officials considered invoking the section after the 1981 assassination attempt on Reagan.

However, like impeachment or indictment, the president has Due Process rights. The president can challenge the declaration of incapacity. If he or she does, the vice president and other administration officials must reassert the claims or the president resumes his authority.

If the claim is reasserted, Congress must decide the issue. Within 21 days of assembling, Congress must vote with a two-thirds majority of both houses that the president is unable to fulfill his constitutional responsibilities as president.

If the two-thirds super-majority is not met in both houses of Congress, "the president shall resume the powers and duties of his office."

For now, there is little chance of invoking the 25th Amendment. The President is Republican, the House is Republican, the Senate is Republican and the Vice-President is a sycophant. There are other options — the midterms are just months away ... a dramatic power shift is not out of the question.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book, "The Executioner's Toll," 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

To read more CLICK HERE

Clock is ticking on PA legislature's responsibility to address felony murder sentences

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled life in prison for felony murder unconstitutional in March. The court’s decision affected all convictions going forward but left it to the state Legislature to decide by July 24 how it would impact past convictions, leaving more than 1,100 others in limbo, reported the Prison Journalism Project.

A bill authored by Senate Republicans, which passed the chamber on June 25, would impose a minimum sentence of 35 years for second-degree murder except in cases where the defendant meets a strict set of guidelines proving they had no intention, knowledge or participation in the murder itself, in which case they could be sentenced to 10 to 40 years. The bill still allows for life sentences in certain cases.

A competing bill in the Democrat-led House caps sentences at 50 years and expands eligibility for parole after 25 years based on the defendant’s culpability in the crime and consideration of public and victim safety. That bill remains in committee.

If lawmakers cannot reach a consensus, the fate of those convicted of second-degree murder will go back to the court system for resentencing. The uncertainty for the women is exacerbated by limited access to information.

“I feel like there is a lack of information, even conflicting information,” said Tequilla Fields, 53, who has served 21 years in prison for second-degree murder charges stemming from a crime she committed when she was 18. “No one seems to know what’s really going on, not even the people outside. That makes it hard to know what to believe.”

Fields said the mandatory minimum of 35 years imposed by the Senate-led bill is too harsh. 

“Thirty-five years? It doesn’t seem fair, right or logical — it doesn’t make any sense,” Fields said. ”It’s too much time for someone who had no intention to kill anyone, or who didn’t kill someone at all. I do not trust the justice system at all. They don’t care about us. We’re not human beings to them.” 

Tameka Flowers, 51, who has been incarcerated for 31 years for second-degree murder, said a minimum sentence of 35 years serves the same function as a life-without-parole sentence.

Help PJP change the story by changing the storytellers.

Donate Now

“It is a blessing to have the opportunity to leave prison, but a minimum sentence of 35 is still a death sentence for most,” Flowers said. “They’re trying to sentence people as if they had the intent to kill when they didn’t.” 

Despite her anxiety over her own release, Reyes said she understands the reasoning behind the Senate bill’s 35-year minimum. 

“At the end of the day, we have to understand that a life was taken while we were there, even if we didn’t do it,” Reyes said. ”It’s a life sentence for them.” 

Markman said she was also thinking about her victim and their family.

“It’s hard for me to know that I might get a second chance at life, regardless of how many years from now it may be, but they will not be,” Markman said.

If lawmakers do not pass a bill by the deadline, judges will have wide latitude to impose new sentences. Some women at SCI Muncy are concerned that this scenario will result in further sentencing disparities. 

“My main worry is if a bill isn’t passed and people are kicked back to their counties for resentencing,” Markman said. “Judges will be able to sentence people however they want to, and some counties are harsher than others.” 

Flowers said smaller, rural counties will most likely impose harsh sentences while more liberal cities like Philadelphia will impose more lenient sentences. 

“The judges and attorneys will have to really dig into people’s lives prior to prison, figuring out who we were then and why we made the decisions we made,“ Flowers said. “I feel like a lot of us might get resentenced to the same amount of time.” 

Despite their concerns about how the state Supreme Court ruling will be applied, women serving second-degree sentences at SCI Muncy are hopeful that they will soon have a meaningful opportunity to be released, viewing it as a chance to contribute to society. 

”This means everything to me, and I will not waste the chance I am given,” Markman said. “I am determined to make the most of it by making a positive difference and helping other people. If I can help one person who is going through a similar situation to what I was, it will all be worth it. I have to do something to give back.”

While the state Legislature determines its next steps, the community of women at Muncy are hopeful that politicians will agree that everyone is more than the worst decisions they’ve made. 

”We are not who we were two, three and four decades ago,” Flowers said. ”We were women who were abused, used, put down and beat down. And yet, we have survived and found ourselves. We’ve learned how to aid others. We just want the opportunity to show society that we will be an asset to any community we are a part of. We want to show that change is real.”

To read more CLICK HERE

 

As substance abuse declines, so goes the murder rate

Professor James Tuttle of the University of Montana writes in The Conversation, the murder rate in 2025 was the lowest in modern American history.

Preliminary data shows the murder rate fell nearly 20% from 2024, likely making it the lowest rate since reliable national data began to be collected in 1960.

Why was the murder rate so low?

I’m a professor of sociology and criminology who studies crime trends. In my book, “Crime Wave,” I explore how homicide rates have closely followed three trends over the past decade: alcohol consumption, drug abuse and firearm purchases. Now that the drug and alcohol crises are waning and gun purchases are falling, so too is the murder rate.

The 2015-2021 murder increase

The murder rate’s previous low came in 2014, capping a decline that had been more or less continuous since the early 1990s.

The murder rate usually rises and falls alongside other crimes, so through the 2010s, with property crime and overall youth offending dropping, criminologists expected the murder trend to follow suit.

Instead, the national murder rate increased sharply in 2015 and 2016, and then by an even larger margin in 2020.

Suddenly, it appeared that violent crime was spiraling out of control. By 2021, the homicide rate hit its highest level since the mid-1990s.

Popular, but incomplete, explanations

Some researchers and commentators attributed the homicide spikes to a so-called “Ferguson effect” in 2015 and, likewise, a “Minneapolis effect” in 2020. These theories are based on the idea that law enforcement officers were reluctant to be proactive or make arrests after nationwide protests against police brutality related to the police killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014 and George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020. The evidence for these claims is mixed.

There is little consistent indication that a decline in proactive policing contributed to a crime increase in 2015, although the homicide spike in 2020 was likely exacerbated by a police “pullback”.

Still, the majority of the homicide spike took place before June 2020, when protests over Floyd’s death spread nationwide. A study published in the journal Epidemiology found that the increase began as early as October 2019, suggesting de-policing in the summer of 2020 likely worsened the rise rather than caused it.

De-policing is, at best, an incomplete explanation.

Substance abuse, guns and the ‘homicide epidemic’

As I document in “Crime Wave,” the crisis in violence was related to another crisis: deaths of despair, which include drug overdoses, suicides and alcohol-related fatalities.

In the years leading up to the 2015 homicide spike, the prescription opioid crisis gave way to the illicit opioid crisis. As opioid use shifted toward heroin and fentanyl, it became deadlier. People were more likely to overdose, and the drug market moved from pharmacists into the hands of street dealers. It wasn’t just the pharmacological effect of drugs but the systemic nature of drug markets – disputes between dealers, buyers and users – that contributed to the spike in homicides.

At the same time, alcohol consumption began to accelerate. Alcohol is connected to homicide rates in part because it decreases inhibition, nullifying social and personal constraints. A high percentage of both homicide offenders and victims are under the influence of alcohol during a fatal assault.

Finally, amid growing distrust of the police and the government, firearm sales began to increase during 2015 and 2016, setting an all-time record in 2020. Given that assaults with a firearm are more likely to lead to the death of the victim than assaults using other weapons, confrontations became deadlier.

In my assessment, the homicide rate moved in near lockstep with trends in drug overdoses, alcohol consumption and firearm purchases, each of which increased by its largest margin in 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic likely exacerbated the substance abuse crisis, and the gun-buying spree was especially pronounced at three points: in March 2020, when the U.S. declared a national emergency over COVID-19; in June 2020, following the Floyd protests; and in the months surrounding the 2020 presidential election.

With more people under the influence of alcohol, an expanding illicit drug market and more guns available, the murder rate dramatically increased.

The murder rate decline after 2021

After peaking in 2021, the murder rate began to fall. This occurred slowly at first in 2022, but the estimated declines in 2023, 2024 and 2025 have been substantial. The reversal in the homicide trend has followed a similar timeline as the substance abuse and firearm purchasing patterns, though some indicators of firearm possession, such as their use in suicides, remain elevated.

When the homicide rate was rising, it defied criminologists’ expectations, breaking away from the property crime decline of the 2010s. Now, the murder rate is falling back in line with other crime trends, many of which are also among the lowest ever recorded. As the substance abuse crises continue to wane, I expect murder rates to fall even further in the near future.

Additionally, with youth criminal involvement hitting historic lows, the next generation appears to be one of the least criminally prone in decades, which bodes well for continued reductions in the murder rate.

To read more CLICK HERE

New Mexico AG accuses DOJ of withholding Epstein documents

New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez publicly released a letter to Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche accusing the US Department of Justice (DOJ) of withholding unredacted copies of documents that are pertinent to New Mexico’s investigation of Zorro Ranch, which was owned by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, reported JURISTnews.

New Mexico reopened its investigation into possible sex trafficking at the ranch in February, but Torrez has not yet announced any findings. In the letter, he summarized a series of unmet document requests, made under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, some dating back to February. Torrez wrote:

The USDOJ’s continued withholding of unredacted records is causing real and escalating harm to the NMDOJ’s criminal investigation. Every day that the USDOJ withholds these records, the foundation upon which a New Mexico prosecution could be built erodes. Witnesses relocate and become unreachable. Memories, already strained by years of trauma, fade further. Physical and documentary evidence degrades, is lost, or is rendered more difficult to authenticate with the passage of time … more than 130 days have now elapsed since the NMDOJ’s initial request. The NMDOJ views this length of time as an unreasonable delay under any rule of reason.

A DOJ spokesperson replied, “DOJ reiterates that it welcomes New Mexico(‘s) … investigation of the Zorro Ranch and stands ready to provide … assistance with New Mexico’s investigation. Should that investigation uncover potential federal crimes, the DOJ will work closely with our law enforcement partners to investigate and, as appropriate, prosecute.”

According to one of the Epstein files that has been released, conservative talk show host Edward Aragon brought a tip to the Albuquerque office of the FBI in 2019. The tipster offered Aragon “7 videos of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and the location of two foreign girls buried on Zorro Ranch for sale for one bitcoin.” In the same year, The New York Times published an article alleging that Epstein planned to impregnate multiple women at his Zorro Ranch.

To read more CLICK HERE

Houston authorities will investigate ICE killing of Mexican immigrant

Hours after three witnesses questioned the official account of how an immigration agent killed a man in Houston this week, city officials said they would begin their own investigation of the federal government’s actions, reported The New York Times.

Mayor John Whitmire of Houston said he, the city’s police department and the district attorney’s office would work aggressively to obtain all evidence and uncover the truth, reversing his earlier position that the city had no jurisdiction over the case.

“We are not settling to wait for an F.B.I. report,” Mr. Whitmire said during a news briefing on Friday afternoon. “We want answers.”

The episode began about 6:50 a.m. on Tuesday as Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, a 52-year-old Mexican immigrant, was driving in East Houston on his way to work at a construction site in a van with three other workers. Agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement began tailing him.

On Friday, the agency said in a statement that Mr. Araujo had rammed an ICE vehicle, had not followed orders and had tried to run over an officer. An ICE agent fired in self-defense, the statement said. Mr. Araujo was shot in the abdomen and taken to a hospital, where he died.

No evidence was provided to support ICE’s account.

On Friday, the three men with Mr. Araujo said through a lawyer that he had not used his vehicle as a weapon or tried to run over the immigration officers. The men were arrested and provided their version of events to the lawyer, Hugo Balderas-Ibarra, who visited them in immigration detention.

“I have no doubt that what they are saying is the truth,” Mr. Balderas-Ibarra said during a news conference on Friday. “All three reiterated that at no point was an agent standing in front of the vehicle nor was an agent placed in the line of danger.”

Mr. Araujo’s death came as ICE officers are increasing arrests across the United States, according to documents obtained by The New York Times. In five days at the end of June, agents arrested more than 10,000 people, the documents show. From Tuesday through Thursday, ICE officers arrested more than 6,000 people, internal records show.

Previous surges have been accompanied by violence, and video evidence in recent months has disproved federal law enforcement’s accounts of several shootings.

To read more CLICK HERE

Do states' "Unnecessary Rigor Clause" go above and beyond the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment?

 A handful of prisoners in Oregon who filed a proposed class action lawsuit in mid-June challenging the Oregon Department of Corrections' (ODOC) solitary confinement practices. It alleges that the ODOC is violating the state constitution's "Unnecessary Rigor Clause," which goes above and beyond the Constitution's Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment, reported Reason Magazine. States like Indiana, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming also have similar protections in their constitutions. 

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the ODOC's practices are unconstitutional and an injunction prohibiting the department from continuing the practices in the future. They also want to establish a monitoring regime so that the ODOC does not fall back into its old habits. 

"It's ironic that in a state that is pushing back against the Trump administration and is a progressive leader in so many ways is at the same time subjecting people to these degrading, cruel and inhumane issues," said George Mills, a staff attorney at the Prison Law Office, a nonprofit public interest law firm representing some of the plaintiffs. 

A spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Corrections told Reason that the agency can't comment on the specifics of the lawsuit but remains committed to maintaining "safe, secure, and humane operations for adults in custody, staff, and the communities we serve." That includes, but is not limited to, increasing out-of-cell time for people in solitary confinement, building peer mentorship programs, and enhancing violence prevention tools. 

"DOC remains committed to this long‑term cultural transformation and to ensuring our practices continue to evolve in alignment with research, safety needs, and constitutional standards," the spokesperson wrote in an email. 

Solitary confinement—also known as restrictive housing or administrative segregation—has a long and sordid history in the U.S. The Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia is widely considered the birthplace of solitary confinement. As early as 1829, some prisoners were kept in tiny cells only containing a worktable, a toilet, a skylight, and a Bible. Historian William Kashatus argued in a 1999 article for Pennsylvania Heritage Magazine that the cells were designed in such a way to "remind the inmate that penitence would only be achieved through the light from heaven, the word of God, and honest work." 

In 1890, the Supreme Court recognized that the assumption underpinning solitary confinement is inhumane and counterproductive in a case known as In re Medley. The case concerned a convicted murderer named James J. Medley who was held in solitary confinement for 45 days in Colorado before his execution. Chief Justice Samuel Miller, after going through a lengthy historical analysis of the practice, found that prisoners subjected to solitary confinement often "did not recover sufficient mental activity to be any subsequent service to the community." 

Keeping prisoners in solitary confinement is also inherently dangerous. Studies have shown that extended time in solitary can permanently damage an individual's brain by shrinking the hippocampus, the part of the brain responsible for memory and sociability. That is one reason why many prisoners who are sent to solitary return with symptoms of "depression, paranoia, lack of concentration or memory, anger, and hallucinations," according to a 2018 study. Solitary confinement can also cause muscular degeneration, cardiovascular issues, and dermatological conditions because of the lack of regular exercise and restricted hygiene habits. 

Jenkins-Millage claimed in the lawsuit that he has experienced similar symptoms since he was sent to solitary confinement. For instance, he said he developed symptoms of depression or bipolar disorder, including suicidal ideation, while he was in solitary. He attributed these symptoms to a lack of meaningful human contact, recreation, and mental stimulation.

Even so, reforming solitary confinement practices has been slow and arduous work. According to 2023 estimates, more than 122,000 people are held in solitary confinement across the U.S., representing just under 7 percent of the nation's total prison population. While many assume that the worst of the worst criminals live in solitary confinement, multiple studies have found that prisons routinely use solitary confinement as punishment for nonviolent offenses like tobacco use and talking back to a prison guard. Solitary confinement is also often considered the "de facto mental health unit" in many prisons, according to the Vera Institute of Justice. 

"When we made the decision to do whatever put us in prison," Jenkins-Millage told Oregon Public Broadcasting in June. "We didn't stop being humans."

The lawsuit claims directors at the ODOC are aware that their practices may run afoul of best practices. In the 91-page complaint, lawyers point to memos sent by senior ODOC leaders outlining the need to "reduce the use of segregation" and acknowledging that the practice is "detrimental to an individual's health." Another superintendent at Oregon's Coffee Creek Correctional Facility claimed that "segregation isn't an effective tool to change behavior." 

Still, the ODOC has been slow to address its issues. For instance, a 2015 study by Disability Rights Oregon found that prisoners in solitary confinement had no access to mental health treatment. A 2016 study conducted by the Vera Institute found that segregated prisoners in the ODOC lived in conditions marked by "isolation, idleness, and sensory deprivation" that created or exacerbated serious mental health issues. 

"They know that this is wrong, and they know that they need to make progress on this," Mills said. 

The lawsuit was filed at a time when solitary confinement is under strict scrutiny across the globe. In 2015, the United Nations General Assembly revised what are known as its Nelson Mandela Rules, which seek to create an international standard for the treatment of prisoners, to state that solitary confinement should be used only as a "last resort" and should not last longer than 15 days. That led to prison reforms in European countries such as Germany, Ireland, Scotland, Denmark, and the Netherlands, as well as in South Africa. 

Several U.S. states are creating more humane approaches to solitary confinement. Nevada reduced the amount of time prisoners can spend in solitary confinement to 15 days in 2023. A bill passed in Virginia adding new restrictions on when a prisoner can be sent to solitary confinement. Other states like Louisiana passed a law to increase access to educational materials for people in solitary confinement, and Tennessee now prohibits pregnant women from being sent to solitary.  

To Mills, these initiatives come back to one of America's original principles: "You can't torture people, and that's a foundational principle of our country."

To read more CLICK HERE