Lesson 3 Assignment

docx

School

Central Texas College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

2313

Subject

Sociology

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by BailiffFerret447

Report
Maria Bedolla CJCR2325 1/30/24 Lesson 3 Assignment 1. At times, corrections officials are criticized for placing white-collar offenders in lower security institutions, sometimes referred to as “country clubs.” How should one balance the relatively comfortable lifestyle available in a low-security correctional facility against the societal purpose of assigning offenders to the least restrictive environment, while also providing appropriate control? Should a white-collar offender receive a more costly, higher-security housing assignment to avoid the perception of receiving preferred treatment? Do you believe there is any distinction in the “pains of imprisonment” felt by a white-collar offender compared with other offenders? a. I believe that all offenders should go to the same county jail that everyone in the same county goes to. This should be done until they are found guilty or innocent depending on charges and evidence against them. If they are found guilty, then they should go to a prison that also houses offenders for similar crimes as the white color. This would mean that he is treated the same as any other inmate and would have the same level of security and housing as the next person. I do believe that people who are wealthier suffer more than a person who has a low income. The reason being is that a person from a low income will not have to adjust to the type of food as it may already be something they are used to eating as opposed to a wealthy person who may be used to eating lobster and steak dinners. 2. Bounds do not guarantee inmates the right to have the legal resources for filing all types of litigation. The only required tools are those needed to challenge their sentences and to challenge the conditions of their confinement. The lack of legal resources for other types of litigation is simply an incidental (and constitutional) consequence of conviction and incarceration. As applied, what do you think this means? Is it “fair?” a. I believe this means that the inmate, after being sentenced, does not have to have access to resources for them to be able to file any motion outside of something that would assist them with appealing their case. I do believe this is fair because they do not need to file any litigation for any other item unless something unconstitutional happens while they are serving their sentence. 3. A state inmate and his attorney were found having inappropriate sexual contact in the prison’s visiting area. May the state ban contact visits between this inmate and the attorney? What authority, as set forth in this chapter, controls this issue? See McMaster v. Pung, 984 F.2d 948 (8th Cir. 1993). a. Yes, the inmate should be ordered to find a new lawyer or get a new one appointed. The lawyer should also be investigated because they may be looking for payment from the inmate in a form of sexual pleasure. Not only is this unprofessional, but it is also unethical, and the lawyer should have stopped all client-lawyer relationships with the inmate. 4. In April 1992, correctional officers found homemade weapons (including two toothbrushes with razor blades attached to them) in an inmate’s cell. This was the third time the inmate had been
found to possess such weapons. After a disciplinary hearing, the inmate was placed in disciplinary segregation. On release from segregation, he was moved to the prison’s highest security level, an Intensive Management Unit. The inmate filed a Section 1983 action against 18 prison officials, complaining, in part, that he had no direct access to the prison law library (he did have use of a law library correspondence system that provided legal materials within 24 hours), that photocopy and notary services were too slow and expensive, and that he was denied contact visits with his attorney. Was the inmate successful in his suit? See Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 1996). a. The inmate was not successful in his suit as the writ of certiorari was denied as he did not present factual reasoning for what he was arguing. References- American Bar Association. (n.d.). Rule 1.8: Current clients: Specific rules. Rule 1.8: Current Clients: Specific Rules. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/ model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_8_current_clients_specific_rules/ Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.). Supreme Court of the United States Home. Supreme Court of the United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20- 554/170915/20210308114323776_20-554%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf
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