Transcript Chapter 5 The Law of Corrections Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th bases of correctional law  constitution  fundamental law for federal government & for each.

Chapter 5
The Law of
Corrections
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
bases of correctional law
 constitution

fundamental law for federal government
& for each state, containing a design for
government & basic rights of individuals
 statute


laws passed by legislative authority
eg, California corrections: Title 15

legal rules produced by judicial decisions


created by governmental agencies
Goal: to implement details of agency and
the law as it pertains to agency operations
 case
law
 administrative
regulations
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
“precedent”
definition
legal rules created by
judicial decisions,
which serve to guide
decisions of other
judges in subsequent
similar cases
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
hands-off policy
definition
a
judicial policy of noninterference in
the internal administration of prisons
Ruffin
v. Commonwealth (Virginia, 1871)
“The prisoner has, as a consequence
of his crime, not only forfeited his
liberty, but all his personal rights
except those which the law in its
humanity accords to him. He is for the
time being the slave of the state.”
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
the end of “hands-off”
 Cooper
v. Pate (US, 1964)
 prisoners
in state & local institutions are
entitled to protections of §1983 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1871 (42 USC 1983), which
imposes civil liability on anyone who denies
another of the latter’s constitutional rights.
 “civil liability”
 responsibility for compensating another
for the denial of the latter’s rights
 award for damages may be awarded to a
plaintiff in a civil action
 §1983
= most common avenue for
challenging jail & prison conditions
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
“habeus corpus”
definition
a judicial order (called a “writ”)
requesting that a person holding
another person produce the prisoner
and give reasons to justify continued
confinement
“you
have the body”
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
legal doctrines controlling
correctional rulings
“least restrictive method”
a principle which requires officials to
select that administrative remedy for
any problem so that the remedy
constitutes the least possible threat to
personal rights and represents the
least invasive means of solving the
problem
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
legal doctrines controlling
correctional rulings
“compelling state interest”
a principle which requires the
government to have a significant,
legitimate, and persuasive (i.e.,
compelling”) reason for wanting to
impose a regulation before it may
create or impose a condition, rule, or
procedure
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
legal doctrines controlling
correctional rulings ...
“clear and present danger”
a principle which allows officials to
infringe on rights arguably protected
by the 1st Amendment, in cases when
the threat to security or the safety of
individuals is so obvious that it
constitutes a “clear and present
danger” that cannot be ignored
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
legal doctrines controlling
correctional ruling
“rational basis test”
a principle which requires that a
regulation constitute a reasonable
and rational method of advancing a
legitimate penological interest or
institutional goal.
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
1st Amendment rights
1st Amendment
speech



Procunier v. Martinez, 1974
 mail censorship permitted only
for prison security
Turner v. Safley, 1987
 inmate-inmate mail can be
prohibited; restriction must be
related to legit. interests.
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 1989
 warden may reject incoming
publications, based on security
concerns
religion






Fulwood v. Clemmer, 1962

Muslim faith is legitimate

state not required to provide clergy

unconventional religions-Buddhism-ok

Orthodox Jews right to religious diet

scam religions not protected

work may properly interfere with religious
practices
Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 1970
Cruz v. Beto, 1972
Kahane v. Carlson, 1975
Theriault v. Carlson, 1977
O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 1987
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
4th Amendment rights
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures

Lanza v. New York, 1962


US v. Hitchcock, 1972


warrantless search of cell is not unreasonable;
evidence is admissible
Bell v. Wolfish, 1979


conversations recorded in a jail visitor’s room not
protected by 4th Amendment
strip searches, esp. after visits ok, when need for
searches outweighs personal rights invaded
Hudson v. Palmer, 1984

Officials may search cells without a warrant, seize
materials
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
8th Amendment rights
protection against excessive bail & fines, and
cruel & unusual punishment



Ruiz v. Estelle, 1975

Texas prison system unconstitutional

Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs = “unnecessary
and wanton infliction of pain”
Estelle v. Gamble, 1976
Rhodes v. Chapman, 1981



double-celling & crowding ≠ cruel & unusual. Standard = “wanton
& unnecessary infliction of pain”; & condition must be “grossly
disproportionate” to the severity of the crime
Whitley v. Albers, 1986

shooting inmate in leg during riot ≠ C&U (if in good faith)

prisoners must show that objectively C&U conditions exist due to
“deliberate indifference of officials”
Wilson v. Seiter, 1991
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
“totality of
conditions”

definition
the aggregate of circumstances in a
correctional facility that, when
considered as a whole, may violate
the protections of the 8th
Amendment, even though any single
condition does not violate such
guarantees
Pugh
v. Locke (Alabama, 1976)
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
14th Amendment rights
14th Amendment
due process
no agent or instrumentality
of government will use any
procedures to arrest,
prosecute, try, or punish
any person, other than
those procedures
prescribed by law
equal protection
the law will be applied
equally to all persons,
without regard to individual
characteristics as gender,
race, and religion
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
14th Amendment rights
guarantee of due process & equal protection of the laws




Wolff v. McDonnell, 1974
 basic elements of due process must be present in
prison disciplinary proceedings
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 1976
 no right to counsel in prison disciplinary proceedings
Vitek v. Jones, 1980
 involuntary transfer of prisoner to mental hospital
requires hearing & minimal elements of due process like
notice and counsel
Sandin v. Conner, 1995
 transfer to disciplinary segregation is not the type of
atypical, significant deprivation that requires due
process protections outlined in Wolff
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
“ombudsman”

definition
a public official who investigates
complaints against government
officials and recommends corrective
measures
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
“mediation”

definition
vehicle for dispute resolution, in
which the parties in conflict submit
their differences to a third party for
resolution, and whose decision (in
the correctional setting) is binding on
both parties
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972
 parole
revocation process
must include basic elements
of due process
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 1973
 probation
revocation process
must include basic elements
of due process
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
Greenholtz v. Inmates
(Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex), 1979
 there
is no right to parole or to
be conditionally release prior
to expiration of sentence
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
Monell v. Dept. Social Services (NY
city), 1979
 individual
officers AND the
agency may be sued when a
person’s civil rights are
violated by the agency’s
“customs and usages”
(including poor training and
supervision)
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
Booth v. Churner, 2001
 prisoner
seeking monetary
damages must first complete
prison administrative
processes before filing lawsuit
Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th
Prison Litigation Reform Act, 1966

restricted number of §1983 lawsuits
#
has dropped by nearly 50% since
enactment, despite increase in prison
population
gives greater deference to prison
administrators in operation of
facilities
 prohibits filing of additional lawsuits
if previous 3 were dismissed as
frivolous

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6th