NCJ Number
152465
Journal
St. Johns Law Review Volume: 68 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1994) Pages: 259-281
Date Published
1994
Length
23 pages
Annotation
This article critiques the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Jordan v. Gardner (1993), in which the court found that the use of male guards to conduct random clothed-body searches of female inmates constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the standard of "deliberate indifference."
Abstract
In presenting Eighth Amendment claims pertinent to the conditions of confinement, plaintiffs must show that the defendant not only injured the plaintiff but did so in a manner that evinces a culpable state of mind. Culpability is measured under one of two applicable standards: "deliberate indifference," which applies when inmates allege harmful conditions of confinement, or malicious intent, when use of force is challenged as excessive. This article argues that the Jordan court erred in holding that the policy of random, cross-gender searches constituted cruel and unusual punishment. By applying the deliberate-indifference standard to find a prison security measure unconstitutional, the court extended the standard beyond the use intended by the U.S. Supreme Court. Further, this expansion will erode the predictive value of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence and allow judges to substitute imprudently their own values for the experience and expertise of prison officials. 130 footnotes