Chapter 11Chapter 11

The Legal The Legal World:World:

Prisoners’ Prisoners’ RightsRights

McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2013 McGraw-Hill Companies. All Rights Reserved.

11-2

The Hands-Off DoctrineThe Hands-Off Doctrine

An historical policy of American courts not to intervene in prison management; Courts tended to follow the doctrine until the late 1960s

Based on two rationales: Separation of powers Judges should leave correctional

administration to correctional experts

11-3

The Court And The Court And The Hands-Off DoctrineThe Hands-Off Doctrine

Ex Parte Hull (1941) – No state or its officers may interfere with a prisoner’s right to apply to a federal court for a writ of habeas corpus.

Coffin v. Reichard (1944) – Habeas corpus proceedings are extended to consideration of the conditions of confinement.

Cooper v. Pate (1964) – Prisoners may sue a warden or other correctional official under Title 42 of the U.S. Code Sec. 1983, based on the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

Holt v. Sarver (1970) – The entire Arkansas prison system was declared unconstitutional.

11-4

Prisoners’ Rights Prisoners’ Rights

Constitutional guarantees of free speech, religious practice, due process, and other private and personal rights as well as constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishments made applicable to prison inmates by the federal courts.

11-5

Prisoners’ Rights – Prisoners’ Rights – ContinuedContinued

Prisoner’s rights derive from: Constitutional Rights – personal and due

process rights guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution and its Amendments

Federal Statutes – laws passed by Congress State Constitutions State Statutes

11-6

Institutional NeedsInstitutional Needs

Interests of prison administration recognized by the courts as justifying some restrictions on the constitutional rights of prisoners

Those interests are maintenance of institutional order maintenance of institutional security safety of prison inmates and staff rehabilitation of inmates

11-7

Five Ways To Challenge Five Ways To Challenge Prison Conditions Prison Conditions

State habeas corpus action Federal habeas corpus action (after

state remedies have been exhausted) State tort lawsuit Federal civil rights lawsuit

Compensatory or punitive damages Petition for injunctive relief The criminal court system

11-8

Key Terms Key Terms

Writ of habeas corpus – (latin “You have the body”) An order that directs the person detaining a prisoner to bring him or her before a judge, who will determine the lawfulness of the imprisonment

Tort - A civil wrong, a wrongful act, or a wrongful breach of duty, other than a breach of contract, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury to another occurs

Injunction - A judicial order to do or refrain from doing a particular act

11-9

Types of Damages Types of Damages

Nominal damages - Small amounts of money a court may award when inmates have sustained no actual damages, but there is clear evidence that their rights have been violated

Compensatory damages - Money a court may award as payment for actual losses suffered by a plaintiff, including out-of-pocket expenses incurred in filing the suit, other forms of monetary or material loss, pain, suffering, and mental anguish

Punitive damages - Money a court may award to punish a wrongdoer when a wrongful act was intentional and malicious or was done with reckless disregard for the right of the victim

11-10

The Criminal Court SystemThe Criminal Court System

Jurisdiction - The power, right, or authority of a court to interpret and apply the law

Dual court system – the federal and state court systems coexist

Trial courts of the federal system are called District Courts

11-11

Inmate Grievance Procedures Inmate Grievance Procedures

Grievance procedures are formal institutional processes for hearing inmate complaints

Following the deadly riot in New York’s Attica Prison in 1977, the U.S. Comptroller General encouraged the creation of grievance mechanisms

The U.S. Supreme Court made formal procedures mandatory in Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union (1977)

Only about 1 in 12 is successful

11-12

Reasons For Establishing Reasons For Establishing Grievance ProceduresGrievance Procedures

Promote justice and fairness Provide inmates a means to voice

their concerns Assist in identifying institutional

problems Reduce the number of lawsuits filed

by inmates Reduce violence

11-13

First Amendment IssuesFirst Amendment Issues

Pell v. Pecunier (1974) articulated the concept of legitimate penological objectives and established a balancing test to weigh the rights claimed by inmates against the legitimate needs of prisons

Legitimate penological objectives: the realistic concerns that correctional officers and administrators have for the integrity and security of the correctional institution and the safety of staff and inmates

Balancing test: weighing the rights claimed by inmates against the legitimate needs of prisons

11-14

Freedom Of Speech And Freedom Of Speech And Expression Expression

Cruz v. Beto (1972) – all visits can be banned if they threaten security; prison visits are not an absolute right

Procurnier v. Martinez (1974) – censoring inmate mail is acceptable only when necessary to protect legitimate government interests

McNamara v. Moody (1979) – prison officials may not prevent inmates from writing vulgar letters or those that make disparaging remarks about the prison staff

11-15

Freedom Of Speech And Freedom Of Speech And Expression - Expression - ContinuedContinued

Peppering v. Crist (1981) – prison officials may not ban mailed nude pictures of inmates’ wives or girlfriends

Turner v. Safely (1987) – upheld a Missouri ban on correspondence among inmates

Jones v. N.C. Prisoner’s Labor Union (1977) – upheld regulations that prohibited prisoners from soliciting other inmates to join the union and barred union meetings and bulk mailing concerning the union from outside sources

11-16

Freedom Of ReligionFreedom Of Religion Fulwood v. Clemmer (1962) – the Black Muslim

faith must be recognized as a religion Cruz v. Beto (1972) – inmates have to be given a

reasonable opportunity to pursue their religions Kahane v. Carlson (1974) – a Jewish inmate has

the right to a kosher diet Udey v. Kastner (1986) – If the requested special

diet is too costly, the prison may deny the request O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz (1987) – a prison

does not have to alter a prisoner’s work schedule so the inmate can attend religious services

11-17

Fourth Amendment IssuesFourth Amendment Issues

United States v. Hitchcock (1972): An inmate can have no reasonable expectation of privacy in his prison cell, since official surveillance is necessary to meet legitimate security needs of the prison Reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court case of

Hudson v. Palmer (1984) Block v. Rutherford (1984) – Prisoners do

not have the right to be present during searches of their cells

11-18

Eighth Amendment IssuesEighth Amendment Issues

Cruel and Unusual Punishment – a penalty that is grossly disproportionate to the offense or that violates today’s broad and idealistic concepts of dignity, civilized standards, humanity, and decency (Estelle v. Gamble (1976), and Hutto v. Finney (1978))

In the area of capital punishment, cruel and unusual punishments are those involving torture, a lingering death, or unnecessary pain

11-19

Medical CareMedical Care

Estelle v. Gamble – Prison officials have a duty to provide inmates with medical care

Prison officials can not lawfully demonstrate deliberate indifference to the medical needs of prisoners

Deliberate indifference – Intentional and willful indifference; within the field of correctional practice, the term refers to calculated inattention to unconstitutional conditions of confinement

11-20

Prison ConditionsPrison Conditions

In Pugh v. Locke (1976) and Battle v. Anderson (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a totality of conditions standard must be used in evaluating whether prison conditions are cruel and unusual

Hutto v. Finney (1978) – Confinement in Arkansas’ solitary confinement cells in excess of 30 days is cruel and unusual punishment

Rhodes v. Chapman (1981) – Double celling of inmates is not unconstitutional

11-21

Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment

Due Process - A right guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and generally understood, in legal contexts, to mean the expected course of legal proceedings according to the rules and forms established for the protection of persons’ rights

Turner v. Safeley (1987) – “… prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution”

11-22

Fourteenth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment -Continued -Continued

Johnson v. Avery (1968) – inmates have a right to consult with “jailhouse lawyers” (other inmates knowledgeable in the law) when trained legal advisors are not available

Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) – imposed minimal due process requirements on prison disciplinary proceedings that could lead to solitary confinement or reduction of good-time credits

Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976) – inmates do not have a right to counsel at a prison disciplinary hearing

11-23

Fourteenth Amendment Fourteenth Amendment -Continued-Continued

Meacham v. Fano (1976) – inmates have no due process protections before being transferred from one prison to another

Bounds v. Smith (1977) – the fundamental right of access to the courts requires prison administrators to provide prisoners with adequate law libraries and adequate assistance from persons trained in the law

West v. Atkins (1988) – private citizens contracted to do work for prisons can be sued for civil rights violations

11-24

End of the Prisoner Rights EraEnd of the Prisoner Rights Era

By the late 1980s, the prisoner rights era was drawing to a close

Following a change in the Supreme Court composition, the Court became less sympathetic to prisoners’ civil rights

Daniels v. Williams helped establish the notion that due process requirements were intended to prevent abuses of power by correctional officials, not to protect against mere carelessness

11-25

Brown v. PlataBrown v. Plata

In 2011; in the case of In 2011; in the case of Brown Brown v. v. PlataPlata, ordered the state of California , ordered the state of California to aggressively reduce its prison to aggressively reduce its prison population by releasing as many as population by releasing as many as 58,000 inmates over the next two 58,000 inmates over the next two years.years.

11-26

Frivolous Lawsuits Frivolous Lawsuits

Lawsuits with no foundation in fact, generally brought for publicity, political, or other reasons not related to law

Wilson v. Seiter (1991) – overcrowding, excessive noise, insufficient locker space, and similar conditions do not violate the Constitution so long as the intent of the prison officials is not malicious

The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980 requires state inmates to exhaust all state remedies before filing a writ of habeas corpus in federal court

11-27

Female Inmates and the CourtsFemale Inmates and the Courts

Female inmates frequently had to go to court simply to gain rights that male inmates already had

Barefield v. Leach (1974) demonstrated that the opportunities and programs for female inmates were clearly inferior to those for male inmates

Strip searches of female misdemeanor offenders awaiting bond in a Chicago lockup were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment