Corrections_Today_January_February_2024_Vol.86_No.1

more than mere negligence or malpractice to violate the 8 th Amendment. In addition, Estelle mentioned the “con temporary standards of decency” which opened the door for future examination of these issues under the micro scope of modern values and legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court further clarified the definition of deliberate indifference and its application in Wilson v. Seiter (1991) and Farmer v. Brennan (1994). The Wilson case involved an offender alleging that the conditions of his confinement constituted deliberate indifference and violated his 8 th Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically, he pointed to “over crowding, excessive noise, insufficient locker storage space, inadequate heating and cooling, improper ventila tion, unclean and inadequate restrooms, unsanitary dining facilities and food preparation, and housing with mentally and physically ill offenders.” (Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991)). The Court combined two of its past cases to establish a two-prong approach to its consideration of deliberate indifference – 1) the objective factor and 2) the subjective factor. The objective factor had been estab lished and applied in a previous case concerning double celling of offenders (Rhodes v. Chapman, 453 U.S. 337 (1981)). This factor examines the seriousness or actual harmfulness of the claims alleged. The subjective fac tor had previously been examined in a case involving a shooting of an offender by an officer during a prison disturbance (Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (1986)). The addition of the subjective factor – or whether prison officials intended to inflict harm – added the requirement of a “culpable state of mind” ( Id. ). The Court combined the two tests from Rhodes and Whitley to establish a more extensive examination of deliberate indifference. It then added the component of examining these elements within “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” (Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991), citing Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 101 (1958)) The Farmer v. Brennan (1994) case involved an al legation made against the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In this case, Farmer was a trans-female (assigned male at birth) who was incarcerated with the general male population. Three years into their incarceration, Farmer was transferred to a higher security facility and within two weeks was beaten and sexually assaulted by another offender, thus potentially exposing Farmer to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The Court applied the

two-prong test from Wilson adding the element of actual knowledge on the part of prison officials stating that a violation of deliberate indifference occurs when officials know “that offenders face a substantial risk of serious harm and disregards that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it” (Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994)). The Farmer case was not only critical in further clarifying deliberate indifference and the requirements for 8 th Amendment claims, but also was a critical case against prison rape, especially for transgender offenders, and was referenced in floor debates as the U.S. Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA, 2003). It is worth repeating ... that it takes more than mere negligence or malpractice to violate the 8 th Amendment. needs, the courts extended the right to health care to the are na of behavioral health in Bowring v. Godwin and clarified requirements in Ruiz v. Estelle. The Bowring case involved an offender that had been denied parole. One of the grounds of his denial was a psychological evaluation. The offender was seeking psychological treatment in the hopes that this would render him eligible for parole. The Fourth Circuit (Bowring v. Godwin, 551 F.2d 44 (4 th Cir. 1977)) extended the finding of Estelle to mental health by ruling, “we see no underlying distinction between the right to medical care for physical ills and its psychological or psychiatric counter part. Modern science has rejected the notion that mental or emotional disturbances are the products of afflicted souls, hence beyond the purview of counseling, medication and therapy.” This case also provided a general test, “The Bow ring Test,” for determining what is mandatory behavioral health care and was quickly picked up by other jurisdictions. Extending Estelle — so what about behavioral health?!? While Estelle concentrated on an offender’s medical

→

Corrections Today January/February 2024 — 39