NCJ Number
91383
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 19 Issue: 5 Dated: (September/October 1983) Pages: 456-469
Date Published
1983
Length
14 pages
Annotation
After examining the constitutional basis of the state's duty to provide inmates with reasonable protection from fire, this study considers the statutory basis for asserting violations of this duty, and the parameters of this duty as set forth in case law emerging from the Federal courts are discussed.
Abstract
Several legal commentators have viewed the Supreme Court's decision in Rhodes v. Chapman as a retreat from judicial activism in prison matters. Deference to State legislatures and prison officials received strong support in Justice Powell's majority opinion that 'courts cannot assume that State legislatures and prison officials are insensitive to the requirements of the Constitution or to the perplexing sociological problems of how best to achieve the goals of the penal function.' The widespread presence of fire hazards in jails and prisons challenges the Court's conclusion. Still, Rhodes v. Chapman has not brought a return to the hands-off doctrine. As the U.S. District Court for Nevada noted, Rhodes does not mandate comfortable prisons but requires 'the minimal measure of life's necessities,' which include adequate shelter, sanitation, food, clothing, medical care, and personal safety. One dimension of personal safety -- protection from fire -- has become a central right of inmates and pretrial detainees. Protection from fire hazards involves planning, training, firefighting equipment, and fire-resistant materials. To retreat from close scrutiny of fire danger would subject incarcerated persons to arbitrary punishment by placing them at risk of serious injury or death for reasons unrelated to detaining the accused or justly punishing the convicted. A total of 114 footnotes are provided. (Author summary modified)