Corrections Unit 2 Flashcards
Ruffin v. Commonwealth / Hands-off policy
1871 - Ruled that prisoners do not have the same rights as free citizens.
The hands-off policy was used by the US courts, which basically believed that prisons could govern themselves and they let correctional institutions do their own thing because they believed that prisoners did not have rights and weren’t protected under the law.
Cooper v. Pate and Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1971.
1964-SCOTUS ruled that prisoners are persons protected under the US constitution. Section 1983 of the CVA charges civil liability to anyone who deprives another person of their rights under the constitution. It is the most commonly used act to challenge jail and prison conditions.
Johnson v. Avery
1969 - Ruled that inmates cannot be barred from assisting other inmates in preparing legal papers (some inmates are illiterate). This is how we get jailhouse lawyers, which are inmates that help navigate the legal framework. There can be reasonable regulation on jailhouse lawyers in order to maintain order in the facility.
Bounds v. Smith
1977 - Inmates said that not having access to a library was in violation of their 14th amendment rights and SCOTUS agreed. So for a few hours a week, prisoners would be transported to a facility that had a law library. Of course, the prisoners said that this wasn’t enough and that the feds needed to build libraries in every prison and jail so inmates would have more access, and the feds were like “hell naw”.
Turner v. Safley
1988 - SCOTUS ruled that the DOC is allowed to censor inmate’s mail and only allow mail from certain people (ex. other family members in correctional detainment; family members outside the correctional facility; not other prisoners that aren’t blood related, etc.) The rational basis test came as a result of this case, which is a way of determining the constitutionality of laws. This is different from Procunier v. Martinez because in that case, SCOTUS said that the DOC could censor mail for content; in this case it’s censoring mail for the sender or receiver.
Procunier v. Martinez
1974 - SCOTUS ruled that mail censorship isn’t illegal if it aids in maintaining order, security and rehabilitation in the facilities and the inmates.
Thornburgh v. Abbott
1989 - SCOTUS ruled that corrections officials had a right to censor materials coming in through mail in order to maintian the security and safety of the facility and staff. So they could reject an issue of playboy coming in if they thought that someone having sexual materials would cause a riot or something.
Gittlemacker v. Prasse
1970 - Determined that the facility must provide inmates the opportunity to practice their religion, but does not have provide a member of the clergy.
Thiergault v. Carlson
1977 - There is no protection of sham religions, of religions that mock other institutions or religions where members lack sincerity.
O’L0ne v. Estate of Shabazz
1987 - Inmates do not have a right to go to an outside institution for religious services because it could potentially interfere with penal safety and security.
Lanza v. New York
1962 - Conversations recorded in a visitor’s room are not protected by the 4th amendment.
Hudson v. Palmer
1984 - the 4th amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of a prison cell.
Bell v. Wolfish
1979 - Searches of person, including cavity searches, does not violate a prisoner’s constitutional rights.
Estelle v. Gambell
1976 - A prisoner claimed that the way he was treated by corrections staff following an injury amounted to cruel and unusual punishment (they made him go back to work soon after he’d claimed to be sick). SCOTUS said it’s not cruel and unusual, there has to be deliberate indifference by prison personnel to a prisoner’s serious injury or illness for it to be cruel and unusual.
Ruiz v. Estelle
1980 - SCOTUS ruled that the totality of conditions in a Texas prison amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. These conditions inlcuded overcrowding, unneccesary use of force, poor health care and inadequate number of guards. They also had a “building-tender” system, where some inmates were put in charge of other inmates.
Rhodes v. Chapman
1981 - Doubling inmates in cells and overcrowding are not unconstitutional, though many states are making laws to prevent this.
