Intuitional Violence

Institutional violence is a long-standing problem within correction institutions across the country. Unfortunately, not every act of violence within institutions is punished and often many of them go unreported; even ones that receive documentation can have no disciplinary follow up. This is problematic for prisoners because as it is, they have very limited rights to be protected from violence and the ones they do have are frequently denied in practice. There are four categories of institutional violence. These are:

1. Deliberate indifference
2. Excessive force
3. Cruel and unusual punishment
4. Failure to protect the safety and well being of an inmate

DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE

It is the officer's duty to protect the inmates at all times. This includes protection from other inmates, guards and from the general conditions of the prison or jail. Deliberate indifference involves an official with prior knowledge of a potential risk to an inmate who "fail(s) to respond reasonably to that risk" (Toone, 44). Officials must have prior knowledge of risks to inmates. Primarily, inmates must inform prison officials of threats to their safety either in writing by filing grievances or verbally. This is why it is a good idea to exhaust grievance procedures. It gives officials the necessary information of troubles within the institution as well as serving as evidence when one is trying to prove that officials acted with deliberate indifference. However, guards and officials do not need to be informed about everything. Guards know that some inmates are more dangerous than others. They have the ability to look into inmate’s files and see their charges and institutional history. If they see that one inmate has a violent past and know he is out to get another inmate, they must do something to prevent the potentially dangerous situation from happening. If officials fail to respond reasonably to the claims in the grievances or from any other prior knowledge, the second part of deliberate indifference is met. Officials are in prisons and jails to control situations. If a guard is unaware of a situation, he or she cannot control it and most likely, cannot legally be held responsible. For legal interpretations of deliberate indifference, refer to: Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).

An example of deliberate indifference is the assault of an inmate by two inmates while a guard witnesses this and does nothing to stop it. In this hypothetical situation, two inmates were physically beating a third inmate while an officer observed this fight and did not interfere until the third inmate was bleeding and unable to move. The officer observing failed to respond reasonably to risk that the inmate could have been seriously hurt.

EXCESSIVE FORCE

Guards can use force to control inmates for disciplinary purposes only. This means that the use of force is allowed as long as the purpose of it is to keep the prison, guard or inmates secure. Although a correctional officer’s duty is to maintain order at all times and force is sometimes needed, this is not a license for an officer to use force in all situations. A guard can use some force to take a handcuffed inmate off a bus and into a cell, but the guard cannot slam the inmate into a wall face first if the inmate is not causing any trouble. When a situation does occur, the officer is within his or her rights to apply the necessary force to prevent the uprising. If the force applied involves malicious or sadistic intent, this would qualify as excessive force. Malicious intent is any intention of force displayed in an evil or mean way. Sadistic intent is any intention of force displayed in a way that gives the aggressor satisfaction by making the inmate feel pain. Any use of force after a situation has been resolved can be excessive force. If an inmate has been restrained and an officer continues to beat him, this could be excessive force. Ultimately, it is up to the court to decide. For legal interpretations of excessive force, refer to:
Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 106 S. Ct. 1078 89. Ed. 2d. 251 (1986).

An example of excessive force would be if a guard beats up an inmate during an escort to administrative segregation. If there are no threats to the security of the prison caused by this inmate and the inmate is simply being escorted, the guard cannot decide he or she wants to beat up the inmate because the guard has that authority. This would be a malicious act and thus, excessive force.

CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is a Constitutional right given by the eighth amendment. Inmates cannot be subjected to punishment that, “objectively results in a deprivation of serious harm or pose(s) a substantial risk of serious harm and subjectively involve(s) the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain through the deliberate indifference of a prison official” (JLM, 398). This means that no inmate can receive a punishment that had the only purpose of causing physical pain. All punishment must be a result of a legitimate penological concern, for example the orderly running of an institution. A type punishment that is not considered cruel and unusual is the placing of a person in disciplinary segregation. In segregation, access to things such as recreation, programming and interaction with others are limited. This is not cruel or unusual punishment because it contributes to the orderly running of the institution by removing a dangerous inmate from the general population. For legal interpretations of cruel and unusual punishment, refer to:
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 114 S. Ct. 1970, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994).

An example of cruel and unusual punishment is the four-point restraint method. In this system, inmate’s arms and legs were strapped to a table-like object. Inmates were restrained in this device for hours on end. Typically, the restraints were only supposed to be used for up to an hour, but in some cases, inmates would be held for over 5 hours. Additionally, sometimes guards forced inmates to use the bathroom while in the restraints. This is a form of cruel and unusual punishment because of the length that inmates were restrained.

FAILURE TO PROTECT

A failure to protect claim is typically made up of four elements: “a substantial risk of serious harm, official's knowledge of the risk, official's failure to respond reasonably and causation and injury” (Toone, 54). Institutions are dangerous places and as such, there is always a risk of being harmed. In regards to a substantial risk of serious harm, an inmate must be exposed to a dangerous situation greater than that of the everyday danger in prison or jail. Just like any deliberate indifference claim, if the officers did not have any prior knowledge about a potential risk, he or she cannot affect the problematic situation. In regards to official's failure to respond reasonably, if an official has prior knowledge of a potentially dangerous situation and does nothing about it, the official is failing to protect. Officials must respond reasonably in efforts to protect the inmates. If an inmate is injured during an assault and the assault could have been prevented in the first place, officials have failed to protect. For legal interpretations of failure to protect, refer to Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S, 833.

An example of a failure to protect incident would be if a guard failed to protect an inmate from a serious risk of harm. If two inmates are fighting and one of them has a shank or other knife-like object, there is a serious risk of harm to one of the inmates. If the guard had previous knowledge that the one inmate owned this knife-like object and failed to break up the fight that results in one of the inmates being stabbed, the guard has failed to protect. Another example of failure to protect would be if guards placed an inmate who is a former correctional officer in a cell with inmates from the former officer’s former prison. If the inmates assault the former guard, the current guards have failed to protect because they put the former guard in a situation of a substantial risk of serious harm.