Rhodes v. Chapman

Rhodes v. Chapman
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 15, 1981
Full case name	Rhodes v. Chapman
Citations	452 U.S. 337 ( more )
Holding
Whether prison conditions constitute cruel and unusual punishment must be proven with objective proof of the excessive harms caused directly by the challenged conditions.
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr. William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
Majority	Powell, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Rehnquist
Concurrence	Brennan (in judgment), joined by Blackmun, Stevens
Concurrence	Blackmun (in judgment)
Dissent	Marshall

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337(1981), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that whether prison conditions constitute cruel and unusual punishment must be proven with objective proof of the excessive harms caused directly by the challenged conditions. ^{[1] [2]}

Background

Incarcerated people who were housed in the same cell in an Ohio maximum security prison brought a class action in federal district court under Section 1983 against state officials, alleging that "double celling" (forcing people to have cellmates while in prisons) violated the Constitution and seeking injunctive relief. Despite its generally favorable findings of fact, the district court concluded that the double celling was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, as made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. This conclusion was based on five considerations: (1) inmates at the prison were serving long-terms of imprisonment; (2) the prison housed 38% more inmates than its "design capacity"; (3) the recommendation of several studies that each inmate have at least 555 square feet of living quarters, as opposed to the 63 square feet shared by the double celled inmates; (4) the suggestion that double celled inmates spend most of their time in their cells with their cellmates; and (5) the fact that double celling at the prison was not a temporary condition. The Court of Appeals affirmed. ^[1]

Opinion of the court

The court issued an opinion on June 15, 1981. The court found that double celling was not inherently cruel and unusual punishment. ^[1]

References

1. Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337 (1981).
2. Rudovsky, David; Bronstein, Alvin J.; Koren, Edward I.; Cade, Julia (1988). The Rights of Prisoners (4th ed.). pp. 2–4.

External links

• Text of Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337(1981) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Justia

This article incorporates written opinion of a United States federal court. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the text is in the public domain .