Thomas v. Baca, 2007 WL 2758741 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21), holds that the L.A. County Jail's practice of having many inmates (pre-trial detainees and post-conviction prisoners) sleep on mattresses on the floor violates the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause (as to prisoners) and the Due Process Clause (as to detainees).
Interestingly, though, the finding wasn't based on a conclusion that such a practice caused unacceptable physical discomfort, or hygiene problems. Rather, it seems that the court thought that requiring people to sleep on mattresses (presumably with adequate other bedding) rather than on bunks was just an unacceptable indignity:
[T]he Court finds that requiring inmates to sleep on the floor deprives them of a minimum measure of civilized treatment and access to life's necessities because access to a bed is an integral part of the “adequate shelter” mandated by the Eighth Amendment. The “routine discomfort inherent in the prison setting” may not state a constitutional claim, but depriving inmates of beds goes deeper. The Constitution clearly does not allow prisoners to suffer the deprivation of adequate food or water. Just so, prisons may not deprive those in their care of a basic place to sleep -- a bed; for like wearing clothing, sleeping in a bed identifies our common humanity.
That many individuals, for cultural or health reasons, choose to sleep on the floor in no way detracts from this point. A predilection for camping under the stars or the soothing touch a hard futon may have on a sore back is entirely different in kind from stripping an individual of the option of using a bed. Quite simply, that a custom of leaving inmates nowhere to sleep but the floor constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is nothing short of self-evident.
The Court is not alone in finding that a minimum degree of civilized conduct demands such a conclusion. In Lareau v. Manson, 651 F.2d 96, 107-08 (2d Cir.1981) (emphasis added), for example, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that “forcing men to sleep on mattresses on the floors” violates the Eighth Amendment because it does “not provide minimum decent housing under any circumstances for any period of time.” Similarly, the Third Circuit, in holding that a county's remedial plan to improve conditions in its jail would satisfy Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment requirements of adequate shelter if, inter alia, it provided inmates with “bunk-type beds of their own,” characterized forced floor-sleeping, even with mattresses, as an “unsanitary and humiliating practice.” Union County Jail Inmates v. Di Buono, 713 F.2d 984, 996, 1001 (3d Cir.1983); see also Lyons v. Powell, 838 F.2d 28, 30 (1st Cir.1988)(holding that floor-sleeping with mattress stated cognizable Fourteenth Amendment violation); Anela, 790 F.2d at 1069 (same, in light of Lareau and Union County); Albano v. Mitchell, No. C 97-3781, 1998 WL 101743, at *1 (N.D.Cal. Feb.24, 1998) (unpublished) (noting that allegations of floor-sleeping “may be sufficient to implicate denial of the minimum civilized measures of life's necessities”); Loya v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, No. CV 91-216, 1992 WL 176131, at *2 (D.Idaho May 4, 1992) (unpublished) (noting its own previous holding that “sleeping on the floor is constitutionally prohibited”); Balla v. Bd. of Corr., 656 F.Supp. 1108, 1114 (D.Idaho 1987) (enjoining floor-sleeping and characterizing it as “dehumanizing, intolerable and certainly of no penological benefit”); Capps v. Atiyeh, 495 F.Supp. 802 (D.Or.1980)(holding that overcrowded conditions which led to practices including floor-sleeping violated the Eighth Amendment); Stewart v. Gates, 450 F.Supp. 583, 588 (C.D.Cal.1978) (holding floor-sleeping unconstitutional).
The basic humanity inherent in providing access to a bed highlights the practice of forced floor-sleeping as one of the unconstitutional effects of prison overcrowding.... [O]vercrowding “may dilute other constitutionally required services such that they fall below the minimum Eighth Amendment standards, and it may reach a level at which the shelter of the inmates is unfit for human habitation.” IdForcing inmates to sleep on the floor stoops to that unconstitutional level.
International guidelines support this basic right. See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 578, 125 S.Ct. 1183, 161 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005) (considering “international opinion” in Eighth Amendment analysis); Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 122 S.Ct. 2242, 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002) (same). For example, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, which contain guidelines regarding confinement conditions and set forth minimum acceptable prison conditions, provide that “[e]very prisoner shall, in accordance with local or national standards, be provided with a separate bed, and with separate and sufficient bedding which shall be clean when issued, kept in good order and changed often enough to ensure its cleanliness.” United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners, E.S.C. Res. 663 C (XXIV), U.N. ESCOR, 24th Sess., Supp. No. 1, ¶ 19, U.N. Doc. E/3048 (1957) (amended 1977) (emphasis added); see Lareau, 651 F.2d at 106 (relying on these standards in assessing the meaning of “adequate shelter” and holding floor-sleeping unconstitutional).
It sounds like there is indeed precedent for the court's decision (though I haven't myself read the lower court cases that the opinion cites, I have no reason to doubt the court's summary of the cases). But isn't this a strange result? Is the presence or absence of a bunk (not of a moderately comfortable place to sleep, but a bunk as such) really a question of constitutional dimension? Even accepting the Court's holdings that the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to conditions of confinement, is placing mattresses on the floor really constitutionally "cruel"?
In any case, this isn't my core area of expertise, so perhaps I'm missing something here; still, the case seemed worth mentioning to our readers.
Quite simply, that a custom of leaving inmates nowhere to sleep but the floor constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is nothing short of self-evident.
I take it that "self-evident" is a legal term of art meaning "something I believe strongly but can't be bothered to demonstrate, and in any event don't need to demonstrate because all right-thinking people must agree with me already."
That being said, sentences such as "Quite simply, that a custom of leaving inmates nowhere to sleep but the floor constitutes cruel and unusual punishment is nothing short of self-evident" are nothing short of ridiculous. Um, no, it's not self-evident that "leaving inmates nowhere to sleep but the floor" AS SUCH constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. In fact, it hardly constitutes punishment, let alone cruel or unusual.
Furthermore, the international standard the court cites (I know, I know, Justice Scalia, international law is irrelevant) says that prisoners must have beds or "bedding", a vague enough word that leaves room for futons and other bunk-less sleeping arrangements.
As far as this case is concerned, in practice, I wouldn't be surprised if the lawyers for the plaintiff hadn't found sufficient evidence of the kind of abuse I mention in the first paragraph (which is very hard to get), but that the Court, suspecting such abuse, used this loophole as a way to give the plaintiff a way out. Not pretty as far as law goes, but what goes on in these jails isn't pretty either, and if I had been the judge and that had been the case, I might have rendered a similar decision.
1. The "mattress" is a foam rubber mat, maybe an inch thick, like the mat they use in high school wrestling. A real mattress would quickly get dirty (see below) and be hard to clean, whereas these mats can be hosed down.
Try sleeping on a concrete floor with one of those. I'd bet every pressure point starts hurting, and in a hurry.
2. A cell is, what, maybe eight by eight, with a third or so of that taken up by bunks, another part by the toilet. If you allow 2.5 ft for the bunks on one side and the toilet on the other, there's only about 2-3 ft. left. So only place for the mat is on the floor, literally pressing against the toilet, which is shared by three people. Happy dreams!
I can see the court's ruling both as to temporary detainees (who are suspects and occasionally witnesses) and as to long term ones (who might be in that position continually).
I tend to agree that this is not a constitutional deprivation, I find Seamus's reasoning assinine and idiotic in the extreme. The fact that you may choose to do something does not mean that when it is forced upon you, it is not cruel and unusual. A woman may choose to have anal sex with a prison guard. But a prison guard forcing anal sex on her is cruel and unusual punishment.
A great many years ago, I spent a couple of hours in a local police lockup which had nothing but a hard shelf, no mattress at all. I believe the lockup in the town I am living in now has similar amenities (or lack thereof, if you will) and I suspect that this is more the norm than the exception. Does this mean that such facilities fail the test in that they do “not provide minimum decent housing under any circumstances for any period of time?” Or does this refer only to jails and prisons where the "tenancy" is long-term?
If prisoners had their own cell with their own futon, we wouldn't be seeing these cases. At home, I sleep on a futon on the floor, but in my own room in my own apartment. It's a personal space issue. Personal space matters where you have pre-trial detainees mixed in with convicted gang members doing time and looking for fresh victims. Couldn't tell for sure from the post if that was at issue.
Is this really in dispute?
For that matter, if that's the real problem than why not judicially rule away prison overcrowding?
There is a reason most people would like to be above floor level.
So if your jail is overcrowded mattresses on the floor is the only option.
We use these words for such trivial things, and then we can't understand why some people generally don't think of much worse acts as fitting the phrase.
It's bad enough when it's done by politicians, but now judges? Oi..
Much like Nazi, these words should probably be reserved so that when someone uses them, everyone can instantly understand what is under discussion. Instead we end up in endless digression about to what degree the phrase applies, thereby diluting the word. One is forced to wonder, though, if that is the point in such things..
I've worked in both jails and prisons. In jails that house folks overnight for morning appearances, there is no mattress b/c most of the inmates are intoxicated and there's the risk that they will suffocate on their own vomit.
In prisons (and I've worked in a number of them in different states) the mattress is not 1 inch of foam. It's similar to what's used in the military. Not fancy, but more than 1 inch .
And let's not forget the REASON inmates are not given better mattresses: the more material the more things can be made into weapons. It's amazing what these folks can make into a weapon. Who would think a toilet roll tube could be a weapon, but it can.
Perhaps they might be housed with legislators...
And what about schools who go on overnight trips and spend nights in other schools' gyms with just sleeping bags?
I'm sorry, but anything CHOSEN by significant numbers of people, not for masochistic or purification reasons (like self-flagellation, for example), but simply as a matter of preference, by definition is NOT cruel and unusual punishment. I think THAT is self-evident.
How long before television is required for "civilized treatment" and "life's necessities"?
Is this really in dispute?
Ask Clarence Thomas.
Suppose I ask you instead, since Thomas doesn't comment on this blog, so far as I know. Can unduly harsh conditions of confinement constitute cruel and unusual punishment? Suppose prisoners are inadequately fed, or receive no medical care? Suppose they are beaten by guards (yes, I know Thomas sees no problem)?.
What do you think, David?
That seems logical to me. If the judge or the jury or both had said "we sentence this guy to be taken out in the hall and have his teeth knocked out by guards", that certainly would have been cruel and unusual punishment. But they didn't, did they?
Yes. I should have said no constitutional problem.
Still, it's bizarre. A beating is cruel and unusual punishment if ordered by the legislature or the court, but not if inflicted by guards, who are, after all, state employees. Surely the state has some obligation to protect prisoners' physical wellbeing. No matter how low you think that requirement is, not preventing guards from beating prisoners must violate it.
And even if you accept Thomas' strange reasoning here, that doesn't address the broader question of whether conditions of confinement can be so harsh as to be considered cruel and unusual punishment.
The mattress case is a new one as far as I know. Our jail inspector will not allow cots to be used because they can be taken apart and the pieces used as weapons. Prisoners sue for all sorts of things and I suppose that is how this mattress case developed but evidently the judge did not have a good BS detector.
Yeah, people just end up in prison for reasons that aren't their fault. It's not like they committed crimes or something.
Nonsense. These criminals deprived themselves of the ability to eat what they want to by committing crimes.
If you're a free person, you can eat whatever you want, if you can find an affordable place to buy it and know how to prepare it. When you go to prison, you eat what the rest of the criminals eat. So long as that's adequately nutritious, you have nothing to complain about. If you prefer a different diet, think about that before you commit a crime.
Why? Not because the state has no obligation to prevent police officers from beating you, but because the eighth amendment applies to punishments imposed by the state, not to assaults committed by state employees. That's Thomas's position: not that it isn't "cruel and unusual" for prison guards to commit assault, but that it isn't "punishment" as that term is used in the 8th amendment.
In other words, surely the state does have an obligation to prevent guards from beating prisoners, but that obligation is not rooted in the eighth amendment.
If prisoners were locked in cages used for animals, then it would not be permitted. Jail cells and such, depite having similarities to animal cages are not animal cages but instead are structures specifically designed to hold human beings. I suspect that sleeping bags (and matresseses) which are designed for humans might be sufficent stay off further ruling by the court and am almost positive that foutons would meet the standards of the court that prisoners have beds (I have learned never to be positive about what a court will decide in the future). Indeed, in light of this ruling, I suspect a killing could be made in prison rated foutons.
You know, what I find asinine is CrazyTrain's suggestion that anal sex is comparable to sleeping on the floor. Or maybe, in situations where ordinary people say, "Sure, you can crash at my apartment for the weekend, but there isn't a lot of room and you'll have to sleep on the floor," CrazyTrain says instead, . . . well, you get the idea.
And I wonder, why resort to the US constitution when suing under parallel state constitutional provisions would make a California decision unassailable?
If the California Supreme Court has previously concluded that the state's 8th Amendment analogue is substantively identical to the Federal 8th Amendment then there's no difference in jurisprudence, but Federal judges are generally less sympathetic to state governments than state judges (for obvious reasons).
Actually, I don't think even Thomas went as far as you do. He based his dissent on the notion that the beating caused "insignificant harm," not that guards' treatment of prisoners could never be cruel and unusual punishment. What seems bizarre to me is his standard. Per Thomas, the "unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain," is inadequate, even if there is no need to inflict the pain to maintain order. His dissent, which relies heavily on an analogy to deprivation, seems far-fetched to me.
In any case, I still await your answer to my main question. Can conditions of confinement ever be so harsh as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment? Clarence Thomas, I have learned, thinks the answer is yes, though I suspect that in practice it will be a very rare case that meets his standard. What about you?
We use these words for such trivial things, and then we can't understand why some people generally don't think of much worse acts as fitting the phrase. Incarceration in the LA County jail isn't trivial. It's not Mayberry RFD. The bedding question comes up in a content of frequent killings, assaults, rapes, and the levels of extortion that go on in such a setting.
And let's not forget the REASON inmates are not given better mattresses: the more material the more things can be made into weapons. At CCA we didn't use the mattress to make weapons, we used it to make earplugs. A few weeks of sleep deprivation makes a powerful but subtle form of cruel punishment.
Humans aren't generally locked in cages, either, while animals frequently are - does that mean locking prisoners in cages is cruel and unusual? The problem isn't being locked in a cage. It's being locked in a cage with 50 other people.
Virgina: Yeah, people just end up in prison [sic, see jail] for reasons that aren't their fault. It's not like they committed crimes or something.
Hence the term "pre-trial detainee". Many are innocent, a few will be found guilty by juries, the overwhelming number will be urged by public defenders or other counsel to take a plea bargain, especially if they are innocent. In my case, I spent all my money to hire a lawyer, we brought the accuser in for a deposition, he admitted nothing happened, all charges were dropped. Typically LA County jail inmates never get that level of due process.
Virgina: Nonsense. These criminals deprived themselves of the ability to eat what they want to by committing crimes. Again, see concept of "pre-trial detainee" At CCA, I was denied a vegetarian diet, and lost 15 pounds in 3 weeks and developed serious health problems. My culture has a cannibalism taboo; I have a lifelong committment to nonviolence. There was no crime; there was a false accusation and an overzealous prosecutor. If it could happen to me, it could happen to you.
Seamus: You know, what I find asinine is CrazyTrain's suggestion that anal sex is comparable to sleeping on the floor. I think what the judge understands is at LA County, sleeping on the floor is going to result in too much unwanted anal sex. Having a bed creates a zone of personal space that a person can reasonably insist somebody else stay out of. That zone is eroded when all you have is undefined area of floor. Again, the judge isn't making a sweeping ruling about all jails everywhere - it is a ruling about what due process requires at LA County.
I'm surprised of the cruelty of conservative thought, that would be actually troubled with the concept of being forced to provide beds for people whose freedom to get their own (rightly or wrongly) has been taken away.
Some people choose to kill themselves (it's called suicide). That does not mean that the state can just choose to kill large number of prisoners (who weren't sentenced to the death penalty) due to overcrowding.
Similarly, lots of people choose to inflict pain on themselves. Have you ever heard of BDSM (not to mention the practices of many indigenous cultures)? The state can't torture prisoners just because some people choose to get tortured.
Some people choose to fast during the day (on certain occasions) for religious reasons. That doesn't mean that the prison can save money by feeding all prisoners only meals at night.
Yes, prisoners are overwhelmingly at fault for being in prison. That does not imply that prisons can do what ever they want to prisoners as long as someone outside of prison would voluntarily accept it. It's a complete Non-Sequitur.
All prisoners should sleep on concrete floors. Without mattresses and minimal blankets. Why are we so soft on these criminals?
I agree w/ your underlying point. You cannot force a person to do X just b/c there are some people who voluntarily do X.
However, in this case, X is simply sleeping on the floor on a mattress. That is not a big deal.
If the real problem is overcrowding, or lack of privacy (and those things absolutely could be a big deal) - say it in those terms. Or, be specfic that beds is a measure of privacy. Don't make the argument that a prisoner has a right to a bed, and use lack of privacy as a justification for that right. Make it be that even prisoners have a limited right to privacy (already done by SCOTUS) - and one way to measure the amount of privacy a person has is whether they have their own bed.
Finally, it is hard to take supporters of this opinion seriously when they are comparing sleeping on the floor to anal rape, suicide/death, etc. I think these things are a long ways apart. (and again, if lack of privacy leads to anal rape or death - make that be the focal point of the argument)
Second, you're misreading Thomas in _Hudson_. Thomas, as he is wont to do when he thinks a party's case is weak, explains that he doesn't think the court's precedents are correct, but then proceeds to apply those precedents and point out that the party should lose even under these laws. He thought the petitioner should lose because the injuries were minor -- by the way, contrary to the nasty assessment of the NYT editorial board, that wasn't Thomas's personal opinion; that was the factual finding of the district court -- but he also thought that this wasn't the sort of cause of action governed by the Eighth.
If you're doubting me on this point, read his concurrence in Farmer; he writes a separate opinion explicitly to make this point. Or his FN12 in Hope v. Pelzer.
Obviously, stare decisis would give us the answer of "yes," but as I said above, I haven't done the research to know what the original understanding of the Eighth was. I think that there's a cause of action for sufficiently harsh conditions of confinement, but it's not clear to me that it ought to be rooted in the Eighth, or in the Constitution at all.
Here's a wild and wacky idea to avoid these "overcrowding" issue, and I think Jim Carrey said it best - "STOP BREAKING THE LAW!"
On the mattress issue, I never knew that when the Army deployed me to Iraq that sleeping on the ground in the desert would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Maybe I should sue. Or maybe I should accept that some think our criminals should be treated better than the members of the Armed Forces.
It's been in place for almost a decade now and hasn't been found to be cruel and unusual punishment.
Let's just add this to another element in the ever growing separation of the law from its people.
Then Thomas' view is even more bizarre than I thought. Why?
First, the Amendment says cruel and unusual punishment shall not be "inflicted." That seems to me to proscribe actions, not laws. Under Thomas' interpretation, there can be no violation as long as the law is general enough. "Gee, all the statute says is 'five years in jail.' Can't be cruel and unusual."
Second, there are many ways the state can inflict C&U punishment without an explicit statute. Prison conditions - and hence punishment - are a consequence of many state actions and inactions. The state might fail to provide adequate funding for food, sanitation, or medical care (at whatever one might consider the minimum acceptable level). It might turn a blind eye towards abuses by guards - this is hardly unheard of.
You say,
That's Thomas's position: not that it isn't "cruel and unusual" for prison guards to commit assault, but that it isn't "punishment" as that term is used in the 8th amendment.
But if the state tolerates the assault then what difference does it make whether the law explicitly authorizes it? It's a distinction without a difference. Were the guards in Hudson charged? (IIRC they, or someone had to pay $800 in damages for dental work. Is that the usual penalty for assault?)
So to be more precise than "bizarre," I would say Thomas view is wildly formalistic. It ignores the reality that state action can lead to the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment in many more ways than just specifying, by statute, punishments that fall into this category.
Wait, maybe they didn't mean "pea" but rather... nevermind.
So a guard who beats a prisoner commits assault and several torts. Sovereign immunity can cause problems with this - but that demonstrates that we should reduce, if not eliminate, sovereign immunity rather than making a paper cut into a constitutional case. Thomas is a great justice because he knows what his role is not. Nearly every other justice, being posessed of the hammer of unconstitutionality, sees all cases as constitutional nails. Laws and actions can be deepy wrong or evil without violating the constitution. Lawrence v Texas, for example.
But neither side is going to convince the other - you either want to abuse the constitution into a tool to rectify all problems in the country, or you respect it for what it is and treausre the stability and predictability that it provides (I'm not biased at all!)
As a bonus, this proposal would have the merit of bringing the constitution into line with the court's actual practice.
You only spent 2 nights in jail? Stupid liberal judges. You would have learned your lesson better with 2 weeks or a month. Drunk driving kills people.
You should obey the law!
All Federal Judges have decided that the Constitution, laws and facts do not matter whatsoever. All that matters is the prejudice of the Judge involved. All decisions are then justified by legal language meant to confuse the general public without really explaining anything. Having lifetime appointments, Judges know that they won't be subject to any consequences unless they actually commit crimes, and then they can be elected to Congress like Alcee Hastings.
Second, without illegal aliens, there wouldn't be overcrowding in Los Angeles jails. The city and county don't even try to cooperate with Federal authorities ( who don't seem all that cooperative themselves ). Being convicted of any crime while in the country illegally should be a Federal offense.
Without addressing federal responsibility for overcrowding by the governments failure to enforce immigration law and the city and county's failure to assist there is no way to solve the underlying problem. No federal judge will address this issue.
Nick
It sounds like the practice in quesiton was common, and therefore could not be unusual. That's basic logic, no?
The ACLU is wound up tight over the words 'cruel' and 'unusual' punishment. But they always stress the words 'cruel' and 'unusual' - without acknowledging 'punishment' - which is the relevant issue here.
Prison is punishment for committing a crime. #1 and #2 above are simply a part of that punishment, which is, anyway, much milder punishment for a crime than anything conceived of by the Framers.
As Zarkov notes above:Like they say, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." In my younger days I've slept using my jacket for a blanket, and my tennis shoes as a pillow. But it wasn't punishment - which is the whole issue here!
So suck it up, and quit sniveling about what happens to you when you prey on the law-abiding members of society - who don't really care about the thread count of your sheets.
Yes, the federal government should spend less on prisons. But it shouldn't spend the savings on interns.
You know what, if you really had skills that the government needed, then you should have been able to get a normal job, not an internship. Don't bitch about your pay; you were lucky to have an opportunity to gain valuable skills. The taxpayers shouldn't take the savings from prisons to increase your intern salary. It should cut taxes.
You might want to find a more appropriate pseudonym "happyconservative."
"A little joking gotten you down?"
Judging by his/her/its posts, he/she/it seems to lack any semblance of what might be called a sense of humor.
I couldn't find out what the Phoenix prisoners sleep on. Maybe it's bunk beds.
I think the argument can be made for any disabled inmates based on Goodman v. Georgia, US 2006 (unanimous), the answer is yes. Has to meet the height requirements of the Title II Americans With Disabilities Act ADAAG, too.
Really? I thought a toilet roll tube was usually made into a "floozy doll," or so I was told by a colleague form law school who worked as a probation officer.
If you were willing to work at what the Federal Government paid you for the internship, then it seems that the pay was fair given your skills. If you had a better opportunity somewhere else, presumably you would have been doing that instead of the internship.
I am just saying, advocating increases in pay for interns is a bad idea. The Federal Government shouldn't be in the business of charity when it comes to these positions. It should pay market wages, no more and no less.
I think this answers just about every one of the questions posed on this thread.
But perhaps me and my bleeding heart brethren will be less concerned about prisoners when prisons are filled ONLY with people who've actually committed acts that ought be crimes to begin with.
A drug dealer sitting in prison now is no more morally condemnable than a bartender. And if the state is gonna continue locking people up who don't deserve to lose their freedoms, then people like me are gonna remain concerned about how they're treated once inside.
Your second lecture misses the point; however, it illustrates nicely that you have quite the axe to grind. I will, however, address one huge misconception that you have:
If by "better," you mean "more lucrative," say so. Just don't pretend that it would have been "better" in terms of contributing to society, which, last time I checked, is entirely worthwhile but does not pay well. (I did have more lucrative opportunities, although those were not the best use of my time.) Of course, your basic thesis - that persons will always be paid what they are worth - is an entirely different matter, one which does not belong on Prof. Volokh's lovely Eighth Amendment thread.
I'm sorry that you do not know the meaning of "facetious." Read up and apply to my first comment on this thread.
There is a certain irony (definition here) in the fact that those who contribute to society, via government work (ha! ;) ) may end up living in worse conditions than those who are under the auspices of said entity as a result of their antisocial behaviour.
Skip the next lecture. Whatever you're thinking of typing, just don't. Please. Let us joke, gambol, and frolic about the internet without being accosted by miserable persons.
But I guess law-abiding working-class people aren't entitled to the same creature comforts as convicted criminals, in the eyes of the courts.
What a baffling decision. The judge must not have known what it's like to experience real deprivation, if the judge felt that something this minor constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
IT'S STILL NOT CRUEL AND UNUSUAL.
It's sleeping conditions. It's mats. Mats are not as comfortable as spring mattresses, but they are more comfortable than the floor. Like I said before, if large numbers of people WILLINGLY CHOOSE TO DO IT (for reasons other than masochism or ritual, at least) it cannot be cruel and unusual punishment.
QFT
1. When I was in the Marines and out in the field I wish I had a mattress.
2. Sleeping on the floor? Somebody needs to go and inform the Japanese that it's unconstitutional.
I'd be much less ready to criticize a decision so holding than Dean Pregerson's ridiculousness. DP's right that it's unpleasant and somewhat uncivilized, and that even prisoners probably deserve better, but to constitutionalize those feelings is the mistake, I think. OTOH, DP does cite Roper v. Simmons, which basically holds that the Eighth Amendment is whatever a judge wants it to be, as long as that judge reads a lot and can find other countries on a map.
Not to go all Ayn Rand on you, but that reminds me of the end of The Fountainhead, where Roark complained about the problems of low-income housing - those without means would live better than those with means, solely on the basis of their need. It does set up the perverse system of rewarding those who do ill (or not much at all) while punishing those who are independent (as they are required to support people in the former category).