Legal Considerations in Confinement Essay

Introduction

Every individual who s considered an American has rights. These rights are available in each amendment of the constitution. Prisoners are no exception. Most of them live in deplorable conditions despite being protected by the US constitution. Due to that, the federal government strives to make laws that protect prisoners and enable them to live in a healthy environment. Chapter 15 (n.d) indicates that since the passing of the Constitution in 1993, prisoners are required to maintain their rights as set out in both the Constitution and prison policies. The paper details four court cases that comprise most prisoner complaints in the 1st, 4th, 8th, and 14th amendment of the constitution.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

1st Amendment

Cruz v. BetoThe petitioner complained to the courts that the prison would not allow him to use the chapel because he is Buddhist. He complained that he was prohibited from writing to his religious advisor and that he was taken to solitary confinement for sharing his religious material with other inmates (Cruz v. Beto, n.d). In the case, the issue was whether his First Amendment rights concerning the freedom of religion were infringed. Without hearing facts of the case, the Federal courts held that the complaint should be in the discretion of the prison administration (Cruz v. Beto, n.d). On the contrary, based on the allegations, the Court of Appeals held that Texas discriminated the prisoner's rights by denying him the right to practice his religious faith (Cruz v. Beto, n.d).

4th Amendment

Applicant was sentenced under an arraignment accusing him of transmitting betting data by phone crosswise over state lines disregarding 18 U.S.C. 1084 (Katz v. United States, n.d). FBI agents attached listening and recording devices on the prison's telephone booth. The petitioner strenuously declared that the telephone corner was an area protected by the constitution. Nevertheless, the courts held that the Fourth Amendment shields people and not places from outlandish interruption (Katz v. United States, n.d). Despite the fact that the inmate did not try to conceal his self from general visibility when he entered the pay phone, he sought to keep out the uninvited ear. He didn't surrender his entitlement to do as such essentially on the grounds that he went to a place where he could be seen. A man who goes into a pay phone may expect the security of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution as he accepts that the words he articulates into the phone won't be communicated to the world (Katz v. United States, n.d).. When this is recognized, plainly the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution shields people and not territories from absurd inquiries and seizures.

8th Amendment

Hudson v. McMillian

In court, the petitioner, Hudson, a prison inmate in Louisiana, testified that he received minor bruises, swelling in the face, loose teeth, and cracked dental plate after a beating from prison guards named McMillian and Woods (Legal Information Institute, n.d). The prisoner affirmed that the beating happened when he was handcuffed and shackled after an argument with McMillian. He further added that one of the respondents, Mezo, who was a supervisor on duty watched the entire altercation, and went ahead to tell the officers not to have too much fun. The magistrate who heard the case indicated that the officers used excessive force and that Mezo did nothing to stop the scuffle. More so, he found that the officers violated the Eighth Amendment of the constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishments (Legal Information Institute, n.d). He later awarded Hudson the damages.

14th Amendment

Vitek v. Jones

Appellee was a convicted felon who was transferred to a mental institution from the state prison. The decision to transfer him was pursuant to a statute in Nebraska, which states that in a case a selected physician or psychologist finds that a prisoner has a mental disease or defect and cannot receive proper treatment in prison, then he or she can be taken to a mental institution under the authority of the Director of Correctional Services (Vitek v. Jones, n.d). Regarding the due process, the District Court contended that the statute was unconstitutional in Appellee's case. The court held that his transfer to a mental institution without passable notice and a chance to be granted hearing deprived him of liberty that is contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment (Vitek v. Jones, n.d). According to the court, such transfers should be accompanied with adequate notice, adversary hearing before an independent decision-maker, written evidence by the fact finder, and convenience of appointed counsel for destitute prisoners (Vitek v. Jones, n.d). Fundamentally, the court required Appellee to be transferred back to the prison until those conditions were met.

Conclusion

A prisoner has the rights to the due process upon incarceration. Usually, the law requires the guards and prison wardens to take care of the prisoners. However, some of them take the law into their hands and treat them in whichever way they feel like. Some cases of prisoner maltreatment go unnoticed because some of them do not come forward to report. The Courts should be vigilant in punishing prison officials who mistreat inmates. Overall, prison wardens and guards should protect and respect the rights of inmates in the prison cells.

References

Chapter 15. (n.d). The Rights of Prisoners. Retrieved from https://section27.org.za/wp content/uploads/2010/04/15Manual.pdf

Cruz v. Beto. (n.d). Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/405/319.html

Katz v. United States. (n.d). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/

Legal Information Institute. ( n.d). Hudson v. McMillian. Cornell Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/503/1

Vitek v. Jones. (n.d). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/480/case.html