3 ms·

Would feeding prisoners be legally required since not doing so would be “cruel or unusual punishment?”

qingcharles 3y ago
Cruel or unusual punishment is a standard that only applies to convicted prisoners, and not those in county jails, which come under due process. Generally though, yes, you are right it becomes a constitutional violation, rather than a statutory violation if you don't feed the prisoners. Often though the statues give rights above and beyond the constitution. For instance, in Illinois it requires jails to give prisoners 1800 calories a day. But it is not enforceable. So they can give a lot less as long as they don't kill you. And IIRC the statute also demands "The menu shall be diversified so as to avoid the monotony of a standardized diet." which again is not enforceable. So they can basically just feed you Nutriloaf once a day and call it job done. https://ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/020/020007010001100R.html https://ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/020/0200070100011... It's funny because the first line includes a bug in it. It says a minimum of "1800 to 2000 calories." Well, which is it? (also, just a thought, but there are generally no punishments for violating a person's constitutional rights -- you can sue for your injuries, but prisoners specifically are severely restricted by Congress on bringing suits against their captors because there were too many, and those suits can only allege physical harm, not any kind of mental or emotional suffering)
- oldbbsnickname 3y ago
  The majority of carceral environments in the US that are openly in violation of the 8th a. in degrees of not good to third-world, inhumane depravity. (The one where a prisoner died of bug infestation and had a nonfunctional toilet.) The most obvious ones are those with the most deaths and substandard medical care. The problem is the prevailing US attitude of incarceration as punitive, divine retribution rather than rehabilitation and reintegration.

Cruel or unusual punishment is a standard that only applies to convicted prisoners, and not those in county jails, which come under due process. Generally though, yes, you are right it becomes a constitutional violation, rather than a statutory violation if you don't feed the prisoners. Often though the statues give rights above and beyond the constitution. For instance, in Illinois it requires jails to give prisoners 1800 calories a day. But it is not enforceable. So they can give a lot less as long as they don't kill you. And IIRC the statute also demands "The menu shall be diversified so as to avoid the monotony of a standardized diet." which again is not enforceable. So they can basically just feed you Nutriloaf once a day and call it job done. https://ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/020/020007010001100R.html https://ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/020/0200070100011... It's funny because the first line includes a bug in it. It says a minimum of "1800 to 2000 calories." Well, which is it? (also, just a thought, but there are generally no punishments for violating a person's constitutional rights -- you can sue for your injuries, but prisoners specifically are severely restricted by Congress on bringing suits against their captors because there were too many, and those suits can only allege physical harm, not any kind of mental or emotional suffering)

oldbbsnickname 3y ago
The majority of carceral environments in the US that are openly in violation of the 8th a. in degrees of not good to third-world, inhumane depravity. (The one where a prisoner died of bug infestation and had a nonfunctional toilet.) The most obvious ones are those with the most deaths and substandard medical care. The problem is the prevailing US attitude of incarceration as punitive, divine retribution rather than rehabilitation and reintegration.