Inmates

1
Inmates Rights Movement

• Review
• Discussion of Cases/Rights

2
The Hands Off Doctrine

• Prior to 1964
• Prisoner as Slave of State and civilly dead
• Even if they may have some limited rights
• Judges reluctant to interfere with executive
  branch
• Federal judges versus state prisoners (states
  rights)
• Judges not penologists (safety of prisons)
• Fear flood of frivolous inmate law suits

3
Inmate Rights Period (1964-1978)

• Why during this time?
• Inmates, like others, become more
  militant/aggressive
• Public interest law (ACLU, NAACP)
• Judges more interested in politically
  disadvantaged groups
• Interpretation of the Civil Rights Statute allows
  inmates to file Section 1983 suits
• Horrible conditions of confinement in cases
• Incarceration rates soar without new prisons

4
Two type of suits

• Habeas Corpus
• Long history, challenge legality of confinement
• Section 1983
• Allege violation of constitutional rights by
  person under color of state law
• Sue for damages () or remedial relief (change in
  policy/conditions)
• By late 1980s, inmates are filing twice as many
  Section 1983 suits as Habeas suits

5
Major Areas of Section 1983 Litigation

• Access to Courts
• Individual Rights
• Medical treatment, freedom of religion, mail
  (get/receive)
• Due Process
• Revocation of good time, prison transfers
• Cruel and Unusual Punishment
• Individual guard-inmate interactions, totality
  of conditions cases

6
Access to Courts

• Cooper v. Pate (1964)
• Inmates may bring suit via Section 1983 to
  challenge state actions
• Johnson v. Avery (1969)
• Prison officials cannot bar jailhouse lawyers
  unless they provide a reasonable alternative
• Nutshell provide adequate law library
  assistance from other inmates
• Or access to lawyers

7
Individual Rights

• General
• Turner v. Safely (1986)
• Prison regulations that impinge upon inmates
  constitutional rights are valid if they are
  related to a reasonable penological interest
• Prisons may ban inmate to inmate correspondence
• Prison officials may not regulate inmate marriage
• No Reasonable expectation of privacy in cells
• Body cavity search after contact visit is OK
• No right to observe shakedown of cell
• In a nutshell? The nod goes to prisons

8
Individual Rights II

• Medical
• Growing area of concern (AIDS, elderly inmates)
• Current Standard from Estelle v. Gamble (1977)
• Deliberate Indifference to serious medical
  needs
• Estelle Inmate with back injury from work.
  Failure to take X-rays not malpractice (inmate
  seen 17 times by Rx)
• Examples of DI
• Doctor chooses easier but less effective
  treatment (throw away ear and stitch stump)
• injection of penicillin with knowledge that
  prisoner was allergic and refusal to treat
  reaction
• Prison doctor refuses to administer prescribed
  painkiller for surgery

9
8th Amendment

• When do prison conditions rise to the level of
  cruel and unusual punishment?
• Correctional Officer Use of Force
• Must prove that officials acted maliciously and
  sadistically with intent to cause harm
• BUT, harm does not have to be permanent (Hudson
  v. McMillian, 1992).
• Other Conditions of Confinement
• Food, cell size, double bunking, crowding, noise,
  second hand smoke

10
8th Amendment Cont.

• Landmark Conditions of Confinement Case Ruiz v.
  Estelle (1980)
• Judge (federal district) William Wayne Justice
• Confinement in Texas prisons constituted cruel
  and unusual punishment (brutality by guards,
  overcrowding, understaffing, use of building
  tenders, poor medical care, and uncontrolled
  physical abuse among inmates)
• Consent Decree, Special Masters
• By 1995
• Almost a third of all correctional institutions
  across the nation were under state or federal
  court orders to limit prison populations or
  improve the conditions of confinement

11
8th Amendment cont.

• In 1980s, 1990s
• Totality of Conditions not enough? must show
  that prison officials acted with deliberate
  indifference to some basic need of the inmates
• Cannot use totality of conditions
• Not enough to show the conditions persisted over
  a long period of time (deliberate indifference)

12
Due Process

• Wolff v. McDonnell (1974)
• Inmates are entitled do due process in prison
  disciplinary proceedings that can result in loss
  of good time or in punitive segregation
• Advanced written notice, written statement of
  wrongdoing and action taken, can call witnesses
  and present evidence
• NO cross examine (inmate confront CO), legal
  counsel
• Due process also for transfer to mental hospital
  but NOT for
• Transfer to different prison, removal to solitary
  confinement, denial of visitor

13
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1997

• Limits remedies available to federal courts (only
  what is justified by constitutional violation)
• Inmates must pay partial installments filing fees
  out of their inmate accounts (based on of money
  in account)
• 3 strikes ban on frequent fliers
• If a prisoner receives , must first pay any
  outstanding restitution orders/fines/fees (other
  limits)
• Must exhaust both prison grievance system and
  state court system
• Courts may not enter into consent degrees with
  prisons (no special masters)

14
Backtracking

• PLRA Supreme Court Decisions
• Inmate Section 1983 suits have declined, even as
  prison populations have increased
• 1990 40,000 claims
• 2000 24,000 claims
• Habeas corpus has climbed back ahead of Section
  1983 suits now about same prevalence
• 2002 24,0000 Habeas to only 23,000 1983 Suits

15
What has been the outcome of the Inmates Rights
movement?

• Practical Legal Rights/Better Conditions?
• Few cases (less than 2 succeed) and the legal
  victories are fairly basic
• Improvements in living space, medical care,
  working conditions, procedural protections,
  better inmate grievance systems.
• Larger context?
• Fear of lawsuits? Greater bureaucratization
• But, breakdown of stability/order?
• Inmate expectations/CO morale?

16
The Stanford Prison Experiment

• Basic Experimental Design
• Participants?
• Methods?
• Findings?
• Guards
• Prisoners
• Implications for Prisons

17
A Critique of the Stanford Experiment

• Did the participants really undergo a
  transformation?
• Really think they were prisoners or guards?
• Nyon cap instead of shaved head, Zimbardo as
  superintendent
• Really think they had been arrested?
• Alternative explanation
• Acting on cultural stereotypes--esp. for guards
• Effect of living up to agreement of scientific
  study
• Milgram experiment
• Others?cant design an experiment where people
  would quit
• Know research hypothesis a priori?

18
Abu Ghraib

• Explanations similar to that for correctional
  officer brutality
• Bad COs (Rural Virginia hillbillies)
• Prisons as bad institutions (Stanford Experiment)
• Poor Organization/Governance