Legal Commentary

Justice Clarence Thomas and John Yoo: Joined at the Whipping Post

By Jeralyn

The LA Times has an article on Justice Clarence's rejection of prisoner brutality claims under the theory the inmates hadn't show substantial physical damage.

According to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a prisoner who was slammed to a concrete floor and punched and kicked by a guard after asking for a grievance form -- but suffered neither serious nor permanent harm -- has no claim that his constitutional rights were violated.

The Times notes that at one time, John Yoo was Justice Thomas' law clerk.

Thomas' consistent record of dismissing claims of prison brutality, most of them joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, shows that Yoo's view of torture was not that of a rogue lawyer. Instead, it represents a strain of conservative thinking that looks back in history to define cruelty and torture, rather than toward what the court has called the "evolving standards of decency."

[More...]

Remember the Alabama inmate tied to the hitching post? The case was Hope v. Pelzer. Thomas dissented from a 6-3 decision to ban the practice in Alabama of chaining prisoners to outdoor ''hitching posts'' and abandoning them for hours without food, water, or a chance to use the bathroom. The majority rightly concluded the practice was cruel and unusual punishment. Thomas, however, said the hitching post served "a legitimate penological purpose," encouraging a prisoner's "compliance with prison rules while out on work duty."

Full post as published by TalkLeft on March 07, 2010 (boomark / email).