Explain the use of force as a disciplinary measure in prisons.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answers will vary. Generally, courts have been unwilling to put too many restrictions on the use of force by correctional officers. Correctional officers are given great leeway to use their experience to determine when force is warranted. In Whitley v. Albers (1986), the Supreme Court held that the use of force by prison officials violates an inmate's Eighth Amendment protections only if the force amounts to "the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain." Excessive force can be considered "necessary" if the legitimate security interests of the penal institution are at stake. Courts have found that the "legitimate security interests" of a prison or jail justify the use of force when the correctional officer is (1) acting in self-defense; (2) acting to defend the safety of a third person, such as a member of the prison staff or another inmate; (3) upholding the rules of the institution; (4) preventing a crime such as assault, destruction of property, or theft; or (5) preventing an escape effort.In addition, most prisons and jails have written policies that spell out the situations in which their employees may use force against inmates. The judicial system has not given correctional officers total freedom of discretion to apply force. In Hudson v. McMillan (1992), the Supreme Court ruled that minor injuries suffered by a convict at the hands of a correctional officer following an argument did violate the inmate's rights, because there was no security concern at the time of the incident. In other words, the issue is not how much force was used, but whether the officer used the force as part of a good faith effort to restore discipline or acted "maliciously and sadistically" to cause harm.