About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

32 Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 231 (1987)
Extending Deference to Prison Officials under the Eighth Amendment: Whitley v. Albers

handle is hein.journals/waucl32 and id is 237 raw text is: EXTENDING DEFERENCE TO PRISON OFFICIALS UNDER THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT: WHITLEY v. ALBERS The Constitution's eighth amendment cruel and unusual punish- ment clause guarantees prisoners the right to be free from excessive punishment.' Eighth amendment claims historically were based on physical punishment and the infliction of pain.2 Courts recently have expanded the clause's application to provide protection against more subtle forms of punishment.3 Prisoners are now using the eighth amendment to obtain healthier and safer living conditions during the course of their confinement.4 At the same time, however, prison offi- 1. The eighth amendment provides: Excessive bail shall not be required nor exces- sive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. 2. See, e.g., Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) (physical pain and suffering beyond what civilized people can tolerate); Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910) (hard labor in chains and constant surveillance); In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 446 (1890) (burning at the stake, crucifixion, breaking on the wheel); cf Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947) (second preparation of execution after previ- ous unsuccessful attempt due to mechanical failure was not cruel and unusual punishment). 3. Federal courts have achieved sweeping reforms in reviewing constitutional challenges to the prison system. Federal courts no longer apply the eighth amendment only to specific acts of punishment inflicted upon specific individuals. Courts instead apply the eighth amendment equally to the general conditions of prison confinement. Comment, Challenging Cruel and Unusual Conditions of Prison Confinement: Refining the Totality of Approach, 26 How. L.J. 227 (1983) (needlessly inflicted pain and suffer- ing did not fulfill valid penological purposes). See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981). In Rhodes the Court adopted a totality of conditions approach to determine if double-celling constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 348. The Rhodes Court reasoned that double-celling would violate the eighth amendment if the situation inflicted unnecessary or wanton pain or was grossly disproportionate to the severity of crimes warranting imprisonment. Id. The Court also noted, however, that the Constitution does not require comfortable prisons. Id. at 349. As a result, courts retain broad discretion in making such findings. See infra notes 21-23 (discusses the evolving standards of decency). 4. See, eg., Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978) (length of confinement in isolation cell considered together with inmates' diet, continued overcrowding, rampant violence, and security personnel's poor jurdgment); Ramos v. Lamm, 639 F.2d 559 (10th Cir. 1980) (combination of factors including lack of sufficient space, inadequate temperature

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most