The Law of Corrections

1
Chapter 5

• The Law of Corrections

2
Foundations 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
• e.g., California corrections Title 15
• Case Law
• legal rules produced by judicial decisions
• Regulations
• created by governmental agencies
• Goal to implement details of agency and the law
  as it pertains to agency operations

3
Law and the U.S. Supreme Court

• The End of the Hands-off Policy
• a judicial policy of noninterference in the
  internal administration of prisons
• Access to the Courts
• the increase in filings was assisted by Supreme
  Court decisions that eased prisoner access to the
  courts
• limitations were imposed on the grounds of
  institutional security, but prisoners need access
  to the courts to ensure that officials followed
  the law.
• The Prisoners Rights Movement
• the NAACPs Legal Defense and Education Fund and
  the National Prison Project of the American Civil
  Liberties Union became concerned about prisoners
  rights.

4
hands-off policy

• a judicial policy of noninterference in the
  internal administration of prisons

5
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 latters constitutional rights.
• civil liability
• responsibility for compensating another for the
  denial of the latters rights
• award for damages may be awarded to a plaintiff
  in a civil action
• 1983 most common avenue for challenging jail
  prison conditions

6
precedent

• legal rules created by judicial decisions, which
  serve to guide decisions of other judges in
  subsequent similar cases

7
habeas corpus

• 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

8
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
9
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
10
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
11
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.
12
Constitutional Rights of Prisoners

• The First Amendment
• The Fourth Amendment
• The Eighth Amendment
• The Fourteenth Amendment
• A Change of Judicial Direction
• Impact of the Prisoners Rights Movement

13
1st Amendment rights
1st Amendment
speech
religion

• 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

• Fulwood v. Clemmer, 1962
• Muslim faith is legitimate
• Gittlemacker v. Prasse, 1970
• state not required to provide clergy
• Cruz v. Beto, 1972
• unconventional religions-Buddhism-ok
• Kahane v. Carlson, 1975
• Orthodox Jews right to religious diet
• Theriault v. Carlson, 1977
• scam religions not protected
• OLone v. Estate of Shabazz, 1987
• work may properly interfere with religious
  practices

14
4th Amendment rights
protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures

• Lanza v. New York, 1962
• conversations recorded in a jail visitors room
  not protected by 4th Amendment
• US v. Hitchcock, 1972
• warrantless search of cell is not unreasonable
  evidence is admissible
• Bell v. Wolfish, 1979
• 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

15
8th Amendment rights
protection against excessive bail fines,
andcruel unusual punishment

• Ruiz v. Estelle, 1975
• Texas prison system unconstitutional
• Estelle v. Gamble, 1976
• Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs
  unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain
• 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 ? CU (if in
  good faith)
• Wilson v. Seiter, 1991
• prisoners must show that objectively CU
  conditions exist due to deliberate indifference
  of officials

16
14th Amendment rights
14th Amendment
due process
equal protection

• 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

the law will be applied equally to all persons,
without regard to individual characteristics as
gender, race, and religion
17
totality of conditions

• 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)

18
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

19
ombudsman

• a public official who investigates complaints
  against government officials and recommends
  corrective measures

20
mediation

• 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

21
Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972

• parole revocation process must include basic
  elements of due process (408 U.S 471)

22
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 1973

• probation revocation process must include basic
  elements of due process ( 411 U.S 778)

23
Greenholtz v. Inmates(Neb. Penal Corr.
Complex), 1979

• there is no right to parole or to be
  conditionally release prior to expiration of
  sentence

24
Monell v. Dept. Social Services (NY city), 1979

• individual officers AND the agency may be sued
  when a persons civil rights are violated by the
  agencys customs and usages (including poor
  training and supervision)

25
Booth v. Churner, 2001

• prisoner seeking monetary damages must first
  complete prison administrative processes before
  filing lawsuit (00 U.S. 99-1964)

26
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