Issue: Is the 8th Amendment Protections Violated if Prisoners are Deprived of Basic Sustenance?

do: background, yes argument, no argument, opinion

is the Eighth Amendment Protection Violated If Prisoners Are Deprived of Basic Sustenance? by Katsh 125 Antonin Scalia NO Dissenting Opinion, Brown v. Plata yd bobrawbed the injunction issued by the Court is tailored (narrowly ALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, dissenting. or not) to remedy saliremaining of a prison system with y the Court affirms what is perhaps the most inadequate medical facilities. That may result in the denial tactical Injunction issued by a court in our Nation's his- of needed medical treatment to "a particular [prisoner or .ly . all order requiring California to release the stagger- [prisoners), thereby violating (according to our cases) his ing number of 46,000 convicted criminals. or their Eighth Amendment rights. But the mere existence title comes before us, now and then, a case whose of the inadequate system does not subject to cruel and proper outcome is so clearly indicated by tradition and unusual punishment the entire prison population in need common sense, that its decision ought to shape the law, of medical care, including those who receive it. rather than vice versa. One would think that, before allow- The Court acknowledges that the plaintiffs "do not ing the decree of a federal district court to release 46,000 base their case on deficiencies in care provided on any one convicted felons, this Court would bend every effort to occasion"; rather, "[plaintiffs rely on systemwide deficien read the law in such a way as to avoid that outrageous cies in the provision of medical and mental health care that, result. Today, quite to the contrary, the Court disregards taken as a whole, subject sick and mentally ill prisoners in stringently drawn provisions of the governing statute, and California to substantial risk of serious harm' and cause the traditional constitutional limitations upon the power of a delivery of care in the prisons to fall below the evolving federal judge, in order to uphold the absurd. standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing The proceedings that led to this result were a judicial society." . . . But our judge-empowering "evolving stand- travesty. I dissent because the institutional reform the Dis- ards of decency" jurisprudence. . . . does not prescribe (or at trict Court has undertaken violates the terms of the gov- least has not until today prescribed) rules for the "decent" erning statute, ignores bedrock limitations on the power running of schools, prisons, and other government institu- of Article III judges, and takes federal courts wildly beyond tions. It forbids "indecent" treatment of individuals-in the their institutional capacity. context of this case, the denial of medical care to those who editoring need it. And the persons who have a constitutional claim anydoing PLRA for denial of medical care are those who are denied medical UP in care-not all who face a "substantial risk" (whatever that is) A of being denied medical care. The Coleman litigation involves "the class of seri- The Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) states that "[p] ously mentally ill persons in California prisons," . . . and rospective relief in any civil action with respect to prison the Plata litigation involves "the class of state prisoners conditions shall extend no further than necessary to with serious medical conditions" . . . The plaintiffs do not correct the violation of the Federal right of a particular appear to claim-and it would absurd to suggest-that plaintiff or plaintiffs"; that such relief must be "narrowly every single one of those prisoners has personally experi- drawn, [and] extend] no further than necessary to cor- enced "torture or a lingering death," . . . as a consequence rect the violation of the Federal right"; and that it must be of that bad medical system. Indeed, it is inconceivable "the least intrusive means necessary to correct the viola- that anything more than a small proportion of prison- tion of the Federal right. . . . in deciding whether these ers in the plaintiff classes have personally received sum multiple limitations have been complied with, it is neces ciently atrocious treatment that their Eighth Amendment sary to identify with precision what is the violation of right was violated-which, as the Court recognizes, is win the Federal right of a particular plaintiff of plaintiffs" that the plaintiffs do not premise their claim on "deficiencies has been alleged. What has been alleged here, and what in care provided on any one occasion." .. . Rathel, Supreme Court of the United States, May 23, 2011. toon xblumthe Eighth Amendment Protection Violated If Prisoners Are Deprived of Basic Sustenance? by Katsh 119 orfitw engso Anthony Kennedy YES Majority Opinion, Brown v. Plata other means or modification of the order upon a further showing by the State-the State will be required to release USTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. case arises from serious constitutional viola- some number of prisoners before their full sentences have tons ill California's prison system. The violations have been served. High recidivism fates must serve as a warn- Persisted for years. They remain uncorrected. The appeal ing that mistaken of premature release of even one pris- comes to this Court from a three-judge District Court order oner can cause injury and farm. The release of prisoners directing California to remedy two ongoing violations of in large numbers assuming the State finds no other way the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, a guarantee to comply with the order-is a matter of undoubted, grave binding on the States by the Due Process Clause of the concern. Fourteenth Amendment. The violations are the subject of At the time of trial, California's correctional facili- two class actions in two Federal District Courts. The first ties held some 196,000 persons. This is nearly double the involves the class of prisoners with serious mental disorder that California's prisons were designed to hold, ders. That case is Coleman v. Brown. The second involves and California has been ordered to reduce its prison pop- prisoners with serious medical conditions. That case is ulation to 137.5% of design capacity. By the three-judge Plata v. Brown. The order of the three-judge District Court court's own estimate, the required population reduction is applicable to both cases. could be as high as 46,000 persons. Although the State has After years of litigation, it became apparent that a reduced the population by at least 9,000 persons during remedy for the constitutional violations would not be the pendency of this appeal, this means a further reduc- effective absent a reduction in the prison system popula- tion of 37,000 persons could be required. As will be noted, tion. The authority to order release of prisoners as a rem- the reduction need not be accomplished in an indiscrimi edy to cure a systemic violation of the Eighth Amendment nate manner or in these substantial numbers if satisfact is a power reserved to a three-judge district court, not a tory, alternate remedies or means for compliance are single-judge district court. ... In accordance with that devised. The State may employ measures, including good- rule, the Coleman and Plata District Judges independently time credits and diversion of low-risk offenders and tech- requested that a three-judge court be convened. The Chief nical parole violators to community-based programs, that Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit con- will mitigate the order's impact. The population reduc- vened a three-judge court composed of the Coleman and tion potentially required is nevertheless of unprecedented Plata District Judges and a third, Ninth Circuit Judge. sweep and extent. Because the two cases are interrelated, their limited con- Yet so too is the continuing injury and harm result- solidation for this purpose has a certain utility in avoiding ing from these serious constitutional violations. For years conflicting decrees and aiding judicial consideration and the medical and mental health care provided by Califor- enforcement. .. . The State . . . objects to the substance of nia's prisons has fallen short of minimum constitutional the three-judge court order, which requires the State to requirements and has failed to meet prisoners' basic health reduce overcrowding in its prisons. The appeal presents the question whether the reme- needs. Needless suffering and death have been the well dial order issued by the three-judge court is consistent with documented result. Over the whole course of years during which this litigation has been pending, no other remedies requirements and procedures set forth in a congressional have been found to be sufficient. Efforts to remedy the statute, the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) . .. violation have been frustrated by severe overcrowding in The order leaves the choice of means to reduce overcrowd- California's prison system. Short term gains in the provi ing to the discretion of state officials. but absent compli- sion of care have been eroded by the long-term effects ance through new construction, out-of-state transfers, or severe and pervasive overcrowding. Supreme Court of the United States, May 23, 2011.Taking Sides: Legal Issues 118 yd LahatsM SHY queel tillwe b would not reappear in the American criminal justice sys- settlement agreements between prisons and inmates tem. As one critic of the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution PLRA requires all relief to be "narrowly drawn" to argued, "[Congress is] nowhere restrained from inventing the specific violations at issue before the court to the most cruel and unheard-of punishments, and annex- also imposed an exhaustion requirement to all fede suits, forcing prisoners to first utilize all available ; YES ing them to crimes; and there is no constitutional check on [it], but that racks and gibbets may be amongst the trative remedies prior to being able to file in court. He most mild instruments of [its] discipline." even with the hurdles enacted by the PLRA, Brown Few would argue that, all else being equal, imprison- found its way to the highest court in the land. ment is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. It is a At issue in Brown is the validity of an order far cry from physical torture to merely segregate someone by a specially convened three-judge e-judge district coun JSTICE KEN from the general population, and insofar as it is the default ordered the release of thousands of prisoners due This method of punishment in the modern world, it hardly inability of the prison system to provide adequate tions in C qualifies as "unusual." However, even if imprisonment is the inmates, a violation of the Eighth Amendment persisted fo generally considered humane, the conditions under which and unusual punishment clause. This This relief was comes to th someone is imprisoned could be so gruesome as to bring sary, according to the Court, because California, in directing C into question whether the prisoner is being subjected to the Cruel cruel and unusual punishment. In the 1970s, the Supreme with budget problems, could not enact the most solution-and one that would avoid the potential binding on Court made clear that the Eighth Amendment outlawed Fourteenth both inhumane punishments and the inhumane treat- gers associated with releasing prisoners-building two class ment of prisoners while incarcerated:" prison facilities and increasing the medical services involves th worl able to prisoners. As background to the Court's deck ders . That The Eighth Amendment's ban on inflicting cruel California's elected officials are limited in their abile prisoners and unusual punishments, made applicable to the raise taxes because of a 1978 ballot initiative, Propos Plata v. Br States by the Fourteenth Amendment, proscribe[s] 13, which amended the state constitution to limit is applicat Afte more than physically barbarous punishments. It prohibits penalties that . . . transgress today's bram erty tax increases and require supermajorities to ing remedy broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized other tax rates. Meanwhile, California's prison popula effective standards, humanity, and decency. Confinement has exploded over the past two decades, in part becas tion. The in a prison or in an isolation cell is a form of pun- harsher sentencing laws and a "three strikes" policy edy to cu ishment subject to scrutiny under Eighth Amend- AMM mandates a 25-year prison sentence for any defer is a pow ment standards. convicted of a third felony offense. single-ju Brown v. Plata highlights some of the often-overlay rule, the Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 685 (1978) complexities involved in administering a criminal j requeste Judge of While the majority opinion in Brown, authored by system. The California "three strikes" law was passed vened a Justice Kennedy, no doubt holds this precedential inter- popular ballot initiative, Proposition 184 in 1994, Plata D pretation of the Eighth Amendment as the foundation for overwhelming margin, but another popular meas Because its arguments, Justice Scalia is reluctant to agree. He, along Proposition 13-has impeded California from raising solidati with the other three dissenting justices, sees the application billions of dollars necessary to accommodate the inc conflict of the Eighth Amendment to prison conditions as unwar- ranted and the intervention of the judiciary into prison prison population that resulted from Proposition 1& enforc management as impractical. Furthermore, they argue that Few would want to return to the times of con the th Congress has agreed with their latter sentiment by adopt- punishment, public executions, or banishment of it reduce ing the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which they to penal colonies, but the alternative-a prison system claim restricts the majority from doing precisely what it is requires the expenditure of public funds, and tat dial or ers often loathe to have their hard-earned tax dolla requir doing with its opinion-legislating from the bench. With respect to the origins of the PLRA, Justice Scalia is to support food and medical care for those who statut the law. If these competing interests cannot be reso The correct. Concerned with the number of lawsuits challenging prison conditions may deteriorate, as they did her prison conditions and the costly results of those suits, Con- ing t point where judicial intervention i ance ention is the only option gress, in 1995, enacted the PLRA. The PLRA limits the ability ever, even the courts would admit that the sol of federal courts to impose of sanction expansive remedial their disposal, such as ordering the release of co measures (as had been done prior to 1995 in a number of criminals, are hardly ideal. Supreis the Eighth Amendment Protection Violated If Prisoners Are Deprived of Basic Sustenance? by Katsh 117 tecting Intelle Selected, Edited, and with Issue Framing Material by: netheus Book M. Ethan Katsh, University of Massachusetts, Amherst d Lemley, Mat ISSUE Technologies ness Publisher Is the Eighth Amendment Protection Violated If Prisoners Are Deprived of Basic Sustenance? YES: Anthony Kennedy, from "Majority Opinion, Brown v. Plata, " United States Supreme Court (2011) nd Digital Rev. NO: Antonin Scalia, from "Dissenting Opinion, Brown v. Plata," United States Supreme Court (2011) digital revolu c industry. logy/music e-since-1999 Learning Outcomes After reading this issue, you will be able to: . Discuss the State of California's prison system and how it came to be. e" article dis Discuss the Prison Litigation Reform Act and its implications. ent business is Discuss how different Supreme Court justices view the role of the Judiciary and how they review Con- stitutional issues. 41278873237 . Discuss the historical significance of the Eighth Amendment. ml d's 2012 ISSUE SUMMARY YES: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy rules that if a prison deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, 30104005149 including adequate medical care, the courts have a responsibility to remedy the resulting violation of the 12-Music Eighth Amendment. NO: Justice Antonin Scalia believes that a ruling that may result in the release of 40,000 prisoners is unwar- ranted and unprecedented. and against the question at hand, the scope of the Court's I he Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "cruel and unusual" inquiry does not end with the punish- 'Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines ment determination of a jury, judge, or even a legislature. imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The history of the Eighth Amendment confirms that While each of these three restrictions provided for in the the prohibition of specific forms of punishment is gener- Eighth Amendment has gone before the Supreme Court, ally what was intended by the Framers in including the none has posed as great a challenge as the interpretation Amendment in the Bill of Rights. As an "originalist," or of "cruel and unusual punishment. " When reviewing a one who believes that the Constitution should be inter- case involving the cruel and unusual punishment clause, preted based on norms at the time it was drafted, Justice the Court most often is reviewing a challenge to a form of Scalia argues in the dissent that the courts should not punishment, such as the death penalty or a lengthy prison look beyond this meaning. Given the history in Europe term for a nonviolent crime. However, as you will read in of torturous methods of punishment, such as drawing and the majority and dissenting opinions of the 2011 Supreme quartering criminals or burning them at the stake, the Court case, Brown v. Plata, which forms the arguments for Framers sought to ensure that such forms of punishment