Correctional Law: Whitley vs. Alberts Case - Essay Example

? Correctional Law: Whitley vs. Albers Case: 475 US 312: (1986) Prisoners Rights, The the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment University Abstract The following information uses five journal articles to show the stipulations of the Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. The Due Process Clause “prohibits the federal and state governments from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” (Hall, 1999). Other information provides details of what lead to the altercation and details of the case. What is an officer’s lawful authority, current federal use of force standards under the Constitution, and how Chief Justice Rehnquist has influenced correction laws during his 30 years of service? And finally how has the case of Whitley v. Albers become a major factor in correctional law. Keywords: discrete and insular minority, cruel and unusual punishments, due process clause, fundamental political right, before trial determination, objectively reasonable. Whitley v. Albers Case: 475 US 312 (1986) Prisoners Rights, The State, the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment Introduction: “Prisoners have been described as the starkest example of a discrete and insular minority; they are politically powerless and subject to public disdain and apathy.” (Van Slyke, 1993). “The general public hears little about inmates’ suffering except in the most severe cases.” (Van Slyke, 1993). The following writing summarizes the Whitley v. Albers Case and attempts to answer the question of whether force was initiated in a good faith effort to restore discipline or if violence was sadistically applied for the purpose of causing harm to the inmates. The 8th Amendment sets forth a stipulation that prohibits “Cruel and Unusual Punishment,” and prohibits unnecessary infliction of pain. This is applied after the State has made its efforts to comply with constitutional guarantees that are traditional with criminal prosecutions. (LAAW International, 2012). Were stipulations of the 8th Amendment followed? Why was force needed? What was the extent of the force? How extensive were the injuries to the inmates? Was the threat to the jail personnel a matter of life or death? What efforts, if any, were made to curtail the use of force? The following text addresses these questions. The Case: It was around 8:30 in the evening on June 27, 1980. Several inmates at Oregon State Penitentiary were found intoxicated. The prison guards attempted to move the intoxicated inmates to another area. The action that was going on could be seen from cell windows in cellblock A, therefore, other inmates became agitated. They thought excessive force was being administered. Officers Kemper and Fitts ordered the prisoners to return to their cells. The order was disobeyed. One inmate jumped from the second tier and assaulted Officer Kemper, who was able to escape, but Officer Fitts was taken hostage. The prison security manager, Harol Whitley, was informed of the situation. He entered the cellblock to determine that the four inmates and Officer Fitts were not harmed. Klenk, the hostage taker, informed Whitley that one inmate had been killed and others would follow. Albers supposedly left his cell on the upper tier to help elderly prisoners on the lower tier in the event that tear gas may be used. (Ryan, 2008). Captain Whitley left the cellblock to organize an assault squad. Prison officials needed to free the hostage; therefore, they worked out a plan for Captain Whitley to go into the cellblock unarmed. Prison officers who were armed with shotguns then followed him. Captain Whitley then ordered one of the officers to fire a warning shot, and if it were necessary to shoot low at any of the inmates who were climbing the stairs to the upper floor. He would then be climbing the stairs to free the hostage. One of the officers shot Albers in the left knee as he started up the stairs. Albers brought an action in Federal District Court against Captain Whitley alleging, inter alia, they had deprived him of his rights under the Eighth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment. The Decision: The court held that shooting Albers did not violate his Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishments. (supreme.justia.com, 1986). Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion as “obduracy and wantonness, not inadvertence, or error in good faith, that characterizes the conduct prohibited by the cruel and unusual punishment clause.” (supreme,justia.com, 1986). (a) The question is whether the conduct occurred in connection with established conditions of confinement, supplied medical needs, or restoring control of a large cellblock. Action taken in the course of a prison security measure would not be cruel and unusual punishment for the simple reason that it was applied for security purposes. Due to the kind of conduct involved, the infliction of pain was warranted. Therefore, when a prison security application is necessary and applied to end a disturbance, as in this case, it presents a high-risk situation to the safety of inmates and prison staff. (supreme.justia.com, 1986). The outcome asks whether force was applied in good faith effort to restore discipline or was it maliciously and sadistically used for the purpose of causing harm. (supreme.justia.com, 1986). (b) The evidence was viewed in the most desirable light for Albers, as was also required in the decision to reverse the courts’ verdict for petitioners. It did not appear that the evidence was reliable enough for “inference of wantonness in the infliction of pain under the above standard.” (supreme.justia.com, (1986). The evidence arguably showed that prison officials were in error in their judgment on using a plan that employed the potential use of deadly force. However, it falls short of showing there was no convincing basis for their belief that deadly force was necessary. The order to shoot low does not justify a command to inflict pain in a wanton and unnecessary fashion. Therefore, neither did the failure to provide a verbal warning as well as a warning shot. It was felt that any inmate running up the stairs toward Captain Whitley would be thought to pose a threat to the rescue attempt. Consideration that an inmate might be climbing the stairs to return to his cell does not violate an 8th Amendment violation. Also it was felt that the officer shot at Albers as an individual and not the inmates as a group to return prison security. In this instance, the shooting was part of a good faith effort to restore security. (supreme.justia.com, 1986). It was also found that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment cannot be used as an alternate basis. Using this in a prison setting, the Due Process Clause does not give any more protection than the cruel and unusual punishment clause does. (supreme.justia.com, 1986). Defining the Eighth Amendment: It is very difficult to define the 8th Amendment. The 8th Amendment stipulates that cruel and unusual punishments “shall not be inflicted; that punishments of torture (such as drawing and quartering, embowelling alive, beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive), and all others in the line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by the amendment to the Constitution.” (law.cornell.edu, 2012). This sets a standard for what is justified as cruel and unusual punishments. It is noted that the courts have looked to history to determine what methods were used and considered just punishment. The court “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” (law.cornell.edu, 2012). The 8th Amendment poses the question of whether a penalty subjects the person to a fate forbidden by the morals of civilized treatment. Such punishment is to be looked at as what is prohibited or seen as inhuman treatment. The 8th Amendment is intended to keep that basic concept or to preserve the dignity of man. This concept assures that the power to dole out punishment is carried out within the limits of a civilized standard. These implications can include various situations within the corrections system including prison riot control. Defining the Fourteenth Amendment: The 14th Amendment, as applicable to the cases in question, covers decisions that are made in haste, perhaps under pressure, and sometimes do not involve a second chance. To fall foul of the law and outside of the courts’ protection, the actions not only must have a purpose and a consequence to cause or have caused harm or to perpetuate conduct shocking to one’s conscience but it is also necessary for such actions to constitute a due process violation. An example would be the failure of a prison to provide necessary medical care to its inmates. The 14th Amendment stipulates “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (LAAW.com, 2012). In the case of Hudson v. McMillian of 1992 the judge addressed two concerns not seen in the 1986 ruling in Whitley v. Albers. He contended that case overload might be a determining factor for finding statutory standing to sue not be placed upon certain plaintiffs. Therefore, the state concluded that such suits are simply without merit as to keep the complaints in check within the prison system. He also contended that the “right to file for legal redress in the courts is as valuable to a prisoner as to any other citizen.” It gives anyone convicted of a serious crime and imprisoned a fundamental political right. (Cornell University Law School, 1992). Judge Blakmun also concurred that his decision should not make it easier for filings by prison inmates. Prison officials are entitled to a before trial determination if they acted in an objectively reasonable manner which would qualify them for immunity in their defense. (Cornell University Law School, 1992). An Officer’s Lawful Authority: There are differing ways in which an officer can gain authority. 1. The stipulations of authority are found in state law. In most cases use of force is justified and the officer’s use of force is not questioned. However, the problem exists when the officer is not fully aware of his authority. Sometimes an officer does not have “lawful authority” but still maintains the same right to act as a normal person. This means that without authority as an officer he will still have the right to self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property. 2. There has to be a lawful objective to taking an action. When an officer uses his governmental authority to gain control over a person he must have a “lawful objective.” (LAAW International, Inc., 2012). 3. An officer does not need to retreat from an apparent threat. He can retreat to de-escalate a situation or for a better advantage, but he cannot retreat because he is faced with a threat that will require the use of force. 4. The balancing test deals with objective reasonableness. The more severe the person’s actions are, the greater the force that an officer can justifiably use. The question is whether the officer’s use of force is being objectively considered. What the officer knows to be fact is critical in deciding appropriateness of force. Example: an officer knows the person confronting him has concealed weapons and has actually attacked another officer without warrant. The officer may be angry because he attacked a fellow officer; however, he must make a decision based on the relevant facts, or what he knows. 5. The officer must know the law, and it is assumed that a well-trained officer will know what is acceptable and unacceptable within the law. So if an officer violates his authority, use of force will be “unreasonable.” (LAAW International, Inc., 2012). 6. Since law enforcement officers have to make split second decisions using force, the officer’s force will be judged by the “totality of the circumstances” at the moment the force is used. Federal use of force Standards today require that under the Constitution two basic legal standards apply. The first is “objective reasonableness,” which only applies to force upon a “seized free person.” The second is “shock the conscience,” which applies to “non-seized free persons,” pre-trial detainees, and people convicted and imprisoned. The second applies to anyone who is not a “seized free person.” (LAAW International, Inc., 2012). When Chief Justice William Rehnquist died in 2005 he left a legacy that has influenced corrections law. He served for 33 years, and was the only judge in history to serve more than 30 years on the U. S. Supreme Court. His service on the Supreme Court came at a time in history when correction law had experienced its most significant developments. He was a participant in nearly all of the court decisions that affected current inmate rights and officer’s authority. Also, being Chief Justice gave him opportunities to influence development of correctional law that were not readily available to other judges. (Smith, 2006). Before Rehnquist’s appointment, there were few cases that dealt with inmates’ rights and the authority of the correction officers. Cooper v. Pate in 1964 and Johnson v. Avery in 1969 both played significant roles in giving inmates access to the courts. (Smith, 2006). The Whitley v. Albers case left in place the requirement to prove “deliberate indifference” in use-of-force cases or what is deemed to be “malicious and sadistic” intent. (Smith, 2007). Conclusion: We have looked at the details of the case including why force was needed in order to regain security of the prison. It appears from the information that reasonable accommodation was used to dispel the conflict before any use-of-force was administered. It became a matter of life or death when guns were issued to the prison officers. Captain Whitley acted on the information which he knew to be fact while trying to secure the prison. He did not have knowledge of Albers climbing the stairs to return to his cell, therefore, it was not an 8th Amendment violation. Also under the circumstances the, 14th Amendment does not entitle any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. We have also looked at an officer’s lawful authority and how it pertains to state law. We determined that in most cases use of force is justified, however, there has to be a lawful objective to take any action. An officer cannot retreat when faced with a threat; and he must use what he knows to be true in deciding the appropriate force. He must also know the law and be well trained so that he does not violate his authority. Split second decisions must be made and are judged at the moment the force is used. We have looked at what is normal in the Federal use of force standards under the Constitution today, how they are applied and the two main objectives that are applied. The information has shown that Chief Justice Rehnquist has had a significant influence on interpreting and applying correctional laws in his 30 year of service. Until his appointment, there were few cases that addressed inmates’ rights and the authority of correction officers. The landmark cases in 1964 and 1969 gave inmates access to the courts, but Whitley v. Albers will remain a major case in determining “malicious and sadistic” intent in prison security cases. References Blackmun, J. Hudson v. McMillian. Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for The Fifth Circuit. 25 February 1992. Web. 06 March 2012. Hall, John J.D. Virginia Coalition Police and Deputy Sheriffs. Due Process and Deadly Force. (02 1999). Web. 06 March 2012. . Justia.com U. A. Supreme Court Center. Whitley v. Albers – 475 U. S. 312 (1986). Web 06 March 2012. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/. LAAW International, Inc. (2012). Use-of-Force Legal Analysis. Web. 06 March 2012. LAAW International, Inc. (2012). How Much Force Is Acceptable? Web. 06 March 2012. Legal Bulletin 7.1. Assaults and Beatings. (04 2008). Lewisburg Prison Project. 06 March 2012. Legal Information Institute. Annotated Constitution Eighth Amendment. Web. 06 March 2012. Legal Information Institute. Whitley v. Albers 475 U. S. 312. 04 March 1986. Web. 06 March 2012. Ryan, Jack, J.D. Legal and Liability Risk Management Institute. Jails/Corrections, Use Of Force in Jails/Detention Centers. (2008). Web. 06 March 2012. Smith, Christopher E. Corrections Compendium. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Corrections Law. 01 September 2006. Web. 06 March 2012. Smith, Christopher E. The Prison Journal. Prisoners’ Rights and the Rehnquist Court Era. 22 January 2009. Web. 06 March 2012. Van Slyke, Doretha M. Hudson v. McMillan and Prisoners’ Rights: The Court Giveth And the Court Taketh Away. Vol 42: 1727. (1992) Web. 06 March 2012. Read More