The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Oral Argument: Tuesday, February 21, 1978
Decision: Friday, June 23, 1978
Issues: Criminal Procedure, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Non-Death Penalty; Attorneys' Fees

Advocates

Philip E. Kaplan (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Garner L. Taylor, Jr. (Argued the cause for the petitioners)

Facts of the Case

Litigation challenging the conditions in the Arkansas prison system began in 1969. In evaluating the diet and sleeping arrangements of the inmates, the physical condition of cells, and the behavior of prison guards (some of whom were inmates who had been issued guns), a District Court called the conditions which inmates were forced to face "a dark and evil world completely alien to the free world." This case involved a challenge to the practice of "punitive isolation" in Arkansas prisons which was often done for indiscriminate periods of time in crowded windowless cells.

Question

Did punitive isolation for more than thirty days in the Arkansas prison system constitute cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

Conclusion

The Court held that punitive isolation for longer than thirty days in Arkansas prisons constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. Justice Stevens conceded that isolation in and of itself was not necessarily unconstitutional and may in fact serve an important, legitimate interest in administering a prison. However, when taken as a whole, continued Stevens, the conditions in Arkansas's prisons, combined with the severe risks to an inmate's health and safety which accompanied confinement in isolation, did constitute cruel and unusual punishment. "A filthy, overcrowded cell and a diet of 'gruel' might be tolerated for a few days and be intolerably cruel for weeks or months," Stevens concluded.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Full Opinion: Attorneys' Fees: 5 - 4
Voted with the majority, authored a concurrence
Brennan
Voted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinion
Marshall
Voted with the minority, joined Powell's dissent
White
Voted with the majority, authored an opinion
Stevens
Voted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinion
Blackmun
Voted with the majority, joined Stevens' opinion
Stewart
Voted with the minority, authored a dissent
Powell
Voted with the minority, joined Powell's dissent
Burger
Voted with the minority, authored a dissent, joined Powell's dissent
Rehnquist
Full Opinion: Attorneys' Fees: 7 - 2
Voted with the majority
Brennan
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Voted with the minority, joined Rehnquist's dissent
White
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Stewart
Voted with the majority, authored a special concurrence
Powell
Voted with the majority, joined Powell's special concurrence
Burger
Voted with the minority, authored a dissent
Rehnquist
Full Opinion: Criminal Procedure, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Non-Death Penalty: 8 - 1
Voted with the majority
Brennan
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Voted with the majority, joined Powell's special concurrence
White
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Stewart
Voted with the majority, authored a special concurrence
Powell
Voted with the majority, joined Powell's special concurrence
Burger
Voted with the minority
Rehnquist

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (1978),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1660/>
(last visited ).