This is the kind of case that probably gives government defense lawyers ulcers. They made out o.k. in the end, but the jury verdict had to be a bad shock. The 7th Circuit recently decided the case of Freeman v. Berge (pdf). Freeman was a prisoner at a maximum security Wisconsin state prison. The prison’s feeding rules require the prisoner to stand in the middle of his cell, with the lights on, when the meal is delivered and that he be wearing trousers or gym shorts.
Mr. Freeman decided he didn’t want to wear pants, just his underwear. So, the prison didn’t feed him when he refused to wear pants. Sometimes, Mr. Freeman wanted to keep a sock on his head. The prison was concerned that the sock could be a weapon, depending what was inside of the sock. So, when he refused to remove it from his head, they didn’t feed him. Other times, Mr. Freeman decided it would be neat to smear the walls of his cell with blood and feces. When he refused to clean the walls, the prison refused to feed him.
As a result, he skipped so many meals he lost 45 pounds. He sued, claiming cruel and unusual punishment. A jury agreed and awarded him $50,000 in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in punitive damages. The trial court decided to disregard the jury verdict and enter judgment for the defendant “as a matter of law” (which essentially means that the trial court determined that, the jury’s conclusion notwithstanding, was no support for the jury’s conclusion based on the evidence presented.)
The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court. The court distinguished between deprivation of food being used as a punishment and deprivation of food caused by the prisoner’s failure to comply with reasonable food service rules. The Court found the pro-pants, anti-fecal matter rules of the prison to be reasonable and, accordingly, said the prisoner wasn’t entitled to his $1.25 million.
What this tells me that is that conditions in maximum-security prisons are so horrendous that a jury of lay people is unlikely to be able to comprehend even (purportedly) rational measures taken by corrections officers to maintain prison discipline.
To my view, this is yet another indication that the modern penal system, as implemented in the U.S., is a failure. If we have to go about empaneling special “expert” juries to hear cases of alleged prisoner abuse to achieve a legally justifiable acquittal of the correctional institution, if the common man and woman are unable to suppress their empathy for a fellow human being — even though he be a violent offender serving a 58-year sentence — sufficiently to satisfy our norms of jurisprudence, then the system itself is worthy of indictment.
Nietzsche perhaps said it best: “He who fights monsters should take care lest he thereby become a monster.” If the only way to make our prison system “work” is to turn correctional officers into monsters, then I must conclude that we’ve got the wrong system.
By the way, Doug, the link is broken. It appears to be to a temporary directory. Here’s one that worked for me.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=05-2820_023.pdf
Link modified. Thanks.
That Nietsche quote reminds me of another quote from him about staring into the abyss. (After some research, I see that it’s because they are apparently part of the same quote):
Whoever battles with monsters had better see that it does not turn him into a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
I guess there’s no way to legislate common sense, is there? Obviously after jury selection was complete, the common sense of those 12 people went on hiatus for the duration of the trial.
That’s why so many cases settle. Even on cases you think are slam dunks, you never really know what a jury is going to do. I guess I’m a little surprised, since this was in federal court, that this case didn’t get disposed of at summary judgment.