Diesel Therapy—Have we Legalized Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
- TULJ
- 2 minutes ago
- 12 min read
Calista Kayatta
Edited by Keerthi Chalamalasetty, Anvi Garyali, Judge Baskin, and Sahith Mocharla
For almost a month, William Minnix endured an odyssey in chains as he was transported from Ohio to Colorado for a court appointment. What should have been a two-day trip became a harrowing ordeal covering twenty states in twenty days. Transported by TransCor America—a for-profit prison transport company—Minnix was subjected to inhumane conditions. He was denied regular food, showers, clean clothes, and adequate bedding. The man was forced to sleep on jail floors and left for hours in a facility contaminated with sewage. After a car accident during the trip, Minnix was briefly hospitalized, fitted with a neck brace, and returned to the van only to remain without rest for another 38 hours [1]. No police report was filed. Minnix’s story, while shocking, is hardly unique. Across the United States, countless incarcerated individuals–including those who have not yet been convicted- are cycled through the loosely-regulated private transportation system that routinely neglects their safety for profit.
As of 2023, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics estimated that approximately 1.2 million individuals were incarcerated nationwide [2]. Managing such a vast population has led to increased privatization of correctional services, including transportation–something that, conveniently, absolves the government of direct responsibility. The transportation of prisoners is frequently outsourced to private companies that specialize in the extradition of the incarcerated. Although the prison transportation system has been around for a long time, large privatized corporations did not emerge until the 1990s. When the U.S. prison population nearly doubled in the 90s, largely due to ‘tough on crime’ laws that led to a rise in convictions and longer sentences, a greater demand for prison transfers and extraditions was born, and a full-fledged industry created. Similar to for-profit prisons, these transportation companies frequently neglect the safety of the prisoners, their own guards, and the general public for their own monetary gain. Companies like TransCor, Prison Transport Services (PTS), and Inmate Services Corp. (ISC) are able to duck legal repercussions due to the lack of specific uniform guidelines for proper transportation of incarcerated persons. According to the Human Rights Defence Center, Ideal guidelines would include the unloading and loading process, securement and safety of prisoners, e.g., seat belts, and the number of stops allowed/required for bathroom breaks, showers, and food [3].
However, perhaps the most alarming facet of the for-profit prison transport system is the very thing that William Minnix experienced: diesel therapy—diesel therapy is an unofficial form of punishment in which prisoners are shackled and transported, from institution to institution, for days or weeks on end. Since companies are paid per prisoner per mile, they are heavily incentivised to take the longest, most convoluted routes, overcrowd vans, and take multiple unnecessary stops. These long, meandering routes last anywhere from a week to almost a month–– as in Minnix’s experience. They heighten the chance of a prisoner's escape, nil as they are, but crucially take a mental and physical toll on the prisoners themselves. Regulation of the private prison transport companies is largely left up to the states and, more often than not, the company itself. Currently, there is only one federally sanctioned act specifically outlining regulations for this industry–Jeanna’s Act. Jeanna’s Act was passed in response to the murder of an eleven-year-old girl, Jeanna North, whose murderer escaped during transport. The Act’s intention is “provide protection against the risks to the public that are inherent in the interstate transportation of violent prisoners” [4]. It is not to protect the prisoners. The act outlines a minimum requirement for drivers, including a background check and 100 hours of training, raising it from the original 40 hours. It also restricts the number of hours any one guard can be on duty. What this barely three-page document lacks is any minimum standard for the treatment of prisoners. No requirements for seat belts. No minimum bathroom stops. No maximum number of prisoners allowed in one van [5]. Jeanna’s Act is a far cry from a protective legal standard. The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution states “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” [6]. The Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause “draw[s] its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” [7]. The standard for extreme cruelty “itself remains the same, but its applicability must change as the basic mores of society change” [8]. As the industry of private prison transport has emerged, the law must evolve its “standards of decency” to mark the progress of a maturing society.
In Hope v. Pelzer (2002), petitioner Larry Hope, an Alabama prison inmate, was involved in an altercation with a guard. He was subdued, handcuffed, and placed in leg irons. Hope was transported back to the prison, where he was made to take off his shirt. He spent seven hours tied to a hitching post, a horizontal metal bar used by the Alabama Department of Corrections in the 1990s to restrain prisoners for extended periods as punishment. While there, guards taunted Hope, denied him water, and did not allow bathroom breaks [9]. Petitioner Hope argued that this treatment violated his civil rights. Defendant Pelzer claimed that the prison guards nevertheless were entitled to qualified immunity, a legal doctrine that protects public officials from liability in civil lawsuits when performing their job duties. The court found that the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain—including prolonged restraint, deprivation of water, and denial of bathroom breaks—violated the Eighth Amendment. Hope was already subdued, handcuffed, and placed in leg irons, so there was no emergency or clear, present danger. Guards knowingly subjected him to “substantial risk of physical harm, unnecessary pain, unnecessary exposure to the sun, prolonged thirst and taunting, and a deprivation of bathroom breaks that created a risk of particular discomfort and humiliation” [10]. However, the court also concluded that, though the hitching post was cruel and unusual punishment, the guards were still entitled to qualified immunity. In Hope v. Pelzer (2002), the Supreme Court held that not only were hitching posts specifically a violation of the Eighth Amendment, but that a deprivation of water and adequate bathroom breaks was likewise in violation and representative of cruel and unusual punishment.
In Estelle v. Gamble (1976), the Supreme Court established that deliberate indifference to a prisoner’s serious medical needs constitutes cruel and unusual punishment [11]. J. W. Gamble, an inmate in the Texas Department of Corrections, was injured while performing a prison work assignment in a textile mill. On November 9th, 1973, a 600-pound bale of cotton fell on Gamble and severely hurt his back. He complained of severe back pain repeatedly over the next few months. Guards frequently dismissed, inadequately treated, and even reprimanded Gamble for refusing to continue his work, placing him in solitary confinement until January of the next year. The Supreme Court held that “deliberative indifference” to medical illness or injury violated the Eighth Amendment, citing that the Amendment embodies “broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency” [12]. The Court concluded that these principles establish the government’s obligation to provide medical care for even those whom it is punishing by incarceration” [13]. However, in the specific case of J.W. Gamble, the Court claimed that the neglect to provide additional treatment, such as an X-ray, was not in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Although the court reaffirmed deliberate indifference to medical needs as cruel and unusual punishment, it failed to apply it to Gamble’s mistreatment. It may not be deliberate indifference, but malicious compliance is nonetheless cruel and unusual. Despite the semi-frequent meetings, the prison's repeated denial of Gambles' medical needs and unusual methods of care (i.e., solitary confinement) were a clear Eighth Amendment violation. Despite the protections that exist and are upheld under the law protecting prisoners, they are sparingly applied.
Finally, in Brown v. Plata (2011), the Court held that severe overcrowding and denial of adequate medical and mental health care in California prisons amounted to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. This case represented two separate class actions petitioned by the inmates of California’s prisons: one representing the mental health deterioration due to overcrowding, the other the physical health deterioration due to overcrowding. At the time of this decision, California correctional facilities had been operating at 200% of their intended capacity for years. The then-Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, declared a state of emergency in the prisons as they were causing “increased, substantial risk for transmission of infectious illness and a suicide rate ‘approaching an average of one per week’” [14]. Prisoners in California with serious mental illness were not receiving even minimal care. In some cases, suicidal inmates were held in telephone booth-style cages without toilets, sometimes up to 24 hours. Likewise, prisoners suffering physical illnesses received severely deficient care, with only half the space needed to sufficiently care for the current population. Patients would be housed in twelve-by-twenty-foot cages waiting anywhere from five to eight hours for treatment. As can be expected, this caused a substantial amount of unnecessary, preventable deaths. The Court ultimately concluded that, though prisoners may be deprived of certain rights due to their previous actions, the law and the Constitution demand recognition of certain other rights: “Prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons. Respect for that dignity animates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment” [15]. The overcrowding of the California prisons led to violent, unsanitary, and chaotic conditions that contributed to the constitutional violations, and the Court determined that “until the problem of overcrowding is overcome, it will be impossible to provide constitutionally compliant care to California’s prison population” [16].
Together, these cases define a broad constitutional duty through the proper application of the Eighth Amendment as it relates to the prison system. The Court established that deprivation of basic human needs such as bathroom breaks, food, and water, lack of attention or dismissal of medical care, and overcrowding or other conditions that lead to unsanitary, chaotic, and violent situations are all in violation of the Eighth Amendment and constitute cruel and unusual punishment. When applied to the practices of private prisoner transport companies, the standards established by the Supreme Court reveal a striking parallel between prior constitutional violations and the abuses inherent in diesel therapy.
In 2016, a class of pretrial detainees, while being transported by Inmate Services Corp. (ISC), were “shackled and unable to lie down, for eight continuous days across twelve states, with only momentary breaks for bathroom use” [17]. Danzel Sterns was one of the inmates who later filed suit against ISC for their violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. The van diverted from Mississippi, where his trial for a minor drug charge would be held. Instead, ISC drivers headed the opposite direction, meandering through various states, sometimes twice, to pick up and drop off as many as seventeen prisoners, severely overcrowding the van. There were likewise no bathrooms on the vehicle, and many inmates were pushed to urinate in cups, which frequently spilled on the floor. Sterns alleged that after multiple requests for a bathroom break, having been denied, one woman defecated in her pants. The transport van also made no overnight stops over the course of the eight days. Inmates were made to sit upright and thus were unable to sleep barely more than a few hours at a time. Sterns was ultimately left with a perianal irritation due to the lack of basic sanitation [18]. Subjected to severe overcrowding and an unnecessarily long route, Stern and his fellow inmates were denied access to basic human needs like restroom stops, sleep, and clean clothes. These actions by the private prison transport company, I.S.C., directly reflect the precedents set by the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed this notion and concluded that the conditions of Stearns’s confinement were “far from de minimis and a jury could reasonably conclude that, on this record, the conditions were arbitrary or excessive when compared to the government’s perceived goal of securely transporting Stearns to his destination” [19]. Since 2017, Arkansas law outlined the responsibility of private transport companies to insure the well being of their prisoners including but not limited to “necessary stops for restroom use and meals, proper heating and ventilation of the transport vehicle, climate-appropriate uniforms, and prohibitions on the use of tobacco, in any form, in the transport vehicle” [20]. However, since the conclusion of this case, the law has not been updated or specified to outline specific protocols for prisoner care.
In November of 2000, thirty-nine Wisconsin prisoners filed suit against TransCor. Over the course of a thirty-hour bus ride, they were placed in a vehicle with no heat, no working toilet, and a broken muffler that repeatedly pumped exhaust fumes inside the vehicle. The prisoners alleged that they were frequently splashed with waste from the non-functioning toilet and vomited on each other due to the stench. Denied meals and medication, they were likewise wearing only jump suits in sub-zero weather. Some prisoners contracted hypothermia and frostbite because of the conditions [21]. These prisoners were denied medical care, made to face extreme weather conditions, and left in squalor for thirty-nine hours. In Wine v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al (2014), the Court ruled that the prisoners could proceed with their claims of assault and battery; however, all other claims of the guards' misconduct were dismissed. Wisconsin law has not evolved since then, and currently, all the guidelines for private transport are left up to the department [22].
In March of 2017, a group of pre-trial detainees was escorted by transport officer Buntyn, an employee of Prisoner Transport Services (PTS), a private prison transport company. Over the course of eight days, inmates W.Y., A.S., and S.K. (initialed for privacy reasons) were subjected to inhumane conditions and abuse. As in the previous case examples, detainees were denied frequent bathroom stops, once going 36 hours between bathroom stops [23]. Detainees were forced to urinate in empty bottles, which regularly spilled on the floor and the detainees themselves. W.Y., A.S., and S.K. were also retrained for long periods of time, cuffed behind their back (an uncomfortable practice already banned by PTS policy if cuffed for long periods), and placed extensively in the segregation cage—a small, secure, individual compartment (or a separate section of a larger compartment) used to isolate a prisoner from the general population of inmates being transported. Detainees were beaten and slammed against the side of the van for attempting to eat an abandoned McDonald's meal and adjusting shackles. One detainee, S.K., complained to Buntyn about the unsanitary van as he was recovering from being stabbed in the knees and feared his injury would get infected. Buntyn dismissed him and had him cleared by a jail nurse who had not examined him. This abuse continued throughout the trip until, at a stop, another officer noticed the poor treatment and pulled Buntyn off the van [24]. This abuse echoes that in Hope v. Pelzer (2002), where detainees were subjected to dehumanizing abuse that was unnecessary and excessive. Buntyn’s neglect of W.Y., A.S., and S.K.'s medical concerns and bodily needs is a blatant infringement of their Eighth Amendment Rights.
The Supreme Court has consistently and clearly defined cruel and unusual punishment as an unnecessary and inhumane deprivation of bodily rights. These include overcrowding, denial of bathroom breaks, and lack of medical attention. Private prison transport companies, as proven, are guilty of this cruel and unusual punishment and much more. After such an established and clear precedent, one might expect policy reform. However, there is such little incentive for politicians to propose bills protecting prisoners while keeping the favor of their voters. After all, how can people care about some criminals when they are struggling to pay for groceries? Upholding the Eighth Amendment needs to come from the court directly—specifically, the Supreme Court. The current state regulation of the transport system is outdated and ineffective. Not only will states always prioritize profit, but these vans are more than frequently crossing state borders, which blurs the lines of regulation and law.
This industry, like that of the incarcerated population, has grown exponentially and is on the rise. Jeanna’s Act, in its three pages, barely covers its intention to make it harder for prisoners to escape in transit and completely neglects the well-being of the prisoners themselves. Perhaps one would argue that this sort of issue would arise in federal transport of prisoners as well. However, because federal transport is not profit-driven, they are not incentivized to cut corners and mistreat prisoners. The true driving force behind this consistent abuse is the capitalization of the transport system. Companies are heavily incentivized to prioritize profit above all else. This profit-driven neglect has created the conditions for practices like diesel therapy. Without any regulation, the federal government is offloading the management of a rising incarcerated population and, in exchange, turns a blind eye to the perpetuated neglect and abuse. Ultimately, the private prison transportation system has led to a sustained pattern of inhumane treatment of the incarcerated in direct violation of the Eighth Amendment right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. Diesel therapy is a clear example of this legal blind spot. There can never be justice as long as revenue is on the line.
[1] Alan Prendergast, The Long and Winding Road: A Prisoner’s Diary, Westword (Mar. 3, 1999)
[2] U.S. Dep’t of Just., Bureau of Just. Stat., Prisons Report Series: Preliminary Data Release, 2023 (2024)
[3] David M. Reutter, Almost $950,000 Paid to Inmate Services Corp. for “Hellish” Prisoner Transports, Prison Legal News (Feb. 1, 2024)
[4] Pub. L. No. 106-560, 114 Stat. 2784 (2000)
[5] Congress.gov, Constitution Annotated: Eighth Amendment
[6] Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958).
[7] Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 382. (1972).
[8] Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
[9] Hope v. Pelzer
[10] See [9].
[11] Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)
[12] See [11].
[13] See [11].
[14] Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011)
[15] See [14].
[16] See [14].
[17] Stearns v. Inmate Servs. Corp., No. 18-3707, 2020 WL 2062180 (8th Cir. Apr. 29, 2020).
[18] See [17].
[19] See [17].
[20] Standards For Private Entities Providing Prisoner or Detainee Services, 28 CFR Part 97 (2002).
[21] Wine v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections et al, No. 2:14-cv-00838 (E.D. Wis. filed July 9, 2014).
[22] Wisconsin Admin Code § DOC 309.495 (1986).
[23] Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Former Prisoner Transport Officer Convicted of Civil Rights Offense for Abusing Detainees in His Care (Dec. 15, 2015).
[24] See [23].