Supermax Prisons and the Constitution: Liability ... - Supermaxed

Recommendations

Info

CHAPTER334Other Conditionsof ConfinementConstitutional requirements regarding conditionsof confinement apply, of course,to living conditions in ECUs. As notedearlier, litigation about conditions of confinementin long-term segregation units is nothing new.This chapter first discusses how the courts analyzeconditions of confinement. It then looks atoperational and legal aspects of specific conditions:personal safety, food, clothing, shelter, sanitation,and exercise. (Mental and medical healthcare are discussed separately, in chapters 2 and 3.)Other Conditions of ConfinementHow Courts AnalyzeConditions of ConfinementCourts analyze conditions of confinement underthe cruel and unusual punishment clause of theEighth Amendment. In this context, the EighthAmendment has two prongs: (1) objective (theadequacy of conditions that affect inmates’ basichuman needs) and (2) subjective (the defendantadministrators’ state of mind—are they “deliberatelyindifferent” to problems regarding inmates’basic human needs?). 60 To find an Eighth60Wilson, 501 U.S. 294.
34Supermax Prisons and the Constitution: LIABILITY CONCERNS IN THE EXTENDED CONTROL UNITAmendment violation, the court must decideagainst the defendant on both prongs.Objective AnalysisHow serious must a condition affecting a basichuman need be before it runs afoul of the objectiveprong of the Eighth Amendment? In reviewinga particular condition, a court will askwhether the condition is actually harming inmatesor presents a substantial risk of serious harm. 61The basic human needs issues most commonlysubjected to judicial scrutiny relate to thefollowing:■ Medical and mental health care (discussed inchapters 2 and 3).■ Personal safety.■ Food (the general adequacy of the diet andwhether food is served in a way that does notpose a risk to inmate health).■ Clothing.■ Shelter (the overall living environment,including heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting,noise levels, and other factors).■ Sanitation.■ Exercise, including outdoor exercise.Subjective AnalysisIn deciding whether officials have been deliberatelyindifferent to a particular problem or set ofproblems, a court must determine whether theofficials knew of the problem and the risk it presentedand disregarded that risk by failing to takereasonable measures to abate it. 62 It is no longersufficient for plaintiffs to show that officials“should have known” about a risk—actual knowledgeis required. Actual knowledge can beinferred from circumstantial evidence.The actual knowledge inquiry is probably lessimportant in a class action case involving conditionsthan in a lawsuit brought by an individualinmate complaining of a particular incident or situation.Prison administrators are far more likelyto be aware of general problems targeted in aclass action than the problems of an individualinmate.No “Totality of Conditions” TestIn the past, courts reviewed the “totality” of conditionswhen considering cases that claimedEighth Amendment violations. However, the totalityapproach was rejected in 1991 by the SupremeCourt in Wilson v. Seiter, 63 which concerned conditionsin an Ohio prison. Although earlierSupreme Court case law could be read as approvinga totality approach, Wilson flatly rejected thisapproach, saying instead that conditions relatingto basic human needs (the list above) should generallybe analyzed independently of one another.Wilson does permit conditions to be analyzedtogether if together they relate to a single basichuman need. Thus, inadequate clothing and poorheating might properly be considered together, ascould poor sanitation practices and the preparationof food.61Helling at 25.62Farmer, 511 U.S. 825.63Wilson, 501 U.S. 294.
Page 1 and 2: U.S. Department of JusticeNational
Page 3 and 4: Supermax Prisonsand the Constitutio
Page 5 and 6: To the vision and memory of Susan H
Page 7 and 8: viiContentsContentsAbstract. . . .
Page 9 and 10: The Traditional View . . . . . . .
Page 11 and 12: xiiiAcknowledgmentsAcknowledgmentsF
Page 13 and 14: xviSupermax Prisons and the Constit
Page 15 and 16: xviiiSupermax Prisons and the Const
Page 17 and 18: xxSupermax Prisons and the Constitu
Page 19 and 20: 2Supermax Prisons and the Constitut
Page 21 and 22: 5BackgroundCHAPTER1BackgroundThis c
Page 23 and 24: 7Background■■■The opportunity
Page 25 and 26: 9BackgroundLitigation About ECUsRep
Page 27 and 28: are more “traditional,” in that
Page 29 and 30: 14Supermax Prisons and the Constitu
Page 41 and 42: CHAPTER27Medical Services3Medical S
Page 43 and 44: The doors of the ECU’s medical ex
Page 45: public, it may overlook the disclos
Page 63: 50Supermax Prisons and the Constitu
Page 66 and 67: incident; instead, they must consid
Page 68 and 69: 55Comparing Wolff and HewittThis su
Page 70 and 71: to sway decisionmakers who have inf
Page 72 and 73: hearing under this test, “the rel
Page 74 and 75: no longer exists and no other has a
Page 76 and 77: therefore requires due process prot
Page 88 and 89: 77Closing ThoughtsClosing ThoughtsT
Page 90 and 91: Periodic external reviews of ECU op
Page 94 and 95: 85Table of AuthoritiesTable of Auth
Page 96:
✂User Feedback FormPlease complet
show all

Supermax Prisons and the Constitution: Liability ... - Supermaxed

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?