In Hudson v. McMillan, what standard is applied to assess the use of force by prison staff?

• A. Force can never be used in corrections
• B. The level and amount of force must be reasonably necessary to accomplish a legitimate correctional objective
• C. Inmates must be given an opportunity to speak before force is used
• D. The reasonableness of force is irrelevant in a correctional setting

Answer: (B)

The main concept being tested is the objective reasonableness standard for evaluating use of force by prison staff under the Eighth Amendment. Hudson v. McMillan holds that the force used must be reasonable in light of the total circumstances—meaning it should be proportional to and necessary for a legitimate objective like maintaining security or order. This requires looking at factors such as the severity of the incident, the threat posed, and whether less force could have achieved the same result.

The best answer expresses that idea: the level and amount of force must be reasonably related to accomplishing a legitimate correctional objective. It captures that force isn’t allowed to be excessive, but it isn’t banned outright either.

Force can be used when needed to maintain safety and order, so saying it can never be used is incorrect. Inmates don’t have a blanket right to be heard before every use of force, which is why that option isn’t the standard. And the idea that reasonableness is irrelevant contradicts the very standard upheld in Hudson.