© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Chapter 11 The Legal World: Prisoner’s Rights 1

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill The 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. 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: Based on two rationales: Separation of powers Separation of powers Judges should leave correctional administration to correctional experts Judges should leave correctional administration to correctional experts 2

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill The Court And The 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. 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. 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 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 Holt v. Sarver (1970) – The entire Arkansas prison system was declared unconstitutional. Holt v. Sarver (1970) – The entire Arkansas prison system was declared unconstitutional. 3

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill 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. 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. 4

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Prisoners’ Rights – Continued Prisoner’s rights derive from: Constitutional Rights – personal and due process rights guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution and its Amendments. Constitutional Rights – personal and due process rights guaranteed to individuals by the Constitution and its Amendments. Federal Statutes – laws passed by Congress. Federal Statutes – laws passed by Congress. State Constitutions State Constitutions State Statutes State Statutes 5

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Institutional Needs Interests of prison administration recognized by the courts as justifying some restrictions on the constitutional rights of prisoners. Interests of prison administration recognized by the courts as justifying some restrictions on the constitutional rights of prisoners. Those interests are Those interests are maintenance of institutional order maintenance of institutional order maintenance of institutional security maintenance of institutional security safety of prison inmates and staff safety of prison inmates and staff rehabilitation of inmates rehabilitation of inmates 6

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Five Ways To Challenge Prison Conditions State habeas corpus action State habeas corpus action Federal habeas corpus action (after state remedies have been exhausted) Federal habeas corpus action (after state remedies have been exhausted) State tort lawsuit State tort lawsuit Federal civil rights lawsuit Federal civil rights lawsuit Compensatory or punitive damages Compensatory or punitive damages Petition for injunctive relief Petition for injunctive relief The criminal court system The criminal court system 7

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Key Terms Writ of habeas corpus - 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. Writ of habeas corpus - 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. 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. Injunction - A judicial order to do or refrain from doing a particular act. 8

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill 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. 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 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. 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. 9

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill The Criminal Court System Jurisdiction - The power, right, or authority of a court to interpret and apply the law. 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. Dual court system – the federal and state court systems coexist. Trial courts of the federal system are called District Courts. Trial courts of the federal system are called District Courts. 10

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Inmate Grievance Procedures Grievance procedures are formal institutional processes for hearing inmate complaints. 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. 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). The U.S. Supreme Court made formal procedures mandatory in Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union (1977). 11

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Reasons For Establishing Grievance Procedures Promote justice and fairness. Promote justice and fairness. Provide inmates a means to voice their concerns. Provide inmates a means to voice their concerns. Assist in identifying institutional problems. Assist in identifying institutional problems. Reduce the number of lawsuits filed by inmates. Reduce the number of lawsuits filed by inmates. Reduce violence. Reduce violence. 12

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill First 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. 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. 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. Balancing test: weighing the rights claimed by inmates against the legitimate needs of prisons. 13

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Freedom Of Speech And Expression Cruz v. Beto (1972) – all visits can be banned if they threaten security; prison visits are not an absolute right. 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. 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. McNamara v. Moody (1979) – prison officials may not prevent inmates from writing vulgar letters or those that make disparaging remarks about the prison staff. 14

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Freedom Of Speech And Expression - Continued Peppering v. Crist (1981) – prison officials may not ban mailed nude pictures of inmates’ wives or girlfriends. 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. 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. 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. 15

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Freedom Of Religion Fulwood v. Clemmer (1962) – the Black Muslim faith must be recognized as a 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 16

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Fourth 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. 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). 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. Block v. Rutherford (1984) – Prisoners do not have the right to be present during searches of their cells. 17

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Eighth 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)). 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. In the area of capital punishment, cruel and unusual punishments are those involving torture, a lingering death, or unnecessary pain. 18

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Medical Care Estelle v. Gamble – Prison officials have a duty to provide inmates with medical 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. 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. Deliberate indifference – Intentional and willful indifference. Within the field of correctional practice, the term refers to calculated inattention to unconstitutional conditions of confinement. 19

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Prison 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. 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. 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. Rhodes v. Chapman (1981) – Double celling of inmates is not unconstitutional. 20

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Fourteenth 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. 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.” Turner v. Safeley (1987) – “… prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution.” 21

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Fourteenth Amendment -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 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. 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. Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976) – inmates do not have a right to counsel at a prison disciplinary hearing. 22

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Fourteenth Amendment -Continued Meacham v. Fano (1976) – inmates have no due process protections before being transferred from one prison to another. 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. 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. 23

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill End of the Prisoner Rights Era By the late 1980s, the prisoner rights era was drawing to a close. 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. 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. 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. 24

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Frivolous Lawsuits Lawsuits with no foundation in fact, generally brought for publicity, political, or other reasons not related to law. 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. 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. 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. 25

© 2009 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. McGraw-Hill Female Inmates and the Courts Female inmates frequently had to go to court simply to gain rights that male inmates already had. 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. 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. Strip searches of female misdemeanor offenders awaiting bond in a Chicago lockup were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. 26