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 We also discuss several other topics like The woman from willendorf is made of what?
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
unacceptable to violate constitutional expectations for inmates 3. Turner v. Safley (1987) pg.53- Chapter 3: a prison regulation that
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 Don't forget about the age old question of What is the difference between staple and filament fibers?
a. Must be a rational and clear connection between the regulation
and the reason that is given for that regulation’s essence
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
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
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 If you want to learn more check out What is the definition of sunk cost?
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 We also discuss several other topics like What is the largest part of a neuron?
We also discuss several other topics like What is the difference between benefits and products?
Don't forget about the age old question of What is the definition of a dependent variable?
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
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