Correctional Officer Excessive Use of Force
| Published date | 01 June 2014 |
| Date | 01 June 2014 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032885514524731 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2014
Article
The Prison Journal
2014, Vol. 94(2) 198 –219
Correctional Officer
© 2014 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Excessive Use of Force:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0032885514524731
tpj.sagepub.com
Civil Liability Under
Section 1983
David A. Rembert1 and Howard Henderson1
Abstract
Despite recent research demonstrating the impact of inmate perceptions
of correctional legitimacy on order maintenance, the extant literature has
failed to examine the contextual reality of correctional excessive use of
force claims. Utilizing legal cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals and U.S.
District Courts, this article examines correctional officer excessive use of
non-deadly force and identifies recurring themes in these claims. Findings
highlight the common occurrence of retaliatory violence, negative attitudes,
failure to listen to inmate concerns, inadequate training, and an inability to
decipher reliable threat cues consistently present in correctional officer
use of non-deadly force claims. Suggestions for future research and policy
implications are offered.
Keywords
correctional officer, excessive use of non-deadly force, legal cases
Introduction
Title 42 U.S.C. Section 19831 for personal liability originating in excessive
use of force claims has led to costly legal settlements and a loss of trust in
corrections (Estate of Moreland v. Dieter, 2007; Guerra v. Drake, 2004;
1Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA
Corresponding Author:
David A. Rembert, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, 1803 Ave. I,
Huntsville, TX 77341-2296, USA.
Email: dar004@shsu.edu
Rembert and Henderson
199
Rangolan v. County of Nassau, 2004). As a result, excessive use of force
remains a consistent concern for correctional administrators and policy mak-
ers, and more importantly, prisoners (Weitzer, 2002). Excessive use of force
is operationally defined as any force, such as the utilization of physical force,
chemical agents, electronic control devices, or restraints that is above and
beyond what is necessary to control a confrontational situation (Carlson &
Garrett, 2008). Outside of the obvious cases of death, research has demon-
strated that excessive use of force also leads to injury, civil lawsuits, criminal
indictments, and scrutiny by community leaders and media outlets (Johnson
& Bridgmon, 2009). Recently, excessive use of force has been found to nega-
tively impact prisoners’ perceptions of fairness within the American criminal
justice system (Frankie, Bierie, & McKenzie, 2010).
To date, scholarly analyses of correctional officer excessive use of force
do not exist. Several researchers (Hall, Ventura, Lee, & Lambert, 2003;
Phillips, Hagan, & Rodriguez, 2006) have hypothesized that this lack of
research may be a result of the difficulty in obtaining access to data, directly
limiting the ability of empirical examinations and legislative review. Sever
and Reisner (2008) noted that the reluctance of prison administrators to pro-
vide accurate data for reliable analysis of excessive use of force may be due
to their desire to protect the image of the agency. Moreover, Abramsky and
Fellner (2003) reiterate this lack of governmental and academic concern for
excessive correctional use of force as evidenced by the few governmental
(state or national) reports on correctional officer excessive use of force, and
the nonexistent independent empirical examinations of this issue.
Despite a lack of empirical examinations, arguments have been put forth
regarding the culture from which correctional officer excessive use of force
flourishes. Marquart (1986) noted that excessive use of force is “deeply
entrenched in the guard subculture” (p. 347). Providing support for this previ-
ously mentioned observation, a former Florida Warden observed that despite
excessive use of force being a widespread systemic issue, there was a small
group of violent officers beyond his control who abused prisoners
(Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prison, 2006). Unfortunately,
to date correctional officer excessive use of force remains outside the pur-
view of both governmental inquiry and academic discourse.
The extant literature examining correctional officer subculture and legiti-
macy in corrections has attempted to understand the potential impact of
excessive use of force. Toch (1978), through interviews of prison guards, and
Marquart (1986), as a participant observer in a correctional facility, both con-
tend that the correctional officer subculture supports an environment in which
violence is not only accepted, but also reinforced. More recent scholarship
offers that the indoctrination of new recruits during on-the-job training by
200
The Prison Journal 94(2)
veteran officers is premised on the assumption that prisoners are less than
human, ultimately leading to abusive officer−prisoner interactions (Souryal,
2009). In short, excessive use of force may serve to undermine inmates’ per-
ceptions of fundamental fairness within corrections and, in particular, the
criminal justice system, which may potentially lead to a host of outcomes,
such as prison disturbances, inmate-on-staff assaults, and rule violations
(Frankie et al., 2010; Henderson, Wells, Maguire, & Gray, 2010; Robertson,
2006). Although the previously cited studies have made significant contribu-
tions to the field of corrections, their research does not specifically focus on
correctional officer excessive use of force. Rather, they highlight the use of
physical coercion as a mechanism of prisoner control and procedural fairness
related to prison officials’ treatment of prisoners. Because of the limited
research on correctional officer excessive use of force and the challenges
associated with obtaining accurate officer−prisoner interactions, this study
seeks to determine critical issues relative to correctional officer excessive use
of force legal cases. The focus of this examination will be on prisoner claims
of Eighth Amendment violations of Section 1983 cases granted certiorari by
the U.S. Court of Appeals and U.S. District Courts, as the utilization of legal
cases allows for the understanding of an issue yet to be examined by empiri-
cal analysis.
Eighth Amendment Claims of Excessive Use of Force
The legal standard governing excessive use of force was established in
Hudson v. McMillian (1992) and Wilkins v. Gaddy (2010). In Hudson v.
McMillian (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the use of excessive
physical force against a prisoner may constitute cruel and unusual punish-
ment even if the prisoner does not suffer serious injury. To prevail in an
excessive use of force claim, prisoners must prove that prison officials were
malicious2 and sadistic3 for the sole purpose of causing harm. Court judges
must decide on four factors that are determinative of whether the use of force
is malicious and sadistic: (a) the need for application of force, (b) the rela-
tionship between the need and the amount of force used, (c) the threat reason-
ably perceived by responsible officials, and (d) any efforts made to temper
the severity of a forceful response (see Johnson v. Glick, 1973). According to
Hoffman (2009), the Court in Hudson failed to define what constituted seri-
ous injury; and by analyzing legal cases, she noted that there was a discrep-
ancy between lower courts either examining directly at the use of force
applied maliciously and sadistically or deciding whether the prisoner received
more than a minor injury. In Wilkins v. Gaddy (2010), the Court resolved this
discrepancy between the courts by holding that all excessive use of force
Rembert and Henderson
201
claims must be decided on the nature of force, rather than the extent of the
injury.
In summary, the purpose of this study was to examine correctional officer
excessive use of force through a traditional inductive case-by-case doctrinal
method (commonly referred to as doctrinal legal research or legal research),
which seeks to determine the legal standard on a particular issue and how that
legal parameter has been developed over time and/or applied in litigation
(Acker & Irving, 1998; McConville & Wing, 2007). Several studies using
this research design have been published (for a more extensive review, see
Nolasco & Vaughn, 2011). This mode of inquiry was selected for its ability to
identify possible individual factors that may contribute to correctional officer
excessive use of force. Therefore, the uniqueness of this study is fourfold: (a)
It is the first study to examine correctional officer excessive use of force; (b)
It provides an examination of the manner by which courts interpret the mali-
cious and sadistic standard as it relates to excessive use of force and decision
making within correctional institutions; (c) This study identifies patterns or
practices of excessive use of force, which can be beneficial to prison admin-
istrators when determining the appropriate administrative and management
strategies to preserve and insure the assets of their organizations; and (d) By
examining correctional officer excessive use of force, organizational changes
can be implemented in training, supervision, departmental codes of conduct,
and use of force policies to reduce the likelihood of civil liability.
Method
This study utilized Westlaw Campus Research computerized legal database
to...
To continue reading
Request your trial