Hudson v. McMillian and the 8th Amendment

Hudson v. McMillian and the 8th Amendment

A Louisiana inmate known as Keith Hudson reported that he was a victim of two prison guards who beat him in the presence of a supervisor who, instead of saving him from them, watched and condoned the act. The two prison guards' names were Jack McMillian and Marvin Woods. On the other hand, the supervisor's name was Arthur Mezo. This victim sued McMillian and Woods under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He sued them in the Federal District Court because he believed these offenders violated his rights. The 42 U.S.C. 1983 permits people to bring suit when they feel someone deprives them of protections, freedoms, or rights the Constitution safeguards.

This complainant claimed that these guards had subjected him to unusual and cruel punishment; therefore, they defiled the 8th Amendment right that protects him from such maltreatment (Oyez, 2022). The Federal District Court ruled against the two prison guards because they argued that this victim was entitled to damages. They defiled the 8th Amendment by unnecessarily utilizing force. Hudson did not behave in any way that called for such use of force. However, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals nullified this judgment claiming that it disregarded some provisions of the 8th Amendment. According to this Amendment, inmates who lack significant injuries should not claim that the accused people have defiled their rights. Therefore, even though he was a victim of excessive force from the guards, this court of appeals reversed the judgment.

No. In a 6-to-3 decision, the court argued that it was more about whether the conduct was sadistic and malicious than if the victim sustained significant injury. The Supreme Court argued that even though whether an injury is significant or not is a crucial aspect in such cases, its absence alone never shows that the offenders have not defiled the rights of the victim (Oyez, 2022). In an 8th Amendment claim of unusual and cruel punishment, the court should check if the guards defiled Hudson's present-day criteria of decency. If people prioritize the degree of injury when dealing with such cases, this Amendment will justify all physical punishments. According to Justice Sandra, when guards sadistically and maliciously cause damage through force, the court should consider it wrong. She argued that if the court comes up with some arbitrary measure of injury in every eighth Amendment claim, it will condone inhuman or diabolic acts as long as they do not cause damages beyond the set standards.

The judge would have considered various common factors when determining this victim’s bail after the initial arrest before sentencing or trial. First, it would have been his criminal history (Baughman, 2019). If Hudson had a lengthy and active criminal record, he deserved a higher bail. However, the judge must check if Hudson was guilty of the offenses people accused him of. He can deny him bail if his past criminal history shows that he is on parole. Having outstanding warrants is also significant enough to lead to the denial.

The second factor the judge would have considered was a danger to the public. Giving some defendants bail puts the lives of the witnesses, those who have accused them, and the public at risk (Baughman, 2019). Therefore, this aspect substantially influences the bail amount. The judge can deny an individual bail or make it significantly high if releasing them can interfere with the security of the witnesses, victims, and the public. Therefore, Hudson had increased chances of not getting bail or paying high amounts for it because he committed a serious felony which makes him dangerous.

The judge would have also considered Hudson’s roots in the community. People involved in community organizations will be less likely to skip bail. Moreover, if one has a family living in the same area, they have reduced chances of running away (Baughman, 2019). The stronger the ties one has with the community, the reduced the chances of bail skip and flight. When an individual has strong roots in the community, they can have a reduced bail amount. Therefore, even if the person does not have a bad past criminal record and is not dangerous to the public, this aspect can adversely impact their bail.

Judges must regard various factors at the time of sentencing. The first factor is a disability. One may get more lenient sentencing if one has a disability because it can prompt one to commit a crime (Skeem et al., 2020). Moreover, harsh sentencing can adversely impact people with disability because they have special needs. Therefore, if Hudson had a disability, he would have gotten more lenient sentencing. The second factor is genuinity when showing remorse. When one is genuinely sorry for their crime, they will most likely not commit it again. Moreover, it shows that even though they committed the crime, they regret it,


Place your order