Negligence in the Criminal Justice System

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The negligence commonly seen in the criminal justice system can be divided into three major areas. The first category can be described as violation of legal rights or other legal challenges. Wrongful convictions are a major aspect of negligence by the criminal justice system as many have cases have shown that there was gross violation of procedures by law enforcement or lack of judgement on behalf of the court to consider key evidence (Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism, 2011).

Another area of negligence, which is the most common can be characterized as conditions and services available to those imprisoned. Under the Eighth Amendment, prisoners are protected against cruel and unusual punishment, including the conditions in which they are kept. However, a range of cases emerged in recent years of prisoners being held in inhumane conditions such as extreme indoor heat as high as 150 degrees Fahrenheit over several days due to lack of air conditioning or provided any relief (MSNBC, 2021). Prisoners must be allowed access to basic facilities and hygiene, with reports suggesting women were denied basic hygiene needs, which can lead to health issues or infection (Perano, 2019). Finally, prisoners are guaranteed access to medical care while imprisoned, if that is not provided, it can be a direct impact on their health and well-being. Multiple instances of inmates being denied healthcare are known, which would be considered negligence (Bright, 2021).

The last category of negligence is the most dangerous, and essentially stems to injury or death caused by the actions or lack thereof by the employees of the criminal justice system. Therefore, injury and wrongful death can come at the hands of the prison staff themselves, or potentially other prisoners but the guards failing to intervene. This can be considered gross negligence and lawsuits filed in court (Livni, 2015).

As seen from an earlier discussion, negligence exists in many forms in the criminal justice system. Criminal negligence can be defined as conducted where a person willfully or incompetently ignores a known or obvious risk to the rights, safety, and life of others, it is a form of recklessness (Brown, 2020). However, elements of the criminal justice system are increasingly difficult to hold accountable because they are governmental entities and typically have immunity, meaning they have to be sued under special-duty doctrine (also known as torts). This paper will discuss the four elements necessary to prove negligence and analyze the nuances of the special-duty doctrine.

In legal terms, negligence is an aspect that must be proved in court before holding another person, company, or entity legally responsible for the harm suffered by the plaintiff or those representing them. In any civil or criminal negligence case, there are four key elements which must be proven against the defendant, and those are duty, breach, causation, and damages. Duty seeks to establish the relationship between the individual experiencing harm and the defendant, it must be demonstrated that there was a legal duty of the defendant to provide something for the plaintiff. For example, a doctor has a legal duty to competently treat their patient and cause no harm, while a prison guard or executives have a legal duty to oversee the safety and proper conditions for the inmates under their watch.

The next element to prove is breach of duty, meaning that it is necessary to prove that the defendant did not fulfill their legally obligated responsibilities or acted unreasonably given the provided context or information. The common test for this is if a reasonably prudent person would act in the same manner by doing (or not doing) what the defendant did knowing that the plaintiff would be injured in some manner. The third step is the plaintiff’s sufferance of an injury, essentially determining the extent of the injury and confirming that the plaintiff has experienced harm. The final step is causation, which is nefariously challenging to establish, but requires determination that the negligence actually caused the injury at hand, typically determined through proximate clause. Therefore, a breach of duty may be identified, but without direct cause of injury, negligence cannot be confirmed. If the injury was created by a random and unpredictable act, the defendant would not be found liable (Legal Information Institute, n.d.).

The special-duty doctrine, also known as torts, is a legal doctrine which indicates that courts can “impose liability against a governmental entity (e.g., a state or municipality) for an individual plaintiff’s injury when the government entity owed a duty of care to that plaintiff” (LexRoll, n.d.). Suing public entities such as a prison is highly challenging due to a principle known as sovereign immunity, indicating that the government cannot be sued without its consent. Even though the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) partially waived this principle, it is up to the federal district courts to determine if tort suits are meaningful. Furthermore, the FTCA does not waive sovereign immunity in regard to law enforcement officers, which includes officers of the Bureau of Prisons. The only exception is if both negligent and intentional conduct can be proven (Volokh, 2014). Negligence would have to be proven on the same four elements discussed above but will likely face much higher scrutiny against public entities than that of civil lawsuits.