NCJ Number
112943
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 52 Issue: 2 Dated: (June 1988) Pages: 34-41
Date Published
1988
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This review of all published court opinions in prison and jail overcrowding cases decided since 'Wolfish' in 1979 (through 1986) indicates that State and local officials who allow jail and prison overcrowding to undermine the quality of inmate living conditions do so at considerable risk.
Abstract
In both Bell v. Wolfish (1979) and Chapman v. Rhodes (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court rejected claims that double bunking per se in prisons constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The clear message of the Court in these cases is that lower courts should be more cautious in declaring jail and prison overcrowding unconstitutional. Nearly all the courts that have cited 'Chapman' in addressing inmate double-bunking have concluded that 'Chapman' requires courts to consider all the circumstances relating to the conditions of confinement in determining whether the eighth amendment has been violated. The greatest legal danger of double-bunking is that as the facility becomes more overcrowded, the quality of other confinement conditions is likely to deteriorate. As double-bunking becomes more prevalent in an institution, the likelihood of a lawsuit based on overcrowded conditions will increase with the institution's age and the degree to which it is unable to expand its resources, particularly staff size. 64 footnotes.