Chapter 10
The Legal Rights
of Offenders
Legal Rights of Offenders
• Inmate access to courts
• Growth of court intervention in prison
administration
• Constitutional bases of inmate rights
– 1st, 4th, 8th and 14th amendments
• Inmate lawsuits and their control
Inmate Access to Courts
• 1941 Ex Parte Hull: prisons cannot censor
inmate petitions to courts
• No enforcement of decision until 1969
• Johnson v. Avery: state can limit but not
ban activities of “jailhouse lawyers”
• Slaves of state doctrine (Ruffin v.
Commonwealth, 1871) in VA Supreme
Court justified hands-off era
Inmate Lawsuits
• Section 1983 of Civil Rights Act of 1971
• Habeas Corpus: “you have the body”;
challenges legality of imprisonment
• Monroe v Pape, 1961: prisoners can bypass
state courts if constitutional rights involved
• Bounds v Smith, 1977: legal assistance must
be provided to inmates
Limitations on Inmate Lawsuits
• Lewis v. Casey, 1996: law libraries, etc.,
not required by Bounds
– Prisoners must show actual harm to sue
– Security concerns can limit access
• O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 1999: state courts
must hear suits before federal courts are
accessed
The Demise of the Hands-Off Era
• Holt v. Sarver, 1971: court took over Arkansas
Prisons – series of 8th amendment suits followed
• Cruelties of building tenders violated 8th
amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment
• Pugh v Locke, 1976: “Totality of Conditions”
• Hutto v. Finney, 1978: added two conditions
• Each factor creating the conditions must be listed
• Steps to correct each must be specified
Ruiz v. Estelle, 1981
• Overcrowding a violation of 8th amendment
• Federal court took over Texas system for
almost 12 years
• Use of building tenders banned
• These cases had little impact on state
spending – funds use and practices changed
• Reports of violence increased as building
tenders lost control to CO's
The End of the Hands-On Era
•
•
•
Bell v. Wolfish, 1979: permitted wide use of
strip searches and double celling
Restrictions must serve a legitimate
government purpose, cannot be merely
punitive
Rhodes v. Chapman, 1981: 8th amendment
violated if:
1) pain was inflicted unnecessarily or wantonly, or
2) was grossly disproportionate to crime
One-Hand On, One-Hand Off Era
• Slaves of State, other “hands-off” era
doctrines rejected
• Court micro-management of prisons ceased
• Limited prisoner rights upheld
• State security, budgetary concerns
supported
First Amendment Protections
• Freedom of religion, especially beliefs
• Freedom of speech, especially
political and legal
• Freedom of the press – limited press
access (rights of press, not inmates)
• Right to assemble – security issues
virtually eliminate right to assemble,
form unions
Inmate Religious Freedoms
• Discrimination based on religion illegal
• Legitimacy of groups judged on basis of:
–
–
–
–
Sincerity of believers
Age of doctrines
Similarity of other religions
Financial and security costs of practices
Limitations on Religion
1. Threatens security or discipline
2. Interferes with legal powers of discretion
3. Contradicts a reasonable rule
4. Poses an excessive financial burden
These leave religious practices largely in the
hands of institutional authorities
Speech
• Libel, conspiracy, threats, obscenity
always illegal
• Speech that causes undue alarm can be
punished
• Mail restricted and inspected unless
addressed to lawyer or court
Turner v. Safley, 1987
(Began as a mail case) A rule is reasonable if:
1. It has a valid connection to the government
interests used to justify it;
2. Inmates have other means to access the right
in question
3. The right significantly impacts staff,
resources or inmates and
4. There are no alternative means of achieving
the goals of the rule
Freedom of the Press
• Political statements cannot be censored
• Other publications cannot be banned unless
they threaten security, safety
• Topics that threaten treatment can be
prohibited
• No right to profit from stories of crime
• Proceeds usually go to state treasury or
victims' funds
Fourth Amendment Rights
Privacy rights set by balance of:
1) Expectations of privacy in a particular
situation or setting
2) Government need to conduct the search
“Reasonable suspicion” required unless
search is a universal practice for place or
group; punitive use of searches prohibited
Reasonableness of a Search
• Privacy expectations and location of search
• Level of justification
(reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause)
• Manner in which search is conducted
• Routine nature of search vs.
singling out a specific person
– Latter requires reasonable suspicion
Probation and
Parole Applications
• Greater than prison but restricted
expectations still apply
• Written agency policy or condition of liberty
can permit routine (warrant less) searches of
homes, cars and persons by PO's
(Griffiths v. Wisconsin, 1987)
• Police searches of probationers/parolee's
and their homes permitted with reasonable
suspicion
Eighth Amendment Rights
Illegal conditions of confinement:
1. Shock the conscience of the court or
violate public standards of decency
2. Wantonly inflict unnecessary pain
(use of force)
3. Are grossly disproportionate to crime
4. Demonstrate deliberate apathy to basic
human needs (safety and medical care)
Obligation to Protect
• Detention, custody restrict or remove
personal power to protect self
• State and its officials become
responsible for safety
• Specific threats to particular persons and
general conditions
• Injury must result from neglect to justify
a Section 1983 suit
Medical Care
• Estelle v. Gamble, 1976: Suits must show
“deliberate indifference” to needs by
officials
• Wilson v. Seiter, 1991: Suit must show
“culpable state of mind”
• These decisions made it very hard to sue
over medical care and health effects of
ventilation, and so on
Use of Force
• Officials can apply only the “minimal
reasonable force” required to accomplish
legitimate goal
• Whitley v Albers, 1986: good faith defense
• Hudson v. Macmillan, 1992: malicious and
sadistic acts justify suit even without
lasting injury
Fourteenth Amendment Rights
• Suits based on 1st, 4th, and 8th Amendments
often use 14th as well
• Two clauses in 14th Amendment:
– Due process under law – standard procedures
required to deny liberty
– Equal Protection for all regardless of race,
gender, ethnicity, religion
Punishment of
Disciplinary Violations
Due process required:
• Written notice of charge(s), evidence
• Hearing by impartial person or group
• Written justification required if inmate's
request to call witnesses are denied
• No right to jury
• Right to counsel only for mentally impaired
or those who cannot understand proceedings
Due Process Issues
• Confidential informants can remain unnamed if
authorities can demonstrate their trustworthiness
• Minor violations carry less need for due process
• Justifications of process and decisions must be
made to courts not inmates
• Classification and transfers not grounds for suits
• State created liberty interests can extend beyond
federally enforced rights, tested in state courts
Forcing Medications
•
•
Applies mainly in psychiatric cases
Authorities must show that:
1) The inmate is dangerous to self or others
2) Use of the medication is in inmate's best
interests
3) Due process has been followed and case
reviewed by experts
Equal Protection under Law
• Group memberships not based on
behavior cannot be used to justify
differential treatment
• Parity, or substantial equivalence,
required for men and women as well as
inmates at different security levels
Controlling Inmate Suits
• Retaliation for legal action always illegal
• Access to courts can be limited ONLY by
the court itself or the legislature
• Legal costs can be charged to plaintiff if
court finds suit to be frivolous
• Courts can impose fees, other conditions
on inmates to limit suits
Prison Litigation
Reform Act of 1996
• Filing fees required for all federal suits
• Limits attorney's fees and damage awards
• Bars suits for psychological harm in
absence of physical injuries
• Forces judges to screen suits, block
frivolous ones
• Encourages use of video, telephone links