[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mpji.pdf (accessed January 23, 2007)action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceedingTABLE 7.14for redress. Injuries reported by jail inmates, by conviction status, gender,and age, 2002 With the Cooper decision, the Court announced thatprisoners had rights guaranteed by the Constitution andPercent of inmates who reportedcould ask the judicial system for help in challenging thean injury since admissionconditions of their imprisonment.Characteristics Total In an accident In a fightTotal 13.4% 7.4% 7.0%Conviction statusPRODUCE THE BODYConvicted 12.6% 7.9% 5.9%Unconvicted 15.6 7.5 8.8% In Cooper v.Pate, the Supreme Court relied on civilBoth 12.1 5.5 7.7rights.Another source of prisoners rights arose from theGenderCourt s reliance on habeas corpus.This Latin phraseMale 13.8% 7.5% 7.4%means Have the body. with the rest of the phrase,Female 10.1 6.7 4.1 brought before me, implied.A writ of habeas corpus isAge24 or younger 17.4% 8.2% 10.6% therefore the command issued by one court to another25 34 13.6 7.5 7.2court (or lesser authority) to produce a person and to35 44 11.2 7.1 4.845 or older 7.8 5.8 2.5 explain why that person is being detained.Habeas corpusdates back to an act of the British Parliament passed inSOURCE: Laura M.Maruschak, Table 6.Percent of Jail Inmates WhoReported an Injury since Admission, by Conviction Status, Gender and Age,1679.Congress enacted the Judiciary Act of 1789 and2002, in Medical Problems of Jail Inmates, U.S.Department of Justice,gave federal prisoners the right to habeas corpus review.Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2006,The Habeas Act of 1867 later protected the rights ofhttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mpji.pdf (accessed January 23, 2007)newly freed slaves and extended habeas corpus protectionto state prisoners.The effective meaning of habeas cor-pus for prisoners is that it enables them to petition federalcourts to review any aspect of their cases.granted protection to prisoners.The code states that every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,After the Military Commissions Act of 2006, whichregulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory orauthorized military trials of enemy combatants, wasthe District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be sub-signed by President George W.Bush, the administrationjected, any citizen of the United States or other personannounced that the U.S.District Court in Washington,within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of anyD.C., no longer had the authority to consider the habeasrights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitu- corpus petitions filed by prison inmates in Guantánamotion and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an Bay in Cuba.Karen DeYoung reports in Court Told ItCrime, Prisons, and Jails Characteristics and Rights of Inmates 119Lacks Power in Detainee Cases (Washington Post, exaggerated their response to these considerations, courtsOctober 20, 2006) that the Justice Department posted a should ordinarily defer to their expert judgment in suchnotice that listed 196 pending habeas cases, some of matters. which cover groups of detainees.The new Military Com-In Nolan v.Fitzpatrick (451 F.2d 545, 1985), themissions Act.it said, provides that no court, justice, orFirst Circuit Court ruled that inmates had the right tojudge can consider those petitions or other actionscorrespond with newspapers.The prisoners were limitedrelated to treatment or imprisonment filed by anyoneonly in that they could not write about escape plans ordesignated as an enemy combatant, now or in the future. include contraband material in their letters.Besides those already imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay orelsewhere, the law applies to all non-U.S.citizens,The Missouri Division of Corrections permitted cor-including permanent U.S.residents.respondence between immediate family members whowere inmates at different institutions and betweeninmates writing about legal matters, and allowed otherFIRST AMENDMENT CASESinmate correspondence only if each prisoner s classifi-The First Amendment of the Constitution guaranteescation/treatment team thought it was in the best intereststhat Congress shall make no law respecting an establish-of the parties.Another Missouri regulation permitted anment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;inmate to marry only with the superintendent s permis-or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or thesion, which can be given only when there were compel-right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petitionling reasons to do so, such as a pregnancy.In Turner v.the government for a redress of grievances. Safley (482 U.S.78, 1987), the Supreme Court found thefirst regulation constitutional and the second one uncon-Censorshipstitutional.In Procunier v.Martinez (416 U.S.396, 1973), theSupreme Court ruled that prison officials cannot censorThe Court held that the constitutional right of pris-inmate correspondence unless they show that a regula-oners to marry is impermissibly burdened by the Missourition authorizing mail censorship furthers one or more ofmarriage regulation. The Supreme Court had ruled ear-the substantial governmental interests of security, order,lier in Zablocki v.Redhail (434 U.S.374, 1978) thatand rehabilitation.Second, the limitation of First Amend-prisoners had a constitutionally protected right to marry,ment freedoms must be no greater than is necessary orsubject to restrictions because of incarceration such asessential to the protection of the particular governmentaltime and place and prior approval of a warden.However,interest involved. the Missouri regulation practically banned all marriages.Prison officials may refuse to send letters that detailThe findings in Turner v.Safley have become a guideescape plans or encoded messages but may not censorfor prison regulations in the United States.In its decision,inmate correspondence simply to eliminate unflatteringthe Court observed that:or unwelcome opinions or factually inaccurate state-When a prison regulation impinges on inmates consti-ments. Because prisoners retain rights when a prisontutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonablyregulation or practice offends a fundamental constitu-related to legitimate penological interests.First,tional guarantee, federal courts will discharge their dutythere must be a valid, rational connection betweento protect constitutional rights. the prison regulation and the legitimate governmentalinterest put forward to justify it.Moreover, the gov-However, the Court recognized that it was illernmental objective must be a legitimate and neutralequipped to deal with the increasingly urgent problemsone.A second factor relevant in determining theof prison administration and reform. Running a prisonreasonableness of a prison restriction.is whethertakes expertise and planning, all of which, the Courtthere are alternative means of exercising the right thatexplained, is part of the responsibility of the legislativeremain open to prison inmates.A third considerationand executive branches
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]