What Amendment Protects Prisoners From Cruel And Unusual Punishment?

What amendment protects prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment? Shealey Law Firm answers this. The Eighth Amendment is key to protecting prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment.

What Amendment Protects Prisoners From Cruel And Unusual Punishment?

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is short. It says:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

When a person is convicted of a crime, they may be punished. However, the Eighth Amendment prohibits the government from using punishments that are cruel or unusual.

The Eighth Amendment does not explain what makes a punishment cruel or unusual; it was left it to the courts to decide through their rulings.

How the Eighth Amendment Applies to Prisoners’ Rights

The Eighth Amendment applies to prisoners’ rights both individually and collectively.

No punishment against an individual may be cruel or unusual. For example, in Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that imposing the death penalty on a mentally impaired person was cruelty that violated the Eighth Amendment.

In addition, prison conditions collectively may be a violation. For example, a jail that doesn’t have working lights or toilets, and has no windows, but has frequent stabbings, violates the Eighth Amendment because of the totality of the circumstances. (Holt v. Sarver).

Development of Cruel and Unusual Punishment Standards in the United States

In Weems v. United States (1910), the court admitted, “What constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment has not been exactly decided.”

Since the Eighth Amendment doesn’t say what makes a punishment cruel or unusual, the courts are left to define it as people bring cases. Litigation on the topic has developed slowly.

Cases brought by prisoners regarding prison conditions became more viable in the United States following Robinson v. California in 1962. The case ruling said that the Eighth Amendment applies to prison conditions in state prisons, and not just federal prisons. This ruling opened the possibility of lawsuits against state prisons, which hold most inmates in the United States.

In addition, in the 1960s, federal courts became more willing in general to order injunctive relief, requiring specific and timely remedies.

Defining Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the Context of Prison Conditions

• What is cruel and unusual depends on the circumstances in the individual case.
• Guards cannot intentionally or wantonly inflict pain.
• A single condition or combination of conditions may amount to a violation of prisoner rights.
• Inmates have the right to the minimum necessities for life.
• Conditions may be harsh without being unconstitutional.

Regarding general prison conditions, the standard is deliberate indifference. Officials cannot show deliberate indifference towards a serious risk of harm to an inmate. The standard is higher than a negligence standard, however, the official need not be aware of a specific risk to the inmate.

There are both objective and subjective components to an Eighth Amendment violation. The offense must be objectively serious. In addition, officials must have had a sufficient state of mind to have acted with deliberate indifference to inmate health or safety.

Common Violations of the Eighth Amendment in U.S. Prisons

• Food, nutrition, and food safety
• Clothing
• Medical attention
• Especially hot and cold conditions
• Adequate shelter
• Sanitation, spread of disease
• Personal safety
• Basic hygiene
• Opportunities for reform
• Overcrowding
• Prolonged isolation
• Housing with physically or mentally ill inmates

Examples of Cruel and Unusual Punishment in Modern Correctional Facilities

Board v. Farnham– Failing to provide an inmate toothpaste for a significant period may be cruel and usual punishment. The inmate asked for toothpaste many times but was deprived for three and one-half weeks. The court said that a reasonable trier of fact could find deliberate indifference.

Lawson v. Dallas County – The inmate was a paraplegic. Despite knowledge of the risks of life-threatening bedsores among paraplegics, a mobility assessment was not done. The inmate was denied help when he fell out of bed. He developed bedsores, and dressings were not changed as often as recommended. An award of $250,000 was upheld.

Sanford v. Brookshire – An inmate was housed without a working toilet, toilet paper, or a shower for six days. The inmate complained about the conditions but was told that no other cells were available.

Phelps v. Kapnolas – The offender was placed on a restricted diet for two weeks, which resulted in a 30-pound weight loss. He stated that for seven days, he was fed raw cabbage and a loaf of ground-up vegetables.

How Lawyers Help Prisoners Pursue Eighth Amendment Claims

A lawyer can assist with:

• Understanding what amounts to an Eighth Amendment violation, as opposed to just a tough, but permissible, condition in the prison.
• Gathering evidence to prove the offense, especially if officials aren’t cooperating.
• Addressing individual violations and conditions that affect a group.
• Weighing possible courses of action, including taking legal action.
• Evaluating potential outcomes and relief, including compensation and improved conditions.
• Taking the legal steps to advance your case and advocating for you.

Contact a Lawyer

If you have concerns about the treatment you or a loved one has received while in jail or prison, we invite you to contact us.

Shealey Law Firm is a team of Eighth Amendment lawyers. We protect prisoners from cruel and unusual punishment through legal representation. Call or message us today.