1. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th Chapter 5 The Law of Corrections

2. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th bases 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 eg, California corrections: Title 15  case law legal rules produced by judicial decisions  administrative regulations created by governmental agencies Goal: to implement details of agency and the law as it pertains to agency operations

3. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th “precedent”“precedent” legal rules created by judicial decisions, which serve to guide decisions of other judges in subsequent similar cases definition

4. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th hands-off policy  a judicial policy of noninterference in the internal administration of prisons  Ruffin v. Commonwealth (Virginia, 1871) “The prisoner has, as a consequence of his crime, not only forfeited his liberty, but all his personal rights except those which the law in its humanity accords to him. He is for the time being the slave of the state.” definition

5. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th 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” F responsibility for compensating another for the denial of the latter’s rights F award for damages may be awarded to a plaintiff in a civil action §1983 = most common avenue for challenging jail & prison conditions

6. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th “habeus 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” definition

7. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th 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

8. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th “compelling state interest” legal doctrines controlling correctional 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

9. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th 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

10. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th 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.

11. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th 1st Amendment rights 1st Amendment speechreligion  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

12. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th 4th 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

13. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th 8th 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

14. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th “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) definition

15. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th 14th Amendment rights 14th Amendment due processequal 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

16. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th 14th 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

17. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th “ombudsman”“ombudsman”  a public official who investigates complaints against government officials and recommends corrective measures definition

18. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th “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 definition

19. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th Morrissey v. Brewer, 1972  parole revocation process must include basic elements of due process

20. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 1973  probation revocation process must include basic elements of due process

21. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th Greenholtz v. Inmates (Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex), 1979  there is no right to parole or to be conditionally release prior to expiration of sentence

22. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th Monell v. Dept. Social Services (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)

23. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th Booth v. Churner, 2001  prisoner seeking monetary damages must first complete prison administrative processes before filing lawsuit

24. Clear & Cole, American Corrections, 6 th 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