Jackson v. Bishop
404 F.2d 571 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The use of corporal punishment, specifically a strap, as a disciplinary measure in prisons constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The constitutionality of a punishment is determined by the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society," and corporal punishment offends these contemporary standards per se, regardless of any procedural safeguards.
Facts:
- The Arkansas penitentiary system utilized a leather strap, approximately four inches wide and up to five and a half feet long, to inflict corporal punishment on inmates for disciplinary infractions.
- The State Penitentiary Board formally authorized corporal punishment and, in January 1966, issued regulations limiting its use to ten lashes for specified major offenses, to be administered after a hearing by a Board of Inquiry.
- The regulations required that punishment not be inflicted by other inmates and that the prisoner be fully clothed.
- On July 20, 1966, plaintiff Ernst received two separate whippings of ten lashes each to his bare buttocks within a 45-minute period.
- Other inmates, including plaintiffs, testified that they were required to lower their trousers and were whipped on their bare buttocks, resulting in deep bruises and bleeding.
- Expert penologists testified that corporal punishment was cruel, unusual, and unnecessary, noting that the federal prison system had long abolished it and that only Arkansas and Mississippi still officially sanctioned its use.
- The experts opined that the practice was degrading to both the inmate and the administrator, generated hatred, and frustrated rehabilitative goals.
Procedural Posture:
- Three inmates (plaintiffs-appellants) filed separate petitions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
- The court consolidated the actions and treated them as a class-action suit for injunctive relief under federal civil rights statutes.
- A two-judge panel of the district court granted partial relief, enjoining certain practices but refusing to ban the use of the strap entirely, instead ordering the prison to promulgate additional rules with appropriate safeguards.
- The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, seeking a complete ban on the use of the strap.
- The defendant prison Superintendent did not file a cross-appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the use of a strap for corporal punishment of prisoners in the Arkansas state penitentiary system violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Blackmun, J.
Yes. The use of a strap for corporal punishment in prisons is a per se violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The court determined that the Eighth Amendment is not a static concept but 'must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.' Relying on expert testimony and the fact that 48 states had abolished the practice, the court found that the use of the strap offends contemporary concepts of decency, human dignity, and fundamental fairness. The court reasoned that no rule or regulation could successfully prevent the abuse inherent in corporal punishment, as it is easily circumvented, subject to sadistic misuse, and difficult to regulate at lower administrative levels. Furthermore, the practice is degrading, generates hate, and frustrates correctional goals, making it an unconstitutional method of discipline regardless of any claimed necessity or lack of funds for alternative measures.
Analysis:
This landmark decision established that corporal punishment in prisons, specifically the use of a strap, is unconstitutional per se under the Eighth Amendment. The ruling marked a significant shift from merely regulating the conditions of punishment to banning a specific type of punishment altogether. By applying the 'evolving standards of decency' test from Trop v. Dulles, the court solidified the use of contemporary social and penological standards as a measure of constitutionality in the prison context. This case signaled an increased willingness of federal courts to intervene in the administration of state prisons to protect inmates' fundamental rights and paved the way for future litigation challenging other harsh prison conditions.
