Week 2 Assignment.edited

docx

School

Moi University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

278

Subject

Law

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by kamandejohn2030

Running head: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE GOALS 1 Constitutional Rights and Administrative Goals Student’s Name: Course Name and Number: Instructor’s Name: Date Submitted:

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE GOALS 2 Abstract Inmates are protected by the US constitution as American citizens. Although prisoners do not have full legitimate liberties, they are defended by the Eighth Amendment’s injunction against a cruel and unusual fine. Correctional systems are established to provide retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation to inmates. The administrators of these institutions should, however, perform these roles within the requirements of the constitution. They have the right to violate some of the constitutional rights of the prisoners to protect the correctional facility, its employees, and the inmates. Nonetheless, prison administrators are not expected to violate the mandatory rights of the prisoners. These mandatory freedoms that prison administrators must offer to prisoners are the rights to humane living settings and facilities, health care, visits by their loved ones as well as protection against discriminations and battering. Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller case is an example of a Supreme Court case, which balances jail’s drives with the permissible privileges of detainees. The case also discloses that prisons need workforces who are culturally sensitive to the needs of the prison population.

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE GOALS 3 Constitutional rights are those required by the law but can be taken away from a prisoner while mandatory privileges have to be provided to the prisoners. Federal and state decrees regulate the establishment and management of incarcerated people as well as their rights. Even though inmates do not have full legal freedoms, they are safeguarded by the Eighth Amendment’s injunction against cruel and unusual penalty. The protection from this amendment further necessitates that inmates be provided with a minimum standard of living ( Stojkovic and Lovell, 2019). Some of these rights can be taken away from the inmates by a correctional facility for the safety of the institution while some cannot be infringed. Prison managers should make the necessary balancing of prisoners' privileges to control the safety and functionality of correctional facilities by violating some of the rights of the inmates and preserving some. The primary goals of correctional systems comprise retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Nonetheless, these goals must be balanced with the constitutional rights of inmates. Incarcerated persons retain legal rights such as the freedom to gain admission to the parole procedure and the due process of their freedom to administrative petitions. Further, the Fourteenth Amendment’s clause Equal Protection Clause applies to inmates, safeguarding them against unjust treatment on creed, gender, and race bases. The Model Sentencing and Correctional Law also safeguard

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE GOALS 4 inmates from discriminations based on gender, nationality, religion, or ethnicity ( Bassett, 2016). Also, correctional facilities are required to adhere to the constitutional requirements that inmates have the freedoms of religion and speech, to the scope of these privileges to not interfere with their positions as prisoners. At the same time, the legal freedoms which an inmate retains should be balanced against the safety issues of the correctional facility. Inmate's rights might be violated due to safety measures. Correctional facilities have the privilege to restrict the liberties of prisoners if doing so is necessary to preserve the safety of the institution, its employees, and other inmates ( Jonson and Cullen, 2015). For instance, prisoners are required to practice their religion in a manner that does not compromise the correctional facility’s functionality and safety. When a person is imprisoned, some of his or her legal rights are taken away. Typically, mandatory rights are the ones, which prison administrators cannot take away from the inmates. These are the liberties to humane living conditions and facilities, medical care, visit by their loved ones as well as protection against discriminations and assaults (Dayan and Gross, 2015). These rights enable prison administrators and personnel to maintain proper discipline and order in the correctional facility. However, these rights are balanced with safety, court requirements, visits, and other roles of the prison. For instance, inmates with life-threatening disorders such as some types of cancer and HIV/AIDS are only provided with the minimum treatment required to keep them sensibly contended, and not essentially to prolong

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE GOALS 5 their lives (Dayan and Gross, 2015). Correctional facilities balance inmates’ right to humane conditions and facilities by conducting warrantless searches to ensure no prisoner is taking advantage of this freedom. Prisoners are also not allowed to have direct contact with their loved ones during visits. Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller case is an example of a Supreme Court case that balances prison’s purposes with the legal rights of inmates. The case arose after a group of inmates at Attica prison purported that several offenses were done against them, and filed a legal proceeding in the court. The inmates alleged that prison administrators deliberately murdered some of the prisoners without provocation and that the state officials battered incarcerated persons after the penitentiary was retaken. The Supreme Court solidly ruled against the prisoners because of the prosecutorial discretion. Nonetheless, the court left open the likelihood that the trial could be obliged in another scenario. An example of diversity concern in correctional facilities is the lack of ethnic representation among the prison administrators and employees. For instance, Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller case resulted in a relief of the concern of predominantly white and rural workers monitoring an inmate population comprised of a majority of Hispanic and African American criminals from urban regions. From this case also arose a cultural sensitivity concern since the white and rural prison workers could hardly provide cultural education to a prisoner population composed of a majority of Hispanic and African American perpetrators. Most of the employees at Attica prison could hardly listen to the concerns of the prisoners because typically inmates tend to have necessities based on their cultural values and norms. One of the mandatory rights correctional facilities should provide to inmates is

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE GOALS 6 establishing a culturally diversified labor force, which represents individuals from all ethnicities and walks of life. As American citizens, offenders are still protected by the US constitution. Nonetheless, some of their rights are violated by correctional facilities’ administrators to warranty the safety and functionality of the institution, its workers, and other inmates. The rights which cannot be violated by prison administrators are the mandatory privileges such as the right to standard living, medical care, and visits by loved ones. Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v. Rockefeller case is an example of a Supreme Court case that balances jail’s drives with the legal privileges of prisoners. The case further reveals that correctional facilities require employees who are culturally sensitive to the necessities of the prison community. References Bassett, L. A. (2016). The Constitutionality of Solitary Confinement: Insights from Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Health Matrix , 26 , 403. Dayan, H., & Gross, E. (2015). Toward a More Constitutional Approach to Solitary Confinement: The Case for Reform. Harvard Journal on Legislation , 52 (1), 1-16). Inmates of Attica Correctional Facility v Rockefeller , 477 F.2d 375 (1973) Jonson, C. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2015). Prisoner Reentry Programs. Crime and Justice , 44 (1), 517-575.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE GOALS 7 Stojkovic, S., & Lovell, R. (2019). Corrections: An introduction (2 nd Ed.) . Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu

Week 2 Assignment.edited

Related Documents