Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

Chapter 5Chapter 5Chapter 5Chapter 5

The Law of Corrections

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

Foundations of Correctional Foundations of Correctional LawLawFoundations of Correctional Foundations of Correctional LawLaw

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

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

Law and the U.S. Supreme Law and the U.S. Supreme CourtCourtLaw and the U.S. Supreme Law and the U.S. Supreme CourtCourt The End of the Hand’s-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 NAACP’s Legal Defense and Education Fund and

the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union became concerned about prisoners’ rights.

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

hands-off policyhands-off policyhands-off policyhands-off policy

a judicial policy of noninterference in the internal administration of prisons

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

the end of “hands-off”the end of “hands-off”the end of “hands-off”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, 8th

““precedent”precedent”““precedent”precedent”

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

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

““habeas corpushabeas corpus””““habeas corpushabeas 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”

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

legal doctrines controlling legal doctrines controlling correctional rulingscorrectional rulingslegal doctrines controlling legal doctrines controlling correctional rulingscorrectional 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, 8th

“compelling state interest”

legal doctrines controlling legal doctrines controlling correctional rulingscorrectional rulingslegal doctrines controlling legal doctrines controlling correctional rulingscorrectional rulings

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, 8th

legal doctrines controlling legal doctrines controlling correctional rulings ...correctional rulings ...legal doctrines controlling legal doctrines controlling correctional rulings ...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, 8th

legal doctrines controlling legal doctrines controlling correctional rulingcorrectional rulinglegal doctrines controlling legal doctrines controlling correctional rulingcorrectional 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, 8th

Constitutional Rights of Constitutional Rights of PrisonersPrisonersConstitutional Rights of Constitutional Rights of PrisonersPrisoners

The First AmendmentThe Fourth AmendmentThe Eighth AmendmentThe Fourteenth AmendmentA Change of Judicial DirectionImpact of the Prisoners’ Rights

Movement

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

1st Amendment rights1st Amendment rights1st Amendment rights1st 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

O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 1987 work may properly interfere with religious

practices

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

4th Amendment rights4th Amendment rights4th Amendment rights4th Amendment rights

protection against unreasonable searches and seizures

Lanza v. New York, 1962 conversations recorded in a jail visitor’s 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

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

8th Amendment rights8th Amendment rights8th Amendment rights8th Amendment rights

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 ≠ C&U (if in good faith)

Wilson v. Seiter, 1991 prisoners must show that objectively C&U conditions exist due to

“deliberate indifference of officials”

protection against excessive bail & fines, and

cruel & unusual punishment

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

14th Amendment rights14th Amendment rights14th Amendment rights14th 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

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

““totality of totality of conditions”conditions”““totality of totality of conditions”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 guaranteesPugh v. Locke (Alabama, 1976)

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

14th Amendment rights14th Amendment rights14th Amendment rights14th Amendment rights

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

guarantee of due process & equal protection of the laws

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

““ombudsman”ombudsman”““ombudsman”ombudsman”

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

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

““mediation”mediation”““mediation”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

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972

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

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 1973Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 1973Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 1973Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 1973

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

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

Greenholtz v. InmatesGreenholtz v. Inmates(Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex), 1979(Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex), 1979Greenholtz v. InmatesGreenholtz v. Inmates(Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex), 1979(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, 8th

Monell v. Dept. Social Services Monell v. Dept. Social Services (NY city), 1979(NY city), 1979Monell v. Dept. Social Services Monell v. Dept. Social Services (NY city), 1979(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, 8th

Booth v. Churner, 2001Booth v. Churner, 2001Booth v. Churner, 2001Booth v. Churner, 2001

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

Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 8th

Prison Litigation Reform Act, 1966Prison Litigation Reform Act, 1966Prison Litigation Reform Act, 1966Prison 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