有什么变化吗?金斯利诉亨德里克森案后联邦羁押诉讼案件分析

IF 0.9 4区社会学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY

Prison Journal Pub Date : 2023-07-18 DOI:10.1177/00328855231188440

Christine Tartaro, Geldy Nunez

{"title":"有什么变化吗?金斯利诉亨德里克森案后联邦羁押诉讼案件分析","authors":"Christine Tartaro, Geldy Nunez","doi":"10.1177/00328855231188440","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court set a standard of deliberate indifference for correctional conditions of confinement cases and have historically required proof of staff members’ state-of-mind. The Kingsley v. Hendrickson decision signaled a shift from that subjective requirement when the court applied a less onerous objective standard in a case involving excessive force against a pretrial detainee. The question is how the Federal Appeals Courts would interpret Kingsley? Our findings indicate that the 12 courts differ in their application of the objective and subjective standards for conditions of confinement cases, including those for suicides of pretrial detainees.","PeriodicalId":47409,"journal":{"name":"Prison Journal","volume":"103 1","pages":"427 - 447"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Has Anything Changed? An Analysis of Federal Custodial Litigation Cases Post Kingsley v. Hendrickson\",\"authors\":\"Christine Tartaro, Geldy Nunez\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00328855231188440\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Supreme Court set a standard of deliberate indifference for correctional conditions of confinement cases and have historically required proof of staff members’ state-of-mind. The Kingsley v. Hendrickson decision signaled a shift from that subjective requirement when the court applied a less onerous objective standard in a case involving excessive force against a pretrial detainee. The question is how the Federal Appeals Courts would interpret Kingsley? Our findings indicate that the 12 courts differ in their application of the objective and subjective standards for conditions of confinement cases, including those for suicides of pretrial detainees.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47409,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Prison Journal\",\"volume\":\"103 1\",\"pages\":\"427 - 447\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Prison Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00328855231188440\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prison Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00328855231188440","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

最高法院对监禁案件的惩教条件设定了故意漠不关心的标准，并历来要求提供工作人员的精神状态证明。Kingsley诉Hendrickson案的判决标志着，当法院在一个涉及对审前被拘留者过度使用武力的案件中采用了不那么苛刻的客观标准时，这一主观要求发生了转变。问题是联邦上诉法院将如何解释金斯利？我们的调查结果表明，12个法院在适用监禁条件案件的客观和主观标准方面存在差异，包括适用审前被拘留者自杀的标准。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Has Anything Changed? An Analysis of Federal Custodial Litigation Cases Post Kingsley v. Hendrickson

The Supreme Court set a standard of deliberate indifference for correctional conditions of confinement cases and have historically required proof of staff members’ state-of-mind. The Kingsley v. Hendrickson decision signaled a shift from that subjective requirement when the court applied a less onerous objective standard in a case involving excessive force against a pretrial detainee. The question is how the Federal Appeals Courts would interpret Kingsley? Our findings indicate that the 12 courts differ in their application of the objective and subjective standards for conditions of confinement cases, including those for suicides of pretrial detainees.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Prison Journal CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

7.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The editorial team"s aim is to establish The Prison Journal as a focal point and the forum of choice for studies, ideas, and discussion of adult and juvenile confinement, treatment interventions, and alternative sanctions.