Week 4 Corrections Class
Week 4 Corrections Class 2009
Popular in Correctional Systems
Popular in Criminal Justice
This 5 page Study Guide was uploaded by Molly Notetaker on Sunday September 18, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to 2009 at East Carolina University taught by Chad R. Jordan in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 13 views. For similar materials see Correctional Systems in Criminal Justice at East Carolina University.
Reviews for Week 4 Corrections Class
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/18/16
Corrections Week 4 Notes 9132016 ● The Handsoff Doctrine ○ Separation of powers ■ Executive branch operates prisons ■ Judiciary should not interfere ○ Civil Rights ■ Rights of inmates ■ Protection against subversive group in power ○ Ex parte Hull and Cooper v. Pate ■ Pave way for Court to protect inmates’ rights ■ Inmates can no sue prison state officials in the federal court under the civil rights act of 1871 (now called 42USC Section 1983) ■ Opened up floodgates to route of litigations, court system couldn’t handle all the complains filed ● Inmate rights ○ Turner V. Safley (1987) ■ Rational Basis test: Guideline for the rights of inmates b ■ as long as it is part of the prisons daily operations, it is ‘need’ for day to day operations it can infringe on prisoners rights ● Give inmate another way to not infringe on rights ■ Win for the prisons ○ Johnson V. Avery (1969) ■ Inmates’ access to courts and attorneys ○ Bounds V. Smith (1977) ■ Inmates’ access to law libraries in the prison ○ Levis V. Casey (1996) ■ Must show how shortcomings in library cause harm ● First Amendment ○ Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, petition ○ Prison staff may censure for legitimate penological interest (security, rehab, order) ■ Turner v. Safley ■ O’Lone V. Estate of Shabazz ○ Inmates must be given reasonable opportunities to practice religion ■ Cruz V. Beto ○ Relig ● Fourth Amendment: Rights against illegal searches and seizures. ○ Lanza V. New York ■ Verbal and written conv. are not private, 4th amendment doesn’t apply in this case ○ U.S V. Hitchcock ■ You can search a person's cell or room at any time and have no reason to do so ■ Person does not have to be there while the search occurs ○ Bell V. Wolfish ■ Body cavity searches are allowed based off the smallest decision ■ Double bunking is okay ○ Hudson V. Palmer ■ Prison cells may be search without a warrant and without probable cause ■ Prison cells are not protected by 4th amendment ○ Albert W. Florence V. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington et. al. ○ Protection against unreasonable search and seizure ○ Inmates have minimal privacy in prison ○ Oppositegender searches complex (it is not required, if there is no officer of the same gender around that search must be done regardless) ○ For offenders on community supervision: ■ Police officers must abide by 4th Amend. ■ Probation/parole officers do not ● 8th Amendment ○ Cruel and unusual punishment, prison conditions, death penalty ○ 3 basic considerations ■ Whether the treatment shock the general public ■ Whether the treatment is cruel beyond a necessity ■ Whether the treatment is ○ Hudo V. Finney ■ Standard of the totality of the conditions ■ when the court looks into a complain about living conditions they refer to this case and the totality of the conditions ■ Totality of the conditions of the confinement, each individual factor that contributed to the conditions and what they have to do to fix it, what does the court need to do to remedy the complaint ○ Estelle V. Gamble ■ Deliberate indifference to inmate medical need constitutes as cruel and unusual punishment and is unconstitutional ○ Gregg v. Georgia ■ Death penalty statutes that contain sufficient safeguards against arbitrary and capricious imposition are constitutional ■ Says that death penalty is constitutional ■ Cruel and unusual punishment would be things that prolong the death process, it is torturous/painful in a cruel and unusual way ○ Rutz V. Estelle ■ The conditions in the prison system of Texas were found to be unconstitutional ○ Protection against excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment ● Fourteenth Amendment ○ Addresses due process of law and equal protection under the law ○ Wolff V. McDonnel ■ Inmates are entitled to due process in prison disciplinary proceedings that can result in the loss of good time credits or in punitive segregation ■ Must be a written statement of what action will take place and the evidence must be provided to the inmate ■ Must have council if they can not read and right ■ Must be able to provide evidence ■ Must be impartial ○ Baxter V. Palmigiano ■ Not entitled to counsel or crossexamination in prison disciplinary hearing ○ Rhodes V. Chapman ● Prison Litigation Reform act ○ 5 steps ■ Limits inmate's’ ability to file lawsuits and the relief they are entitled to from court ■ Requires inmates to exhaust all available admin. Remedies ■ Requires the payment of fulfilling fees ■ Imposed harsh sanctions for filing frivolous or malicious lawsuits ■ Requires that any damages awarded to inmates go to pending restitution orders 91516 ● Liabilities: the committing of a wrongful act or failure to act when it’s your duty to act ○ Can attach at both the state and the federal levels ○ Most often civil but can be criminal ○ Can apply to any officer of the state ○ Community supervision officers generally incur potential liability ○ State tort cases ■ Base on state law ■ Plaintiff seeks money for damages ■ Usually based on decided cases ■ Usually tried in state court ■ Public officials and private persons can be used ■ Basis for liability is injury to person or property of another in violation of a duty imposed by state law ■ Good faith defenses usually means the officer acted in the honest belief that the action taken was appropriate under the circumstances ○ Federal Sections 1983 Cases ■ Based on federal law ■ Plaintiff seeks money for damages and/or policy change ■ Law was passed in 1871 usually tried in federal court ■ Only public officials can be sued ■ Basis for liability is violation of constitutional right or of a right secured by federal law ■ Good faith defense means the officer did not violate a clearly established constitutional or federal right of which a reasonable person should have been aware ● State levels of Liabilities ○ Tort: civil law: cause an injury by harming a person directly or by non action ■ One person causes injury to another ■ The result of a violation of one’s duty that has been established by law ○ Intentional tort: direct harm, going into harm knowingly ○ Defamation: ■ Slander ■ Libel ○ Emotional distress: unintentional and intentional ○ Malicious prosecution ○ Negligence ■ Legal duty is owed to the complainant ● Immunity and Defenses ○ Official immunity : exist for those who must actively pursue their duties without undue fear or intimidation ■ Absolute immunity: judges and DAS ● Exists for most those in positions that require unimpaired decision making ■ Qualified immunity: correctional officers, police officers ● Correctional, community supervision officers ○ The good faith defense ■ Buffers a correctional officer from liability unless clear violation of rights ● Indemnification & Representation ○ Most states cover an officer’s act or omission to act in civil cases ○ Both parties pay their own attorney’s fees ○ Professional liability insurance ● Type of Damages ○ Monetary damages ○ Compensatory damages ■ Awarded for the actual losses ○ Punitive Damages ■ For an offender who was harmed in a malicious or willful manner by officer ■ Added to emphasize seriousness of injury and t warn other parties ○ Declaratory judgment ■ Nonmonetary award, judicial determination of the legal rights of the plaintiff ● Injunctions and courtimposed remedies ○ Injunction ■ Requires an agency to take action ○ Ensures reform and appropriate means to implement it ○ Widespread impacts ■ Alter regulations ■ Require improvements ■ Institution may be closed when violating Eighth Amendment requirements ● Consent Decrees ○ An injunction, but with the defendant and agency ○ Both parties agree to work out terms of state settlement ○ Spares time, expenses, uncertainty ○ Mutually agreeable solution
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'