Redefining Eighth Amendment Punishments: A New Standard for Determining the Liability of Prison Officials for Failing to Protect Inmates from Serious Harm
![handle is hein.journals/qlr20 and id is 417 raw text is: REDEFINING EIGHTH AMENDMENT PUNISHMENTS: A NEW
STANDARD FOR DETERMINING THE LIABILITY OF PRISON
OFFICIALS FOR FAILING TO PROTECT INMATES FROM
SERIOUS HARM
James J. Park*
I. INTRODUCTION
While it is now well-established that the Eighth Amendment's
prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments regulates prison
conditions,' translating that prohibition into liability standards to govern
the behavior of prison officials and afford remedies to injured prisoners
has been difficult. In the last two decades, courts have struggled to
define what conduct is actionable under the Eighth Amendment. While
the text of the Amendment is broad, providing that [e]xcessive bail
shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishments inflicted2-a number of courts and commentators have
singled out the word punishments as the boundary of the
Amendment's reach.3 This trend contrasts with the innovative approach
* Law Clerk to Judge John G. Koeltl, United States District Court, Southern
District of New York. Yale Law School, J.D. (2000). Thanks to Kenji Yoshino for
extensive comments on an earlier draft of this piece.
1. U.S. CONST. amend. VIII. The Eighth Amendment applies to the states
through the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 666-68
(1962). Prisoners who are denied their Eighth Amendment rights by state officials can
bring civil rights suits against those officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides
judicial remedies to individuals deprived of some right, privilege, or immunity protected
by the Constitution or laws of the United States by a person acting under the color of
state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994). Prisoners can bring similar suits against federal
officials under the precedent of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal
Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
2. U.S. CONST. amend. VIII.
3. See, e.g., Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (The Eighth
Amendment does not outlaw cruel and unusual 'conditions'; it outlaws cruel and
unusual 'punishments.'); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 300 (1991) (The source of
the intent requirement is not the predilections of this Court, but the Eighth Amendment
itself, which bans only cruel and unusual punishment.); JOHN HART ELY, DEMOCRACY
AND DISTRUST 14 (1980) (The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause does invite the
person interpreting it to freelance to a degree, but the freelancing is bounded. The](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/qlr20&div=21&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most