Should the government automatically be held liable when a prison inmate is killed by another inmate?

I had never thought of the legal aspect of this, but I have thought about how immoral it was to even put him in the general population. They had to have known what would happen.

Not entirely, I mean, first off it isn’t hard to make a prison shank, even ones to avoid metal detectors. On the other hand, obviously there are some convict deaths that definitely could have been avoided like Dahmer’s (but who really cares about that one) by placing them somewhere more appropriate. Anyway, it’s already pretty tough for prison guards to do what they do already, they really can’t stop all those deaths, most of those that happen are a bit… stealthy and under the radar until someone cries out or what not. But with the Dahmer example… screw him and all those who harm children, I actually respect that law amongst prisoners that those who harm/rape/kill children only deserve death.

To answer the OP, no. By following the logic of the question, any employer would be held liable for the deaths of its employees by another disgruntled employee. The school system would be responsible for the mass murders at Columbine High School. Virginia Tech would be responsible for the mass murders that occurred there. Etc. Etc. Etc.

It’s a logical fallacy to suggest that the overarching authority or institution is responsible for the acts of its members. Individuals within a system or institution are responsible for their own actions.

The guilt lies with the actual murderer. The prison was an accessory to the crime, at best.

It depends on the circumstances. For example this case where an Asian prisoner was murdered after being put in a cell with a known racist.

No, not automatically.

I agree with @Nullo. The prison warden might be guilty too, if rules were violated, for example checking for weapons being smuggled in. I don’t see how a government could be guilty, maybe some executive branch responsible for the supervision of prison wardens.

Should the governent automatically be held liable…? The government? Who is the government? Do you mean the supervisors of the county where the prison is located? The members of the town council, the state senators? The US Congress? I’m confused by who you mean in your question when you say “the government.”

Nope.

@bkcunningham, who the government is depends on what facility. While some government owns and operates or contracts for each jail, some are city lock-ups, some are state penitentiaries, some are federal prisons, and then there’s Guantanamo on the US base in Cuba.
While a random shooting could potentially occur in a school or post office, there is generally no reason to expect it to, consequently little basis to call that negligence. However as was pointed out, when you have a known racist skinhead convicted of murder, putting a person of color in with him is like putting them in a cage filled with starved jackals.

I don’t believe the government, state or federal, or even the institution itself should be held liable unless there is proof that they themselves weren’t comprehensive in the way they ran their facilities (i.e. – neglect or irresponsibility, for instance). If the incident involved is solely the fault of the inmates, I think the blame should be placed there.

I worked as a detention officer in jails many years ago during my law enforcement career and there is no way for corrections and detention officers to be able to monitor all activities all the time throughout an entire prison or jail complex. There is just too much area to cover, too many inmates to watch (overcrowding), and not enough manpower to go around.

No. Obviously in special cases the immediate prison authority shares responsibility for putting a prisoner in harms way, becomes an accessory, if you will, but otherwise no. I’m 100% with @Hawaii_Jake on this.

I don’t think they should automatically be held liable, but if there is reason to suspect that the death was caused by gross negligence or deliberate manipulation (putting someone you want killed with an extremely violent prisoner and then “accidentally” calling the guards away, for instance) then an investigation should take place.

The govt. will not be held liable for anything ever. Unless maybe a complete revolt happens and is successful. Then some heads will roll…maybe.

@mattbrowne Dahmer was killed by a man with a broomstick. No smuggling.

If a prisoner is killed by another prisoner, it is on him because his own acts resulted in him being sent to prison.

Prison does not guarantee safety. In fact, it is a dangerous environment, which should act as a deterrent.

I’m asking who specifically would be held liable, @JaneraSolomon? If there is a lawsuit, for instance, who would charges be brought against?

Charges should be brought against the organization or government branch that runs and funds the penitentiary, most likely the state or federal government. It’s perfectly legal to sue a state or the federal government.
II think that the government (state or federal) should be held liable for the safety of inmates. The incarcerated have no control over their environment. They shouldn’t be subjected to injury or death for merely being in the environment.

I don’t believe so. For the most part, inmates society is corrupt. If the government couldn’t help them out before they got into their messes, I’m not certain that they could help in the event of such tragedies. That being said, should government do all they can to protect inmates against eachother? Yes I believe so, but the prison system, is a system. There’s a time to eat, time to walk, and time to talk. People aren’t dumb, they work around these systems and find time to fight. Just like they did in grade school. Just like they did with neighbors. Just like anything in life, the government can’t hold our hands 100% of the time. Maybe 99% but never 100%.

@marinelife : While I stand by my statement above that the governing authority should not automatically be held responsible, I believe your assertion that the victim is at fault is an egregious error. It’s ludicrous, in fact. Short of suicide, it’s wrong to blame the dead person for his or her demise. The guilt falls on the murderer.

@Hawaii_Jake I ventured onto the side of @marinelife and took logical steps in reasoning to see if he was correct. Here’s what I came up with.

1. Man goes to prison.
2. Prison, is full of others similar to man, perhaps violent in this case.
3. Altercation occurs.
4. Altercation results in the following at all times: Light injury, heavy injury or death.

In this case it was death. I’m pretty sure, prisoners are aware that death is inevitable, and that by fighting, stabbing, shooting etc. These acts can only heighten the chances of death. Yes, he was in there, and even if in this particular situation didn’t initiate an altercation died as a result of his actions prior to entry of the prison. Of course it’s not the victims fault that he died, it’s the victims fault however that he put himself in that situation that lead to the events that unravelled is the point @marinelife is making. Anyhow, I agree with both of your original answers to the OP. I say excellent points.

@auhsojsa You’re assuming that the system that tried and convicted the person is free of curruption and bias. There are a great many in prison who wouldn’t be there if they had a different color of skin, or were tried in a different jurisdiction, or were arrested by different officers.

For example, possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine requires a mandatory five-year sentence. However, one must possess at least 500 grams of powder cocaine to face the same mandatory sentence. It’s the exact same drug, just in differing forms. There’s one big difference, crack is primarily used by poor blacks, whereas powder cocaine is primarily used by rich whites.The result is a exponentially higher rate of incarceration of blacks vs whites for possessing cocaine.

No….

First of all the guy that killed Dahmer & Jesse Anderson thought he was Jesus. The Courts knew that he was mentally unstable as did the prison guards & inmates. He was put up to it. Right or wrong, the friends of Dahmer’s victims that were also incarcerated with Dahmer told the victim’s family members they’d “take care of Dahmer”.

The guy did a crime & was paying for it. Jesse Anderson killed his wife in a sick & twisted way…and had to pay for it. Dahmer killed a multitude of people and had to pay for it. This is what we do in our society. The deaths of these two men, was their own doing. They commited crimes. They put themselves in jail. Because both men committed extremely violent crimes, they were incarcerated with other extremely violent criminals. It was bound to happen.

Considering I live in this vicinity, I can tell you: No one thought Dahmer would live to be an old man.

@SpatzieLover The Courts knew that he was mentally unstable as did the prison guards & inmates. He was put up to it.

How does this differ from “The owners of the company knew that the parts were faulty, as did the engineers and mechanics”?

Your argument implies not only knowledge, but intent to end a life. How is that justifiable?

@Hawaii_Jake I did not mean that the victim was at fault for his murder, I meant that the victim’s acts of crime put in the position and place to be murdered. Thus, since his own actions put him there, it is his responsibility that he was in danger.

@GladysMensch The difference is the criminal acts these inmates committed to land them in this position. They were tried in local courts, not Federal ones. Our local jails are run off from tight budgets.

In this case, both men were killed by a broomstick. That is almost impossible to prevent.

@SpatzieLover No it’s not impossible to prevent. In fact, it’s quite easy. If the courts and guards knew that Christopher Scarver was a threat (as you claim), then Scarver should have been removed from the general prison population for the protection of the other inmates. If the guards knew that Dahmer was a target, then he should have been removed for his own protection.

Regardless, the initial question refers to the role the state should play in the safety of prisoners. In this case, the prison (government employees) failed to protect Dahmer, especially since they knew that he was a likely target.

Prisons are full of dangerous people, murderers, rapists, drug dealers and thieves. There is always the potential for violence which is why prisons should take care to prevent it. Even a zookeeper takes some care to prevent his animals attacking one another. To lock people or animals up is to assume responsibility for them.

No. This is like blaming the police for a homicide in your house. The police cannot be everywhere all the time. The same applies with prison guards.

Prison is a hotel for criminals. If they kill each other, the government cannot be blamed. Its the criminals fault for being there in the first place.

Prison is not meant to be a Holiday Inn.

Sorry, but s___t happens.

It’s not at all like blaming the police for a homicide in your house. If you’re placed in prison, you are under the prison’s custody. They take away your ability and your right to protect yourself and thereby take on that responsibility themselves. If they can’t safely house prisoners, they shouldn’t be accepting their custody. If you boarded your dog at a kennel, would you find it acceptable if the owners of the kennel let the pit bulls kill your dog and a dozen others? Why would you not stand for it in the case of your dog, but say nothing when a prison allows a prisoner in their custody (who might well be YOUR son, and might well be innocent of charges) to be killed?

Of course the authorities are at fault. When a previously healthy man comes out of prison with HIV, questions need to be asked. When somebody dies in custody, there ought to be an inquiry. Imprisonment takes away a lot of rights, including the right to defend oneself. from murder, assault and even rape.

@bea2345 Your latter statement rings true for me. But why in the world would anyone put themselves in position to front row tickets at a hell hole. You’re damn right it takes away a lot of rights. Prison isn’t no joy ride and happy rainbows where one takes a time out to reflect upon their lives. Let’s call it for how it is.

@auhsojsa Again, you’re assuming that everyone in prison deserves to be there. Since 1989, the Innocence Project has exonerated 289 people through DNA, 17 of whom served time on Death Row. These men did not put themselves in position to front row tickets at a hell hole. They were wrongly convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. But according to you and many other posters on this topic, they’re in prison, so they deserve whatever happens to them… including death.

A bio of Jeffrrey Dahmer says this:

Dahmer reportedly adjusted well to prison life, although he was initially kept apart from the general population. He convinced authorities to allow him to integrate more fully with other inmates.

If this is true, it seems that Dahmer himself was responsible for being placed among the other inmates; or, granting that the authorities still had to make the decision, at least he chose to take the risk.

^@Jeruba, Yes, it is true. He did not want to be seperated at all. He also stated something to the effect of “whatever happens will happen”. It was no secret that people wanted him to suffer/die.