Under criminal law, perhaps, but the situation is more complex under civil law.

One who breaches their duty to another by breaking a law intended to protect the party against the very harm sustained, resulting in harm to the other is liable to the other for pe we negligence.

I would assume, again, that only applies if the law was mandatory, not directory. And most laws covering government officials in Illinois are only directory. So there is no real duty to follow.

Oh, that’s exactly what there is: a duty to follow the law insofar as that law was made with the intent of protecting the plaintiff if the plaintiff was injured in that manner in which the law intended he be protected against.

There is no reason that the absence of a penalty under the statute would immunize everyone violating it from per se negligence, unless I’m missing something foundational here.

I'm not great on tort law. IANAL. But let's say the law says "The court clerk shall issue all requested documents within 7 days", and the clerk takes 11 months to get you the documents and due to their tardiness you lost your job, wife, children, residency, whatever.

I'm not feeling that you could sue, in Illinois at least. Sure, the law said they "shall" do it, but it's directory, not mandatory. It just looks like it is mandatory. I know 100% you cannot prosecute a government official for Official Misconduct[0] in Illinois for violating a law that says they "shall" do something unless it also has an associated punishment for the specific statute they violated.

[0] (720 ILCS 5/33-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 33-3) Sec. 33-3. Official misconduct. (a) A public officer or employee or special government agent commits misconduct when, in his official capacity or capacity as a special government agent, he or she commits any of the following acts: (1) Intentionally or recklessly fails to perform any mandatory duty as required by law;

We are approaching a level of depth in this conversation that is probably not appropriate for a non-lawyer and one who does not practice in Illinois.

One thing I can say is that the statutory text you have pasted talks about misconduct but it says absolutely nothing about negligence.

Would feeding prisoners be legally required since not doing so would be “cruel or unusual punishment?”

Cruel or unusual punishment is a standard that only applies to convicted prisoners, and not those in county jails, which come under due process.

Generally though, yes, you are right it becomes a constitutional violation, rather than a statutory violation if you don't feed the prisoners. Often though the statues give rights above and beyond the constitution. For instance, in Illinois it requires jails to give prisoners 1800 calories a day. But it is not enforceable. So they can give a lot less as long as they don't kill you. And IIRC the statute also demands "The menu shall be diversified so as to avoid the monotony of a standardized diet." which again is not enforceable. So they can basically just feed you Nutriloaf once a day and call it job done.

https://ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/020/0200070100011...

It's funny because the first line includes a bug in it. It says a minimum of "1800 to 2000 calories." Well, which is it?

(also, just a thought, but there are generally no punishments for violating a person's constitutional rights -- you can sue for your injuries, but prisoners specifically are severely restricted by Congress on bringing suits against their captors because there were too many, and those suits can only allege physical harm, not any kind of mental or emotional suffering)

The majority of carceral environments in the US that are openly in violation of the 8th a. in degrees of not good to third-world, inhumane depravity. (The one where a prisoner died of bug infestation and had a nonfunctional toilet.) The most obvious ones are those with the most deaths and substandard medical care.

The problem is the prevailing US attitude of incarceration as punitive, divine retribution rather than rehabilitation and reintegration.