Untitled document-111

pdf

School

Grand Canyon University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

330

Subject

Psychology

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

5

Uploaded by emilyethurman

Report
Legal Considerations in Confinement Essay Thurman 1 Legal Considerations in Confinement Essay Emily E. Thurman Grand Canyon University PSY-330 Theresa Cruz November 12, 2023 Recycled Work
Legal Considerations in Confinement Essay Thurman 2 Even though a person has been stripped of their citizenship privileges, they may still have additional protections under the law. Inmates are given just the most basic protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Inmates are guaranteed a number of protections under the law, including freedom from discrimination, access to medical and mental health care, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment. On the flip hand, it's important to note that prisoners do not enjoy all of the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. For example, they are not guaranteed protection from arbitrary searches of their person or cell. In a way, it works in both directions. Yet, the focus of this research is on legal proceedings in which prisoners claimed their constitutional rights had been infringed. 1st Amendment Case: Freedom of religion, speech, the press, and the right to petition the government are all protected under the First Amendment. Furthermore, the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press and the right of the people to communicate their minds. Inmates have the same rights as everyone else under the First Amendment, provided that they do not threaten the safety and security of the jail. After being denied permission to grow a short beard for religious reasons, Hobbs sued the state of Arkansas under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in the case Holt v. Hobbs (2015). Notwithstanding Hobbs' contention that maintaining a beard was essential to his religious practice, the restrictions imposed by the company's grooming policy made it extremely difficult for him to do so. Inmates were not permitted to grow beards in accordance with ADOP grooming guidelines unless a medical practitioner provided an exemption. ( Hudson, David L. Jr , n.d.) The ADOP justified their decision on the grounds that detainees with beards would be harder to recognize and could be able to conceal contraband in
Legal Considerations in Confinement Essay Thurman 3 their facial hair. The Supreme Court of the United States decided that by not allowing Hobbs to grow a short beard, ADOP prison officials had actually violated Hobbs' religious liberty rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). 4th Amendment Case: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from what it calls "unreasonable searches and seizures" by government agencies. The question of whether or not prisoners and their cells are protected by the 4th amendment is at the heart of the case known as Hudson v. Palmer. Former inmate of Bland Correctional Facility, Russell Palmer, sued a guard at the facility named Hudson. According to Palmer, Hudson entered his cell and shook it for no reason, accusing him of having a ripped pillowcase nearby. Palmer was fined for the stolen pillowcase and must now repay the state. The action was filed because Palmer felt his right to due process had been violated by Husdon. The U.S. The Supreme Court concluded that Palmer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy and that the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches did not extend to cells in a correctional facility. 8th Amendment Case: There shall be no "excessive bail," "large fines," or "cruel and unusual punishment," as stated in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Atkins v. Virginia is an 8th Amendment case addressing the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. For the crimes of murder, armed robbery, and kidnapping, Atkins received the death penalty. Atkins was "mildly intellectually handicapped," as established by a psychologist who testified on his behalf during his trial. (Legal Information Institute, 2002) Although the jury found Atkins guilty and condemned him to death, the Supreme Court of Virginia was not pleased and ordered a new trial.
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
Legal Considerations in Confinement Essay Thurman 4 The judge was not happy with the jury's decision to reimpose the death penalty on Atkins. Penry v. Lynaugh was considered by the Supreme Court of Virginia as they deliberated whether or not Atkins' death sentence was cruel and unusual. The Supreme Court overturned Atkins' death sentence because of his mental condition and the 8th Amendment's prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment. 14th Amendment Case: The 14th Amendment ensures that all people born or naturalized in the United States are automatically citizens of the United States. It ensures that everyone is afforded the same legal protections. Inmates are protected against bias on the basis of color, gender, religion, etc. thanks to the Equal Protection Clause. The Oklahoma Criminal Sterilization Act of 1935 allows for the sterilization of any person with three or more felony convictions in Oklahoma. The Law Library of Congress says (n.d.). After being convicted of stealing hens and two counts of armed robbery, Oklahoma law required that Skinner, a prison inmate, undergo sterilization. Skinner sued Oklahoma, arguing that the state's actions violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee. As some offenses, such as non-violent ones, were specifically excluded from the Act's jurisdiction without any justification or explanation, the court found that the Act did in fact violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Legal Considerations in Confinement Essay Thurman 5 References Hudson, David L. Jr (n.d.). “Holt v. Hobbs.” The First Amendment Encyclopedia. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1459/holt-v-hobbs#:~:text=Department%20of%20 Correction Legal Information Institute. (2002). “Atkins v. Virginia.” Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-8452.ZS.html M, Gardner (n.d.). “Hudson v Palmer - bright lines but dark directions for prisoner privacy rights. Hudson v Palmer.” Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/hudson-v-palmer-bright-lines-dark-directions- prisoner-privacy . Legal Information Institute (n.d.). “Skinner v. state of Oklahoma.” Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/316/535