2. The Hands-Off Doctrine
An historical policy of American courts not
to intervene in prison management; Courts
tended to follow the doctrine until the late
1960s
Based on two rationales:
Separation of powers
Judges should leave correctional
administration to correctional experts
11-2
3. The Court And
The Hands-Off Doctrine
Ex Parte Hull (1941) – No state or its officers
may interfere with a prisoner’s right to apply to a
federal court for a writ of habeas corpus.
Coffin v. Reichard (1944) – Habeas corpus
proceedings are extended to consideration of
the conditions of confinement.
Cooper v. Pate (1964) – Prisoners may sue a
warden or other correctional official under Title
42 of the U.S. Code Sec. 1983, based on the
protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
Holt v. Sarver (1970) – The entire Arkansas
prison system was declared unconstitutional.
11-3
4. Prisoners’ Rights
Constitutional guarantees of free speech,
religious practice, due process, and other
private and personal rights as well as
constitutional protections against cruel and
unusual punishments made applicable to
prison inmates by the federal courts.
11-4
5. Prisoners’ Rights – Continued
Prisoner’s rights derive from:
Constitutional Rights – personal and due process
rights guaranteed to individuals by the
Constitution and its Amendments
Federal Statutes – laws passed by Congress
State Constitutions
State Statutes
11-5
6. Institutional Needs
Interests of prison administration
recognized by the courts as justifying
some restrictions on the constitutional
rights of prisoners
Those interests are
maintenance of institutional order
maintenance of institutional security
safety of prison inmates and staff
rehabilitation of inmates
11-6
7. Five Ways To Challenge
Prison Conditions
State habeas corpus action
Federal habeas corpus action (after state
remedies have been exhausted)
State tort lawsuit
Federal civil rights lawsuit
Compensatory or punitive damages
Petition for injunctive relief
The criminal court system
11-7
8. Key Terms
Writ of habeas corpus – (latin “You have the
body”) An order that directs the person detaining
a prisoner to bring him or her before a judge,
who will determine the lawfulness of the
imprisonment
Tort - A civil wrong, a wrongful act, or a
wrongful breach of duty, other than a breach of
contract, whether intentional or accidental, from
which injury to another occurs
Injunction - A judicial order to do or refrain
from doing a particular act
11-8
9. Types of Damages
Nominal damages - Small amounts of money a
court may award when inmates have sustained no
actual damages, but there is clear evidence that
their rights have been violated
Compensatory damages - Money a court may
award as payment for actual losses suffered by a
plaintiff, including out-of-pocket expenses incurred
in filing the suit, other forms of monetary or material
loss, pain, suffering, and mental anguish
Punitive damages - Money a court may award to
punish a wrongdoer when a wrongful act was
intentional and malicious or was done with reckless
disregard for the right of the victim
11-9
10. The Criminal Court System
Jurisdiction - The power, right, or authority
of a court to interpret and apply the law
Dual court system – the federal and state
court systems coexist
Trial courts of the federal system are
called District Courts
11-10
11. Inmate Grievance Procedures
Grievance procedures are formal institutional
processes for hearing inmate complaints
Following the deadly riot in New York’s Attica
Prison in 1977, the U.S. Comptroller General
encouraged the creation of grievance
mechanisms
The U.S. Supreme Court made formal
procedures mandatory in Jones v. North
Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union (1977)
Only about 1 in 12 is successful
11-11
12. Reasons For Establishing
Grievance Procedures
Promote justice and fairness
Provide inmates a means to voice their
concerns
Assist in identifying institutional problems
Reduce the number of lawsuits filed by
inmates
Reduce violence
11-12
13. First Amendment Issues
Pell v. Pecunier (1974) articulated the concept of
legitimate penological objectives and
established a balancing test to weigh the rights
claimed by inmates against the legitimate needs
of prisons
Legitimate penological objectives : the
realistic concerns that correctional officers and
administrators have for the integrity and security
of the correctional institution and the safety of
staff and inmates
Balancing test: weighing the rights claimed by
inmates against the legitimate needs of prisons
11-13
14. Freedom Of Speech And
Expression
Cruz v. Beto (1972) – all visits can be banned if
they threaten security; prison visits are not an
absolute right
Procurnier v. Martinez (1974) – censoring inmate
mail is acceptable only when necessary to
protect legitimate government interests
McNamara v. Moody (1979) – prison officials
may not prevent inmates from writing vulgar
letters or those that make disparaging remarks
about the prison staff
11-14
15. Freedom Of Speech And
Expression - Continued
Peppering v. Crist (1981) – prison officials may
not ban mailed nude pictures of inmates’ wives
or girlfriends
Turner v. Safely (1987) – upheld a Missouri ban
on correspondence among inmates
Jones v. N.C. Prisoner’s Labor Union (1977) –
upheld regulations that prohibited prisoners from
soliciting other inmates to join the union and
barred union meetings and bulk mailing
concerning the union from outside sources
11-15
16. Freedom Of Religion
Fulwood v. Clemmer (1962) – the Black Muslim
faith must be recognized as a religion
Cruz v. Beto (1972) – inmates have to be given a
reasonable opportunity to pursue their religions
Kahane v. Carlson (1974) – a Jewish inmate has
the right to a kosher diet
Udey v. Kastner (1986) – If the requested special
diet is too costly, the prison may deny the request
O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz (1987) – a prison
does not have to alter a prisoner’s work schedule
so the inmate can attend religious services
11-16
17. Fourth Amendment Issues
United States v. Hitchcock (1972): An inmate
can have no reasonable expectation of privacy
in his prison cell, since official surveillance is
necessary to meet legitimate security needs of
the prison
Reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court case of
Hudson v. Palmer (1984)
Block v. Rutherford (1984) – Prisoners do not
have the right to be present during searches of
their cells
11-17
18. Eighth Amendment Issues
Cruel and Unusual Punishment – a penalty
that is grossly disproportionate to the offense or
that violates today’s broad and idealistic
concepts of dignity, civilized standards,
humanity, and decency (Estelle v. Gamble
(1976), and Hutto v. Finney (1978))
In the area of capital punishment, cruel and
unusual punishments are those involving torture,
a lingering death, or unnecessary pain
11-18
19. Medical Care
Estelle v. Gamble – Prison officials have a duty
to provide inmates with medical care
Prison officials can not lawfully demonstrate
deliberate indifference to the medical needs of
prisoners
Deliberate indifference – Intentional and
willful indifference; within the field of correctional
practice, the term refers to calculated inattention
to unconstitutional conditions of confinement
11-19
20. Prison Conditions
In Pugh v. Locke (1976) and Battle v. Anderson
(1977), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a
totality of conditions standard must be used in
evaluating whether prison conditions are cruel
and unusual
Hutto v. Finney (1978) – Confinement in
Arkansas’ solitary confinement cells in excess of
30 days is cruel and unusual punishment
Rhodes v. Chapman (1981) – Double celling of
inmates is not unconstitutional
11-20
21. Fourteenth Amendment
Due Process - A right guaranteed by the Fifth,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S.
Constitution and generally understood, in legal
contexts, to mean the expected course of legal
proceedings according to the rules and forms
established for the protection of persons’ rights
Turner v. Safeley (1987) – “… prison walls do
not form a barrier separating prison inmates
from the protections of the Constitution”
11-21
22. Fourteenth Amendment -Continued
Johnson v. Avery (1968) – inmates have a right
to consult with “jailhouse lawyers” (other inmates
knowledgeable in the law) when trained legal
advisors are not available
Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) – imposed minimal
due process requirements on prison disciplinary
proceedings that could lead to solitary
confinement or reduction of good-time credits
Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976) – inmates do not
have a right to counsel at a prison disciplinary
hearing
11-22
23. Fourteenth Amendment -Continued
Meacham v. Fano (1976) – inmates have no due
process protections before being transferred
from one prison to another
Bounds v. Smith (1977) – the fundamental right
of access to the courts requires prison
administrators to provide prisoners with
adequate law libraries and adequate assistance
from persons trained in the law
West v. Atkins (1988) – private citizens
contracted to do work for prisons can be sued
for civil rights violations
11-23
24. End of the Prisoner Rights Era
By the late 1980s, the prisoner rights era was
drawing to a close
Following a change in the Supreme Court
composition, the Court became less sympathetic
to prisoners’ civil rights
Daniels v. Williams helped establish the notion
that due process requirements were intended to
prevent abuses of power by correctional
officials, not to protect against mere
carelessness
11-24
25. Brown v. Plata
In 2011; in the case of Brown v. Plata,
ordered the state of California to
aggressively reduce its prison population
by releasing as many as 58,000 inmates
over the next two years.
11-25
26. Frivolous Lawsuits
Lawsuits with no foundation in fact, generally
brought for publicity, political, or other reasons
not related to law
Wilson v. Seiter (1991) – overcrowding,
excessive noise, insufficient locker space, and
similar conditions do not violate the Constitution
so long as the intent of the prison officials is not
malicious
The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act
of 1980 requires state inmates to exhaust all
state remedies before filing a writ of habeas
corpus in federal court
11-26
27. Female Inmates and the Courts
Female inmates frequently had to go to court
simply to gain rights that male inmates already
had
Barefield v. Leach (1974) demonstrated that the
opportunities and programs for female inmates
were clearly inferior to those for male inmates
Strip searches of female misdemeanor offenders
awaiting bond in a Chicago lockup were
unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment
11-27