In Rhodes, the Supreme Court supported application of the totality approach in conjunction with the shock-the-conscience test for determining eighth amendment violations. A per se rule is more effective than the totality approach in treating the problems of overcrowding. Such a rule would provide greater protection of inmate health and security, promote appropriate correctional funding, avoid deplorable conditions required by the totality approach, ensure administrative accountability, and set judicial guidelines which would provide certainty and foreseeability in litigation. Since State courts are free to require a higher standard of eighth amendment protection, these courts should adopt a per se rule for the benefit of penal administrators, the courts, the public, and inmates. Courts have available two alternative legal approaches in creating a per se rule for overcrowding. The first specifies that crowding of more than one inmate per 60 feet of living space violates the eighth amendment's required standard of decency, while the second approach recognizes that incarceration is the statutory penalty appropriate for achieving deterrence and rehabilitation. Overcrowding, again defined as more than one inmate per 60 square feet of living space, is punishment in excess of the penological goals served by incarceration and thus is prohibited under the eighth amendment. A total of 294 footnotes are supplied. (Author summary modified)