[ back ]
Is Serving Prisoners Disgusting Food Punishment?
Prisoners who throw food or bodily waste can be put on a “Nutraloaf” diet for 7 days – an unappetizing baked, compressed amalgam of vegetables. It can be eaten without utensils which can be weapons, and inmates are less likely to throw bodily waste if they have to use their bare hands. Vermont law (not the Constitution) provides that Corrections officials cannot punish prisoners arbitrarily – for example on the whim of a guard or supervisor. Before punishment is imposed the prisoner is entitled to basic due process: be told what he’s accused of, confront his accuser, and to tell his side of the story. A written determination must be made. The law is intended, among other things to avoid corrupt practices by guards as well to provide fair governance in jails.
Inmates sued the Corrections department claiming that being put on a Nutraloaf diet is punishment that requires a hearing, and can’t be arbitrarily imposed by a supervisor. The trial court (Judge Cohen) found use of Nutraloaf was not “punishment” because although the diet was used to control misbehavior, it was not an excessive response, so no hearing was necessary. Inmates appealed.
Justices Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund agreed with the inmates. They ruled that Corrections officials acknowledged that the purpose of the Nutraloaf diet was to punish inmates for misbehavior. They could discontinue the diet if the prisoner behaved, and it was purposely unappetizing. Moreover, serving a sandwich which required no utensils would not be as effective to control behavior because it tasted better. The Trial Court was simply inconsistent in its reasoning.
Chief Justice Reiber and Justice Burgess dissented. The dissenters argued that a hearing would take too long and thus control of the jail would be jeopardized. Further, the existence of the program wasn’t punishment, rather it is merely an incentive to population to behave even if no one was punished. Individual punishment was merely a byproduct. Worse, they said, standard prison food is as bad as Nutraloaf, so the majority decision would require Corrections to give inmates who misused utensils a choice of having sandwiches which is better food than either Nutraloaf or standard fare. This argument the majority called “ludicrous.”
This is another Court split between the majority which is skeptical of unlimited governmental power, and the dissent which abhors court review of Corrections procedures it views as designed to run jails effectively. Borden, Pahl and Pelletier, v Hoffman, Corrections Commissioner 2009 VT. 30.
[ back ]
