THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS EXPANDS WITH 'EVOLVING STANDARDS OF DECENCY' TO ENCOMPASS MISTREATMENT OF INMATES.
ALTHOUGH DIRECT PHYSICAL MISTREATMENT OF PRISONERS HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN PROHIBITED BY THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, ONLY RECENTLY HAS THIS THEORY BEEN SUCCESSFULLY APPLIED TO INADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE AND DANGER OF VIOLENT ATTACK BY OTHER INMATES. THE EARLY MEDICAL CARE CASES OFFERED TWO PRINCIPLES - 1) A COMPLETE DENIAL OF MEDICAL CARE TO ONE IN NEED IS VIOLATIVE OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS, AND 2) GIVEN MEDICAL CARE, HOWEVER SLIGHT, ANY DENIAL OR INADEQUACY MUST BE INTENTIONAL TO REACH CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS. A MORE MODERN LINE OF CASES, HOWEVER, HAS INDICATED THAT IN THE FUTURE, COURTS MAY BE RECEPTIVE TO EIGHTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS WHEN ONLY INADEQUATE TREATMENT IS AT ISSUE. SIMILARLY, COURTS CONFRONTED WITH INMATE ATTACKS ON OTHER INMATES TRADITIONALLY HAVE RELIED ON A NEGLIGENCE THEORY IN GRANTING RECOVERY. ALTHOUGH ATTACKS BY OTHER PRISONERS SEEM TO OFFEND THE CONTEMPORARY STANDARDS OF SOCIETY, NO COURT HAS GIVEN THIS ARGUMENT INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.