Eighth Amedment Gaps: Can Conditions of Confinement Litigation Benefit From Proportionality Theory?

This Article focuses on two separate issues deriving from the Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishment” clause. Specifically, it discusses classic conditions of confinement litigation and sentencing proportionality litigation. Confinement litigation includes cases challenging the lived experiences of prisoners such as overcrowding, excessive force, failure to provide adequate medical care, and deprivation of material needs. Sentencing proportionality litigation involves challenges to the length of a prison sentence or mode of punishment. The Article, unlike modern contemporary scholarship, attempts to draw connections between each doctrinal area, ultimately suggesting ways in which proportionality litigation can invigorate conditions litigation. Part I consists of a discussion of the history of the Eighth Amendment. Part II is an examination of the current divergence between the two areas. Finally, Part III consists of a suggestion of how to unite the two and weighing the pros and cons of such a change. \\server05\productn\F\FUJ\36-1\FUJ103.txt unknown Seq: 1 28-JAN-09 7:35 EIGHTH AMENDMENT GAPS: CAN CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT LITIGATION BENEFIT FROM PROPORTIONALITY THEORY? Alexander A. Reinert* Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 R I. A Brief History of Eighth Amendment Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 R A. Early Interpretations of “Cruel and Unusual” Punishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 R B. Modern Interpretations of “Cruel and Unusual” Punishments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 R II. The Principles and Practices of Proportionality and Conditions Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 R A. The Dissonant Elements of Modern Proportionality and Conditions of Confinement Jurisprudence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 R B. The Practical Ramifications of the Dissonant Elements of Conditions and Proportionality Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 R III. Bringing Proportionality Analysis into Conditions of Confinement Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 R A. The Broad Advantages of Proportionality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 R B. Three Specific Illustrations of the Potential Link Between Proportionality and Conditions Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 R 1. Proportionality and Disciplinary Measures . . . . 79 R 2. Revisiting Deference in Conditions of Confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 R 3. Proportionality and Offender-Specific Conditions of Confinement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 R Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 R * Assistant Professor of Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. E-mail: [email protected]. This paper is part of the Fordham Urban Law Journal’s Colloquium on Conditions of Confinement. I owe thanks to Margaret Lemos and Max Minzner for feedback on an earlier draft of this paper, and to the staff of the Fordham Urban Law Journal for outstanding editorial contributions.