Printer Friendly
The Free Library
14,763,846 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Gates v. Cook.


U.S. Appeals Court

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS

ACCREDITATION

Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004). A death row prisoner brought a suit on behalf of himself and other prisoners confined con·fine  
v. con·fined, con·fin·ing, con·fines

v.tr.
1. To keep within bounds; restrict: Please confine your remarks to the issues at hand. See Synonyms at limit.
 to death row, alleging that certain conditions of confinement con·fine·ment
n.
1. The act of restricting or the state of being restricted in movement.

2. Lying-in.



confinement
 on death row violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment Such punishment as would amount to torture or barbarity, any cruel and degrading punishment not known to the Common Law, or any fine, penalty, confinement, or treatment that is so disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community. . The district court found that a number of conditions violated the Eighth Amendment and issued an injunction designed to alleviate the conditions. The defendants appealed. The appeals court affirmed in part and vacated in part. The court held that the prison's accreditation by a national correctional association (American Correctional Association The American Correctional Association is an association of providers of services to prisons in the United States. It holds an annual trade show where products used in prisons are shown to prospective purchasers.

It was formerly known as the American Prison Association.
) was not proof that the conditions of confinement did not violate the Eighth Amendment. The court noted that compliance with association standards could be a relevant consideration, but was not evidence of constitutionality. The court held that evidence supported findings that the probability of heat-related illness was extreme at the death row unit in which the class members were housed, and that corrections officials had displayed deliberate indifference. (Mississippi Department of Corrections, Unit 32-C, State Penitentiary penitentiary: see prison.  in Parchman)
COPYRIGHT 2004 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:violation of United States Constitution. 8th Amendment
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U6MS
Date:Nov 1, 2004
Words:182
Previous Article:U.S. v. Patrick V.(restitution)(Brief Article)
Next Article:Shaw v. Coosa County Com'n.(violation of civil rights)(Brief Article)
Topics:



Related Articles
U.S. district court: diet exercise privileges religious services visits.(Administrative Segregation)
Ali v. District of Columbia.(violation of United States Constitution. 11th Amendment)
Terry Ex Rel. Terry v. Hill.(PRETRIAL DETENTION)(Brief Article)
Wever v. Lincoln County, Nebraska.(LIABILITY)(Brief Article)
Jones v. Blanas.(PRETRIAL DETENTION)(Brief Article)
Gates v. Cook.(violation of United States Constitution. 8th Amendment)
Davis v. Hall.(FALSE IMPRISONMENT/ARREST)(violation of United States Constitution. 14th Amendment)(Brief Article)
Davis v. Hall.(due process violations)(Brief Article)
Davis v. Hall.(violation of due process of law)(Brief Article)
Lewis v. Washington.(prisoners alleges violation of their constitutional rights )(Brief Article)

Terms of use | Copyright © 2009 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles