the Case of the Freeper FRiva Feva is under scrutiny - super-sleuths are welcomed
come resolve the way to yesterday's Target Post, you're not out of the running yet
win your registration fees to the FRive Las Vegas Conference if you dare
Posted on 06/27/2002 10:47:59 AM PDT by Dog Gone
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday declared unconstitutional an Alabama prison practice of handcuffing inmates to a metal pole for hours in the summer heat. The court ruled that a prisoner could sue over his chaining.
The punishment, revived in that state in 1995 as part of a get-tough program for criminals, is obvious cruel and unusual punishment, the court ruled 6-3.
The victory for inmates was partly symbolic. Alabama was the only state to use ``hitching posts'' in recent years and it has since ended the punishment.
But the ruling halts a string of Supreme Court decisions that shielded prison officials from inmate lawsuits. Justices seemed disgusted by the treatment of a prisoner who claims he was twice chained to an outdoor pole in 1995 and denied food and water as punishment for fighting while assigned to a chain gang.
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said the practice ``unnecessarily and wantonly inflicted pain.''
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the inmate was chained ``for a legitimate penological purpose: encouraging his compliance with prison rules while out on work duty.''
The practice was reviewed as part of the broader question of when guards -- and potentially other government officials -- may be sued.
Stevens said officers should have known that the treatment was unconstitutional, and thus can be sued by former inmate Larry Hope.
Thomas said traditional immunity ``has been turned on its head.'' He was joined in dissent by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia.
Civil rights groups praised the decision.
``It's not just about prisoners' rights, it's a much broader ruling. It provides to victims of constitutional wrongdoing a possibility of redress,'' said Mark Brown, a Stetson University law professor who filed arguments in the case for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Hope claims he was not allowed to sit or move more than a few inches from the pole, while his arms were chained at head level. He was left once for seven hours without a bathroom break, he said.
Guards removed his shirt and taunted him by bringing a bucket of water that instead was given to prison dogs and poured at his feet, Hope said, and part of his experience was photographed by national news media.
The chest-high metal bars with rings attached were used periodically in Alabama prisons for years, but came into widespread use when championed by former Gov. Fob James. James also instituted chain gangs, and the poles were used to penalize inmates who refused to work.
``It's important for the Supreme Court to occasionally send a shot across the bow to state prisons,'' said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. ``It does send a message that the Supreme Court will continue to monitor prison conditions and has not abandoned this area.''
Law enforcement officers generally enjoy what is called qualified immunity from lawsuits, unless their conduct violates the Constitution or established law. At issue is how officers would know that their conduct was illegal or unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court turned back arguments from Alabama and 16 other states which contend that officials cannot be expected to know how rulings in previous cases might bear on a current situation.
In the dissent, Thomas said the simple question for the court was whether it was clearly established in 1995 that using a restraining bar violated the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments.
``The answer to this question is also simple: Obviously not,'' he wrote.
But Stevens, writing for the majority, said: ``The obvious cruelty inherent in this practice should have provided (guards) with some notice that their alleged conduct violated Hope's constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.''
Stevens said Hope ``was treated in a way antithetical to human dignity -- he was hitched to a post for an extended period of time in a position that was painful, and under circumstances that were both degrading and dangerous.''
In 1998, a federal judge found that hitching posts were unconstitutional as they were used in Alabama but told the state it could try to devise a more humane application of the punishment. The state abandoned pole punishments.
The high court has sided against inmates in several cases this year. Justices said jailed sex offenders could lose visitation and recreation privileges if they won't admit all past sexual assaults to counselors. The court also ruled that inmates who claim they were abused must use an internal prison complaint system before filing a lawsuit.
In a third case, the court ruled that federal inmates housed in private prisons or halfway houses cannot sue the operating companies for damages over civil rights violations.
The case is Hope v. Pelzer, 01-309.
A great deal of inmates have committed "victimless crimes".
When that changes, your argument may have merit.
If they predict incorrectly, they can be sued.
no Allman Brothers jokes .....please.
the Case of the Freeper FRiva Feva is under scrutiny - super-sleuths are welcomed
come resolve the way to yesterday's Target Post, you're not out of the running yet
win your registration fees to the FRive Las Vegas Conference if you dare
You should, you never know when you will become one.
It seems self evident, but I'll explain it anyway.
Crimes that have victims occur when an person is harmed in some way, or has his rights violated. Trespassing, murder, theft, rape, robbery are all examples of crimes that have victims. A good way to recognize this type of crime is someone saying, "Help! Someone did ________ to me!"
Victimless "crimes" on the other hand, lack a person who has been harmed or has had rights violated. Vices (gambling, prostitution, drug use, etc...) generally fall under this category, as do other "possession" type crimes, such as firearm possession, and various 'paper' violations. These type of "crimes" are characterized by a lack of a person saying "Help, someone did ________ to me!" Usually these types of crimes would go completely unnoticed, unless they are actively sought out, in often unconstitutional warrantless searches.
It really isn't all that complicated.
I believe in chain gangs and the full measure of the law, but when in the noon-day, Alabama heat, w/no water, you ain't worth a lick of work.
While I have no problem w/the bar, water must be readily provided... any comments?
FMCDH
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.