Child killer gets $295,000 in suit over moldy mattress
Friday, September 19, 2008 at 8:39PM A Wisconsin inmate got a $295,000 award from a federal jury because his prison mattress was moldy, violating his civil rights. Smoking Gun has the full story about Reggie Townsend, 29, who is doing "23 years for his role in a Milwaukee street shootout that left an 11-year-old girl dead. The child was hit by a stray bullet while inside her grandmother's home." A correctional officer was held accountable, but the state of Wisconsin will probably end up footing the tab. What's astounding: Townsend suffered absolutely no physical harm from the mattress. I'd suggest charging him and anyone else locked up a daily fee for room, board and medical. Do we do that, I wonder? And I'd suggest charging those jurors with stupidity. How easy would it have been to give the child killer a deluxe mattress and then send him on his sorry way, wishing him the worst prison experience ever? When an inmate sues for a mattress, and he's not harmed physically, he should get no more than a mattress. His victim got no mercy whatsoever.
Kay B. Day, Editor
"inmate lawsuit", Wisconsin, award, federal jury, mold
Reader Comments (7)
Why would you think you know more about the case than a jury of citizens who heard all the evidence?
Oh, I don't think I know more about the case than the jury. But whatever happened, whatever the inmate was not granted pales in comparison to the death of an 11-year-old child.
And if you have insider information, do tell. Do you know what the jury knows? I'd love to know why a jury would give this guy $295,000 that will likely come out of the taxpayers' pockets.
Do tell. We'd love to know.
I don't have any inside information, and of course it's tragic that an 11 year old was killed. But that's why Townsend got 43 years in prison, it doesn't mean the prison officers can do anything they want to him. That's why we have the Eighth Amendment. A jury of citizens heard the evidence and decided that this guard crossed the line. He was not awarded any compensatory damages, the entire award was punitive damages. My understanding is that the purpose of punitive damages is to punish and deter wrongful conduct. To me, the verdict here seems just about right.
Well, we're definitely at opposite ends of the punitive damages scale. Why would you punish the system to that degree, for a man associated with a violent gang who killed a child? Oh, that's right. I bet the jury didn't even get to hear any of that.
Here's the deal. I think there are a lot of people in prison who don't need to be. But I also think there are people like this guy whose discomfort is not a concern. You kill an innocent child, you should pay for the rest of your life. And not in comfort. The guy had a roof over his head, food and water. And apparently clothing. And frankly, that is good enough.
It all depends on your ideas about punishment. In this case, I think the award is ridiculous and that it says a lot about the bleeding hearts who probably heard this case. If they really wanted to punish the system, they could've--the guard could've been fired, the warden the same.
What they did was offer a reward, likely to be funded by taxpayers, for discomfort caused by the guy's keepers. And that reward (aka punishment) is in my book ridiculous, an excellent example of government with no good judgment whatsoever.
I think he deserved a new mattress and some health tests to find out if any health damage was done. I think whoever was supposed to be in charge of his mattress should be fired.
And that's it.
The money is ridiculous.
Beth, I agree. The award he received benefits the criminal (gang member) and whoever his attorney was/is. His civil rights infringment in no way equates to $295,000.
~~~~~Ed Note: SPAM is routinely removed. I left the message here because sometimes these things are just funny. Hope your moles improve, ktmall!~~TUSR editors who really, really, really hate SPAM.