Yeah, and most people in prison are not jewish, either. Neither fact is relevant. The person I replied to suggested that people might prefer solitary confinement to the alternative of being housed with someone who will physically brutalize them.
Solitary doesn't just mean single occupancy cells, it means separation from most human contact.
They could easily have groups of cells where inmates are confined individually but can still have non-physical contact with other prisoners.
And as most of those in solitary aren't raving psychotics (mostly they attacked guards or rival gang members, an issue largely due to prison overcrowding) they could be allowed monitored time in the yard with other prisoners.
>The offenses that landed them in solitary? Most often, it was evidence that they were "affiliated" with a prison gang, whether or not they had broken any rules.
Solitary isn't being used as a last resort for people who have killed previous cellmates -- it's being used for all sorts of things.
I think solitary makes sense for people who are already unable to coexist with other inmates, but that doesn't seem to be the main use at the moment.
Considering the inmates in solitary are the ones suing because it is cruel I think that answer is quite apparent. Yes, people would rather be with people even if those people aren't perfect.
If I was in prison and could make a case for anything you can bet I'd be the biggest pain in the ass (wrt legal wrangling) I possibly could. I mean, my life is pretty much trashed already, right? No harm in seeing if you can get a reduced time or even a settlement out of it.
That said, I can only imagine that enforced solitude would be pretty awful in its own right.
Would you want to be the confined with someone who has a history of being violent with his cell mates?