Behavior should not determine whether a California inmate is safe

By Arthur Jackson, especially for CalMatters

This comment was originally posted by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Guest Comment written by

Re: “California prisoners sleep with ‘one eye open’. Should they have their own cells?“

In December 2025, I read a news story on CalMatters that appeared at first glance to address the failure of recent legislation – Assembly Bill 1140, authored by San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins and Assemblywoman Damon Connelly — authorizing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to establish a four-second solitary confinement pilot programclosed Tate.

While the article correctly acknowledges the dangers of double-occupancy cells in California prisons, it is part of a growing trend suggesting that single cells can be used to incentivize good behavior.

We at People in Blue, a committee of inmates at San Quentin, believe it is imperative to create safe and healthy conditions for those who work and live in California prisons. We were the first organization to call for a complete culture change in the prison system, including solitary confinement, for several reasons.

First, double cages are a danger, as the California Peace Officers Association rightly acknowledges: “The threat of violence and tension in shared cages . . . promotes conflict between cellmates, necessitating intervention of correctional officers putting themselves at risk, thus escalating the overall risk in the facility for all parties involved.

Second, those of us who were housed at San Quentin during the COVID pandemic understand all too well the dangers of double occupancy cells. Marin County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey M. Howard said double occupied cells: “The Court cannot think of any argument to support forcing inmates to stay in a cell less than 50 square feet with two beds and a cellmate for nearly 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for months. This increased the inmates’ exposure to COVID-19.”

Officers were also disgusted by the conditions, which led to the death of one officer.

Third, all parties weighing in on the issue agree that solitary confinement would allow inmates to sleep without fear of violence and participate in rehabilitation programs, while promoting safer work environments for correctional officers and staff.

But incentivizing good behavior with single-occupancy cages as a reward is a never-ending circular argument.

As an incarcerated person with 31 years of continuous incarceration in double cells, I have experienced each of the negative aspects of shared cell life outlined in the article. In order to get the health benefits of a single cell, I have to show proper “good behavior,” but I can never be good enough to be singled because of the constant threat of violence I feel from living in a shared cell.

Double-occupancy cells cause a wide range of health and safety problems that can be cured by allowing inmates to have access to single-occupancy cells.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s duty to protect is absolute and does not depend on the “good behavior” of the incarcerated person. Therefore, single cells cannot and should not be used as a reward for good behavior.

Furthermore, there is no need for a pilot program when research already exists that clearly recognizes the harm caused by current living conditions.

The constitutional right of an inmate to a safe and healthy environment cannot be taken away on the condition that she or he is good. Solitary confinement can and should be a right that can be achieved without additional costs or expanding prison capacity.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.