Corrections_Today_January_February_2024_Vol.86_No.1

■ LEGAL ISSUES

Common Constitutional Amendment Claims

1 st Amendment

8 th Amendment

14 th Amendment

Freedom of Religion

No Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Equal Protection and Due Process

Worship or engage in essential religious rituals

Disproportionate punishment

Normally involves how a right is not provided

Conjugal visits limited to heterosexual relationships

Access to clergy

Sexual harassment and duty to protect

Access to, delays in, or adequacy of health care

No due process during disciplinary hearings

Religious diets

Ignoring warning signs for safety (suicidality, violence)

Involuntary mental health treatment

Grooming and appearance

Worship times

evidence of system-wide deliberate indifference is required, rather than a claim alleging inadequacy of an individual’s treatment. Foundational case law — it all started with a back injury The landmark case of Estelle v. Gamble (1976) es tablished that offenders in the United States have an 8 th Amendment right to be shielded from cruel and unusual punishment, particularly as it relates to the provision of health care. In this case, an offender was injured on a work detail and suffered continued pain in his lower back that did not ease in response to medical care. From the time of the injury in November, 1973 through Febru ary, 1974, he received 17 medical visits or evaluations and was treated with bed rest, muscle relaxers and pain relievers. The Circuit Court ruled the medical decision making process violated the offender’s rights because the medical professionals did not use other tests or an x-ray. The U.S. Supreme court, however, ruled the treatment did not violate his 8 th Amendment rights and established the requirement to prove deliberate indifference in such

constitutional claims. In essence, the Court ruled medi cal malpractice or negligence did not rise to the level of “cruel and unusual” punishment and the standard requires deliberate indifference to meet the Constitutional require ment of “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” (Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)). The ruling also held that “ this is true whether the indifference is mani fested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner’s needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfer ing with the treatment once prescribed ( Id. ).” So — what does deliberate indifference look like? As established by Estelle , an 8 th Amendment violation must prove deliberate indifference to a serious medical or mental health need through “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain”. To constitute deliberate indifference to a serious need, the treatment an offender receives must be so grossly incompetent, inadequate or excessive as to shock the conscience or to be intolerable to fundamental fairness. It is worth repeating here, as above, that it takes

38 — January/February 2024 Corrections Today