Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to luc - Study Guide - Midterm
Join StudySoup
Get Full Access to luc - Study Guide - Midterm

Already have an account? Login here
Reset your password

LUC / Criminal Justice / CJC 204 / What is the content of holt v. sarver (1969)?

What is the content of holt v. sarver (1969)?

What is the content of holt v. sarver (1969)?


School: Loyola University of Chicago
Department: Criminal Justice
Course: Corrections
Professor: Gregory prestipino
Term: Fall 2018
Tags: court, Justice, EighthAmendment, and slaves
Cost: 50
Name: CJC204- Midterm Exam
Description: An explanation of 8 court cases, in detail, that the exam will be based on.
Uploaded: 09/24/2018
3 Pages 167 Views 2 Unlocks

Study Guide

What is the content of holt v. sarver (1969)?

Court Cases:

1. Ex parte Hull (1941) pg. 53- Chapter 3: ruling that marked the  beginning of the end for the hands- off doctrine; prior to case: it was  common for prison officials to screen inmate mail including legal mail;  after case: Supreme Court ruled that no state or its officers could  legally interfere with a prison’s right to apply to a federal court for a  

challenge of the legality of confinement (writ of habeus corpus) 2. Holt v. Sarver (1969) pg.178- Chapter 8: ruled that prison farms in the  

state of Arkansas were operated in a manner that violated the  prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments; Supreme Court  ruled that the entirety of prison conditions shouldn’t become so  Don't forget about the age old question of Where is stonehenge located?
We also discuss several other topics like What is the difference between generic names and trademark fiber names?
If you want to learn more check out What are the main factors of production?
We also discuss several other topics like What are the types of objections?

unacceptable to violate constitutional expectations for inmates  3. Turner v. Safley (1987) pg.53- Chapter 3: a prison regulation that  

What is the content of turner v. safley (1987)?

impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights is valid if it’s related to  legitimate penological interests; Supreme Court ruled to uphold a  Missouri ban against correspondence sent among inmates in different  institutions within the state’s jurisdiction; also enunciated rational  

basis test:  

a. Must be a rational and clear connection between the regulation  

and the reason that is given for that regulation’s essence We also discuss several other topics like What is the difference between pure and applied research?
If you want to learn more check out What is the definition of generalize?

b. Inmates must be given alternative means to practice a given  right that has been restricted, when possible

c. The means by which prison staff and inmates are affected must  

be kept as minimal as realistically possible  

d. When less restrictive alternative means of impeding upon an  inmate’s rights are available, prison personnel must utilize those  

What is the content of morrissey v. brewer (1972)?

alternative means  

4. Morrissey v. Brewer (1972) pg. 123- Chapter 5: dealt with revocation  proceedings for parolees, not probationers; specified procedures during

the revocation process:  

a. Written notice of the claimed violation of parole  

b. Disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him or her c. An opportunity to be heard in person and to present witness and  

documentary evidence

d. The right to confront and cross- examine adverse witnesses e. A “neutral and detached” hearing body, such as a traditional  

parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or  


f. A written statement by the fact finders as to the evidence relied  

on and reasons for revoking parole  

5. Ruffin v. Commonwealth (1871) pg. 17- Chapter 1: Virginia State  Supreme Court established the hands- off doctrine- courts consistenyly left matters inside prisons to those tasked with prison operation; (an  inmate was the “slave of the state” while serving his/ her sentence)-  reflects a mentality regarding prisoners in Ancient Rome- prisoners lack

any rights or legal standing

6. Brown v. Plata (2011) pg. 59- Chapter 3: determined that overcrowding in the CA Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (CDCR) was  unconstitutional; a court- mandated population limit is sometimes

necessary to remedy violations of prisoners 8th Amendment  

constitutional rights  

7. Gagnon v. Scarpelli (1973) pg. 117 & 123- Chapter 5: Court ruled that  all of the requirements for parole revocation proceedings noted in  Morrissey also applied to revocation proceedings dealing with  probationers; Court noted that offenders on community supervision do  not have an absolute constitutional right to appointed counsel during  

revocation proceedings  

8. Furman v. Georgia (1972) pg. 398- Chapter 16: ruled that the death  penalty was illogical and unpredictable and violated the prohibition  against cruel and unusual punishment in the 8th Amendment; led to  hundreds of death row sentences turning into life in prison sentences;  Supreme Court didn’t rule that the death penalty itself was  unconstitutional, only the matter in which the death penalty applied  was unconstitutional

Page Expired
It looks like your free minutes have expired! Lucky for you we have all the content you need, just sign up here