Nearly five million individuals are admitted to America’s jails each year, and at any given time, two-thirds of those held in jail have not been convicted of a crime. Under current Supreme Court doctrine, these pretrial detainees are functionally protected by the same standard as convicted prisoners, despite the fact that they are formally protected by different constitutional amendments. A 2015 decision, Kingsley v. Hendrickson, declared that a different standard would apply to pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners in the context of use of force: consistent with the Constitution’s mandate that they not be punished at all, pretrial detainees would no longer need to demonstrate that officials subjectively intended to harm them, only that the force they applied was objectively unreasonable. Courts of appeals have begun to extend this shift to claims involving conditions of confinement, but the promise of that move is threatened by the availability of a cost defense for officials who respond reasonably to detainees’ needs given the resource constraints they face. This Note argues that pretrial detainees can only be adequately protected from punishment if the reasonable response includes an affirmative duty to notify superiors of those constraints.

中文翻译：

---

重新思考合理的回应：维护金斯利对监禁条件的承诺

每年有近 500 万人被关进美国的监狱，在任何时候，三分之二的被关押者都没有被判有罪。根据目前的最高法院原则，这些审前被拘留者在功能上受到与已定罪囚犯相同的标准保护，尽管他们受到不同宪法修正案的正式保护。2015 年的一项裁决 Kingsley v. Hendrickson 宣布，在使用武力的情况下，不同的标准将适用于审前被拘留者和被定罪的囚犯：根据宪法规定他们根本不受惩罚的规定，审前被拘留者将不再需要证明官员主观上有意伤害他们，只是他们施加的武力在客观上是不合理的。上诉法院已开始将这种转变扩大到涉及监禁条件的索赔，但鉴于他们面临的资源限制，对于那些对被拘留者的需求做出合理回应的官员来说，这种做法的承诺受到了成本辩护的威胁。本说明认为，只有当合理的回应包括将这些限制通知上级的肯定义务时，审前被拘留者才能得到充分的保护，免受惩罚。