Ardmore Prison Answer to Question

Ardmore Prison

Answer to Question One: From a moral standpoint Warden Duffy was most certainly in the wrong. Putting inmates into solitary confinement -- even for a "petty" breaking of the rules -- is an over-reaction that has serious moral overtones. Ethically it is irresponsible to be that brutal in the face of minor infractions of the rules. As far as the legal aspect of the harsh punishments ordered by Duffy, it could be argued that these punishments violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Eighth Amendment is supposed to guarantee that people are not subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment" (Library Index). The fact that the prison is "maximum security" is in no way an excuse for putting men in isolation for petty rule violations. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued tests to determine whether conditions or actions are in violation of the Eighth Amendment: a) did the actions offend concepts "of decency and human dignity" (in this case, yes); b) was the punishment "disproportionate to the offense"? (most certainly it was in Duffy's case); c) did it violate "fundamental standards of good conscience and fairness"? (yes, in Duffy's case it did); d) was the punishment unnecessarily cruel? (yes); and e) did the punishment go past "legitimate penal purposes"? (yes it did).

Answer to Question Two: First of all an member of U.S. Congress from Illinois or another elected public official in a position of authority should have notified the Illinois Department of Justice and demanded an investigation and/or had Duffy removed from his executive position. Secondly, instead of picking out four inmates at random and placing them in isolation for one prisoner's throwing a sandwich at an officer Duffy could have had video camera installed (if they weren't already) in the cafeteria so if there were future incidents the culprit could be identified.

Answer to Question Three: The officer was correct to report the bread incident because the officer surely knew if Duffy had found out about the failure to report the incident then the officer might have been subjected to punishment himself. If I had not reported it, and no one else had seen it, the inmates would have had a little victory, which would not have become a serious incident. They perhaps deserved a break now and then in Duffy's hell-hole of an institution.

Answer to Question Four: The officers could have formed a union; under the federal laws guided by the National Labor Relations Board the right to negotiate for a union is open to any workers. And employers cannot by law attempt to intimidate or fire workers for their pro-union activities. Another action the correctional officers could have taken would have been to bring their Congressman or Congresswoman into the matter to put pressure on Duffy through the Illinois governor's office or through federal Civil Rights legislation. Clearly Duffy was in violation of civil rights under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Answer to Question Five: Two months in solitary confinement is far too harsh for a person violating a minor institutional rule. In fact it is outrageously cruel. It violates all five of the Supreme Court's tests for whether an act is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. This kind of power is that of a demented, vicious warden, who uses severe, inhumane tactics because he has some crazed vindictive nature against inmates. He is in the wrong job because he expects prisoners (who likely are antisocial and haven't had a lifetime of obeying orders) to comply like robots, which they will never do because they are in prison in most cases precisely because they cannot comply with society's laws -- so why would they suddenly get better at compliance because they are in prison?