According to the American Correctional Association (ACA, 2008), mechanical restraint use is to be limited, preventing injury to self and/or to others when administered and certainly not applied to inmates as a punitive or protracted intervention. Regrettably, however, the ongoing use of control devices raises a number of thorny questions when deployed in prisons and jails. This article systematically reviews these concerns. Specifically, the health and mental health consequences for incarcerates are delineated, and the race, gender, class, and mental disability disparities that correspondingly attach are examined. Given these myriad concerns, the ethical justifications that serve as support for or opposition to this correctional practice are described. The article concludes by provisionally recommending how the philosophy of psychological jurisprudence, informed by insights derived from restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence, functions as a type of virtue ethics that re-conceives the problems posed by mechanical restraint use. The resultant strategy promotes healing, advances justice, and grows integrity for the kept and for their keepers, managers, and watchers. (Published Abstract)