School Essay: Amendments That Affect Prisoners' Rights

Amendments That Affect Prisoners' Rights

Leslie K. Penny

Module 2 Written Assignment 1

Chancellor University

Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court has made landmark decisions in protecting the Constitutional rights of prisoners such as "freedom of religion, association and speech; limit unreasonable searches and seizures; require due process; and prohibit cruel and unusual punishment" (Clear, 2011).  Three particular Amendments will be covered in this essay, the 4th, 8th and 14th, and an explanation will be provided on how they each affect a prisoners' rights.

Amendments That Affect Prisoners Rights

            Constitutional rights play a significant role in our lives and are important in that they govern our basic rights as U.S. citizens.  However, for inmates, their Constitutional rights have been limited to a degree.  With that being said, the U.S. Supreme Court has made landmark decisions in protecting the Constitutional rights of prisoners such as "freedom of religion, association and speech; limit unreasonable searches and seizures; require due process; and prohibit cruel and unusual punishment" (Clear, 2011).  Three particular Amendments will be covered in this essay, the 4th, 8th and 14th, and an explanation will be provided on how they each affect a prisoners' rights.

            The Fourth Amendment is "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (Clear, 2011).  Since the topic of discussion is corrections, one can see the issue with this Amendment once an offender enters a correctional institution where rights to privacy are extremely limited.  Another thing to point out is that the Amendment disallows unreasonable searches and seizures only, consequently, reasonable searches and seizures must be justified in order to preserve security and order in institutions (Clear, 2011). 

            The U.S. Supreme Court has given much thought to unreasonable searches and seizures while maintaining a balance between the needs of correctional institutions and the offenders right to privacy (Clear, 2011).  Examples of this in action are a handful of Supreme Court decisions:

Lanza v. New York (1962) - Conversations recorded in a jail visitor's room are not protected by the Fourth Amendment (Clear, 2011).

U.S. v. Hitchcock (1972) - A warrant-less search of a cell is not unreasonable, and documentary evidence found there is not subject to suppression in court.  It is not reasonable to expect a prison cell to be accorded the same level of privacy as a home or automobile (Clear, 2011).

Bell v. Wolfish (1979) - Strip searches, including searches of body cavities after contact visits, may be carried out when the need for such searches outweighs the personal rights invaded (Clear, 2011).

Hudson v. Palmer (1984) - Officials may search cells without a warrant and seize materials found there (Clear, 2011). 

            To go into further detail, Hudson v. Palmer(1984) points out that the Fourth Amendment does not pertain to the confines of prison cells but "the Court noted that this does not necessarily mean that prisoners have no protections against the harmful consequences of some searches" such as a prisoners property being broken in a search (Clear, 2011).  Prisoners do have a recourse if that does happen by filing a lawsuit against the correctional officers (Clear, 2011). 

            In Bell v. Wolfish (1979), it was brought to the Courts attention the violation of offenders Forth Amendment in regards to body cavity searches, but with a 5-4 decision, the Court claimed "balancing the significant and legitimate security interests of the institution against the privacy interests of the inmates, we conclude that they can [conduct the searches]" (Clear, 2011).  However, in order to perform a closer inspection of an offenders genital area via a digital examination, "the courts have ruled that there has to be reasonable suspicion based on factual circumstances to justify such procedures" (Clear, 2011).

            The next Amendment that affects prisoners rights is the Eighth Amendment which is one that has prisoners well being in mind: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" (Clear, 2011).  This Amendment insures that offenders are given a "minimum standard of living" (Prisoners' Rights).  The definition of minimum standard of living fluctuates depending on the person being asked.  Some would argue that inmates are in better living conditions then they should be and others would argue they are being treated like caged animals.  The Supreme Court has to make decisions that meet in the middle. 

            How do they determine whether conditions are unconstitutional?  The assessment of three  principles are made: "(1) whether the punishment shocks the general conscience of a civilized society, (2) whether the punishment is unnecessarily cruel, and (3) whether the punishment goes beyond legitimate penal aims" (Clear, 2011).  The following Court case opinions show the importance they have in protecting the Constitutional rights of inmates:

Ruiz v. Estelle (1975) - Conditions of confinement in the Texas prison system are unconstitutional (Clear, 2011).

Estelle v. Gamble (1976) - Deliberate indifference's to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain, and thus violates the Eighth Amendment (Clear, 2011).

Rhodes v. Chapman (1981) - Double-celling and crowding do not necessarily constitute cruel and unusual punishment.  It must be shown that the conditions involve "wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain" and are "grossly disproportionate" to the severity of the crime warranting imprisonment" (Clear, 2011).

Whitely v. Albers (1986) - An innocent prisoner mistakenly shot in the leg during a disturbance does not suffer cruel and unusual punishment in the action was taken in good faith to maintain discipline rather than  for the mere purpose of causing harm (Clear, 2011).

Wilson v. Seiter (1991) - Regulations suspending visiting privileges for two years for those prisoners who have "flunked" two drug tests does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.  The regulations relate to legitimate penological interests (Clear, 2011).

            The Ruiz v. Estelle opinion was extremely important to the inmates of the Texas Department of Corrections because it rectified the unconstitutional conditions they had been living under such as "overcrowding, unnecessary use of force by personnel, inadequate number of guards, poor health care practices, and a building tender system that allowed some inmates to control other inmates" (Clear, 2011).  Albeit this was good for some inmates, in actuality, it disrupted a social system the guards and inmates had in place to the point where authority was out the window providing an even more aggressive environment between officers and inmates (Clear, 2011). 

            Another example is Rhodes v. Chapman (1981) that has to do with prison overcrowding.  Correctional officials were concerned with court orders that mandated an end to prison overcrowding (Clear, 2011) And more concerned when the Supreme Court contradicted that requirement in the case Rhodes v. Chapman stating that it was not cruel and unusual punishment (in Ohio) for two inmates to double bunk in a cell that was designed for only one person (Clear, 2011). To solve this little contradiction, "the courts should defer to correctional authorities" as long as there are no violations of the Eighth Amendment such as "punishment either 'inflicts unnecessary or wanton pain or is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime warranting punishment'" (Clear, 2011).

            The last Amendment to be discussed is the Fourteenth Amendment which states that:

                        All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction                 thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.  No                              state shall  make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or                                       immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person                          of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person                                   within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Clear, 2011)

The Fourteenth Amendment has two important clauses that are relevant to the rights of inmates (Clear, 2011).  The first being procedural due process which states that all individuals are to "be treated fairly and justly by government officials and that decisions be made according to procedures prescribed by law" (Clear, 2011)  The other important clause to the Fourteenth Amendment is the equal protection clause which states that inmates are "protected against unequal treatment on the basis of race, sex, and creed" (Prisoners' Rights).

            Essential Court rulings in regards to the above referenced clauses, procedural due process and equal protection, include:

Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) - The basic element of procedural due process must be present when decisions are made concerning the discipline of an inmate (Clear, 2011).

Baxter v. Palmigiano (1976) - Although due process must be accorded, an inmate has no right to counsel in a disciplinary hearing (Clear, 2011).

Vitek v. Jones (1980) - The involuntary transfer of a prisoner to a mental hospital requires a hearing and other minimal element of due process such as notice and the availability of counsel (Clear, 2011).

Sandin v. Conner (1995) - Prison regulations do not violate due process unless they place atypical and significant hardships on a prisoner (Clear, 2011).

      To conclude, the forerunner case for inmates Constitutional rights, Cooper v. Pate (1964) that permitted prisoners to file suit when their constitutional rights were denied against state officials in federal courts, got the ball rolling but it was the landmark case of Wolff v. McDonnell that set the theme for prisoners rights advocates (Clear, 2011).  Because of the prisoners' rights movement, many changes have been implemented to include the improvement of conditions in correctional facilities and administrative practices, etc. (Clear, 2011).  One thing is clear.  The Supreme Courts' opinion on the cases referenced on this essay hold great value in protecting the Constitutional rights of prisoners where the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments are concerned. 

           

           

           

 

             

Works Cited

Clear, T. C. (2011). American Corrections. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.

Prisoners' Rights. (n.d.). Retrieved 07 14, 2013, from Cornell University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prisoners_rights