Excessive Force
Excessive force by prison officials is a serious violation of human rights. Our firm is committed to holding accountable those who abuse their authority, ensuring that incarcerated individuals are treated with respect and dignity, and advocating for justice in every correctional setting.
References
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)
In 𝘏𝘶𝘥𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘷. 𝘔𝘤𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of excessive force against incarcerated individuals and its constitutional implications. The case involved an incarcerated individual, Keith Hudson, who alleged that he was brutally beaten by prison guards while handcuffed and posed no threat. The guards argued that their actions were justified to maintain discipline and order within the prison. The Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applies to excessiveforce cases, even if the victim does not suffer serious injuries. The key consideration is whether the force used was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, rather than for legitimate correctional purposes. This decision emphasized that the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment extends to all individuals, including those in custody. 𝘏𝘶𝘥𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘷. 𝘔𝘤𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯 set a significant precedent by affirming that corrections officers cannot use excessive force against incarcerated individuals as a form of punishment or discipline. It underscored the importance of upholding the constitutional rights and dignity of incarcerated individuals, highlighting the need for accountability and oversight in correctional facilities to prevent abuses of power.
Wilkins v. Gaddy, 559 U.S. 34 (2010)
In 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘷. 𝘎𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘺, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of excessive force against incarcerated individuals and the standard for proving an Eighth Amendment violation. The case involved an incarcerated individual, Keith Gaddy, who alleged that a correctional officer used excessive force against him during an altercation, resulting in injuries. Gaddy argued that the force used was malicious and unnecessary, constituting cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court clarified that in cases of excessive force by prison officials, the central inquiry is whether the force used was objectively harmful and done with a sufficiently culpable state of mind. It emphasized that the absence of significant injuries does not automatically render the force constitutional. Instead, the focus is on whether the force applied was unnecessary and wanton, going beyond what is reasonably necessary for maintaining order and discipline in the prison. 𝘞𝘪𝘭𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘷. 𝘎𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘺 established that to establish an Eighth Amendment violation in cases of excessive force, an incarcerated person must show that the force used was objectively harmful and that the prison official acted with a culpable state of mind, such as malicious intent or reckless disregard for the person’s rights. This decision reaffirmed the principle that incarcerated individuals retain constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment, including protection from excessive force by prison staff.
