Which 1981 Supreme Court decision set forth that housing two inmates in a cell designed for one did not violate the Eighth Amendment's protection from cruel and unusual punishment?

The U. S. Supreme Court decision in Rhodes vs. Chapman (1981) held that housing two inmates (prisoners) in a cell designed for one did not violate the Eighth Amendment Law which guarantees protection from cruelty and unusual punishment of the inmates.

Explanation:

The inmates of a South Ohio Correctional Facility instituted a case against the government for infringing on their rights especially the Eighth Amendment La of the US constitution. However, after the lower courts had held that the inmates rights were actually infringed upon, the US Supreme court eventually reversed the lower courts and then made a decision that the inmate harm from double celling was a natural consequence of incarceration and neither cruel nor unusual in its purpose or effect. Those that agreed and those that disagreed in the case eventually agreed that conditions should be evaluated in accordance with the evolving standards-of-decency and the totality-of-circumstances doctrines, but disagreed over what level of harm triggered eighth amendment proscriptions.

Rhodes vs Chapman

Explanation:

U. S. Supreme Court

Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U. S. 337 (1981).

Argued on the 2nd of March 1981, the appeal court held that the dual celling is not cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.