Jackson v. Bishop
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
404 F.2d 571 (1968)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
The State of Arkansas used straps to whip prisoners as its primary punishment for perceived misbehavior while in prison. The state claimed that it used corporal punishment because the prisoners had so few privileges that there was nothing the state could take away as a punishment and the state was too poor to use segregation or solitary confinement as punishment. In 1965, a federal district court ordered the state to implement safeguards to ensure the whipping was not excessive, administered dispassionately by responsible people, and used under clear standards that allowed prisoners to know what conduct would result in a whipping and how much he would be whipped for certain conduct. In 1966, the state implemented policies that whipping was only for major offenses, could not be administered by other prisoners, and would be used only on a prisoner’s clothed buttocks. William Jackson and two other prisoners (the prisoners) (plaintiffs) sued O.E. Bishop (defendant), the superintendent of the Arkansas prison system, in three separate lawsuits. All three lawsuits alleged that (1) the state was violating its own safeguards, such as by allowing other prisoners to administer whippings and whipping naked skin in a manner that left injuries, and (2) this corporal punishment violated the Eighth Amendment. The prisoners presented evidence from expert witnesses that whipping caused the recipient to develop hate for the person doing the whipping, the prison, and the justice system and made readjustment to society more difficult for the recipient. Evidence was also presented that the federal prison system and 48 states had officially stopped using whipping as a form of punishment. The federal district court found that the state’s current safeguards were not effective, and it enjoined the state from whipping prisoners—but only until the state implemented more effective safeguards. The prisoners appealed, arguing that whipping should be prohibited completely because it violated their rights under the Eighth Amendment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Blackmun, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
