NCJ Number
116298
Journal
University of Cincinnati Law Review Volume: 56 Issue: 1 Dated: (1987) Pages: 91-143
Date Published
1987
Length
53 pages
Annotation
Prison inmates who are vulnerable to physical assault by other inmates should be safeguarded through the least restrictive means possible, because they now pay too high a price for the safety they gain when they enter protective custody.
Abstract
The constitutional basis for protective custody is located in the right of vulnerable inmates to reasonable protection from assault. Inmates in protective custody are entitled to the procedural safeguards outlined in the United States Supreme Court's 1983 ruling in Hewitt v Helms, if their segregation violates a State-created liberty interest. In protective custody, inmates often encounter conditions that are more onerous than those present in the general prison population, however. Thus, protection inmates often experience conditions of confinement that are similar to those imposed as punishment for disciplinary infractions. Plaintiffs have challenged this inequity as well as individual aspects of protective custody housing. Therefore, prison staffs should explore the efficacy of security measures that are less burdensome to vulnerable inmates than indefinite confinement in protective custody. Thus, identified predators who threaten other inmates should be segregated. Alternatively, the threatened inmates should be transferred to another prison. Additionally, the time spent in protective custody can be reduced by teaching vulnerable inmates how to defend themselves, developing secure subenvironments in the general population, and counseling and training vulnerable inmates to avoid situations that provoke aggression. 331 footnotes.