Breasia Degraffenried November 27

Breasia Degraffenried
November 27, 2018
Inmates have basic rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution. “If you are facing incarceration, or if you have a family member or friend who is in prison or jail, you should know about inmates’ right . the rights of inmates include the following: the right to humane facilities and conditions ,the right to be free from sexual crimes, the right to be free from racial segregation , the right to express condition complaints , the right to assert their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the right to medical care and attention as needed, the right to appropriate mental health care and the right to a hearing if they are to be moved to a mental health facility .” So, assume that the rules of the correctional institution deprive inmates of their constitutional rights according the the “Hands off doctrine” , which is an unwritten judicial policy that favors noninterference by the courts in the administration of prison and jails. The “hands off” doctrine assumes that the case of inmates should be left to prison officials and that it is not the place of judges to intervene in penal administrative matters. The treatment of prisoners is balanced between the rights of the prisoner and the security needs in the correctional institution. Judges will limit some of these protections when an obvious security interest is at stake.
If inmates have their right to assembly restricted and they can’t march or riot or alert the media to their cause, what stops prisons from being lawless empires through which correctional officers exert their absolute power? The answer to this question is there are court cases that ruled against correctional officers having absolute power . The following court cases are somewhat what stops prisons from being lawless empires through correctional officers having all power and control . In the court case of Ex parte hull (1941) , supreme court ruled no state or officer shall interfere with an inmate’s right to apply for habeas corpus in federal court . This specific court case was the first to break down the “Hands Off ” doctrine . Another court case , Monroe vs. Pape 1961 the court said the activities did not need to be authorized by the state, but it was more intended against misuse of power. Many people used Section 1983 of the federal law to sue officials when their constitutional rights have been violated . There are various numbers of court cases to support this cause .
This basically stop correctional officers who violate the inmate’s constitutional rights while on their job in the prison can be held liable for their actions in federal court regardless of whether state law or prison policy supported the action .
Corrections 2.4. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://quizlet.com/101417336/corrections-24-flash-cards/
“Rights of Inmates.” FindLaw, civilrights.findlaw.com/other-constitutional-rights/rights-of-inmates.html.