Constitutional Rights and Administrative Goals

The 8th Amendment and Prison Life
Not all of an individual’s Constitutional rights are lost the moment the person is incarcerated. On the contrary, it is there that they become more important than ever because it is in the penitentiary that individuals are essentially cut off from society and at the mercy of the correctional system. The correctional system must, therefore, maintain a degree of authenticity and transparency so that society can be assured that prisoners are treated humanely and in accordance with their Constitutional rights. At the same time the correctional system has to take issues such as security, effective administration, and cultural sensitivity. This paper will show that when it comes to the rights of the incarcerated, the correctional system must be fair and equitable in their treatment and handling of prisoners.
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) was the United States Supreme Court case that set the record straight on prisoners and their due process rights. One of the allowances provided prisoners is their “good time credits”—and upon the occasion that these are taken from prisoners as a punitive measure by the prison, the Court ruled that prisoners must be allowed to present a defense. Firstly, the Court ruled that in the event of a disciplinary decision to revoke good-time credits the prisoner be notified; secondly, there should be administrative hearings, and the prisoner should have the opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence in his defense. The Court showed the extent to which prisons must consider the rights of the incarcerated.
Oaks (1965) defines due process as “the highest safeguard of liberty” (p. 243). That liberty must extend to prisoners as they do not lose their right to due process to administrative appeals and the right to have access to the parole process. They also have an 8th Amendment right to be free from the abuse of cruel and unusual punishment. This one is especially important, as there are some prisons, such as the ones in Alabama, that may be violating prisoners’ 8th Amendment rights (UPI, 2018). This right includes protection against solitary confinement when it is unwarranted and unjust. Richmond (2015) points out that there is a strong need for reform in this particular area as solitary confinement is often abused by administrators of correctional systems and used as a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
The correctional system must balance the rights of prisoners with their own system that allows the prison to function orderly and safely. That means there have to be rules and regulations that may seem harsh on the outside but that are absolutely necessary on the inside. The line between acceptable and cruel and unusual may be hard to determine at times—but in cases of extreme abuse it is easily seen. Correctional systems have to be run by authentic leaders who embrace transparency.
The mandatory rights that prison administrators must provide incarcerated persons includes the right to a minimum standard of living (Stojkovic & Lovell, 2019). This means having access to amenities, fresh air, and exercise. One of the security risks, however, is that violence could break out between prisoners who are of rival gangs or who have vendettas against one another. Thus, prisons must careful watch all yard time, exercise time, meal time, and so on. For the sake of security and safety, guards must be present and prisoners must take their time outdoors in the regularly scheduled times that they are given. They must also have access to visitors so that loved ones can see them—but these too must be monitored to prevent contraband from getting into the prison from visitors. Additionally, if the prisoner has a court order to have counseling for mental health purposes, then the prison must also provide the accommodation to see that this order is fulfilled. As Compton et al. (2017) show, mental health services are needed for the sake of rehabilitating inmates and for their own mental health.
Diversity and cultural sensitivity issues also arise in prisons, particularly with the various ethnic groups—from whites to blacks to Latinos: there can be a great deal of animosity that arises between inmates and between inmates and guards if all are not trained on how to be respectful and to maintain a culture of appreciation for diversity. One cultural sensitivity issue is whether to indulge immigrant cultural norms. Some psychologists warn against it, while others believe they should be indulged. A diversity issue in corrections can be anything from hiring a diverse crew to represent all ethnicities in the facility to making sure that no minorities are marginalized because of their differences, such as homosexuals or Hispanics and so on.
Within the perspective of Constitutional rights and administrative balance, cultural sensitivity is important because it shows prisoners a humane treatment that they should get to experience if they are to be truly rehabilitated. At the same time, the administration must make sure that certain groups are not receiving privileges that other groups are not. So if one group is going to receive cultural indulgence, then all groups should receive cultural indulgence. This can be a problem logistically, which is why cultural indulgences are usually minimal at most. Diversity on the other hand can be promoted more easily within the administration. Marginalization of minorities can be discouraged as part of the administration’s core message and a diverse crew can be employed to make sure the staff reflects the population of the prison in terms of race and ethnicity.
References
Compton, M. T., Anderson, S., Broussard, B., Ellis, S., Halpern, B., Pauselli, L., . . . Johnson, M. (2017). A potential new form of jail diversion and reconnection to mental health services: II. Demonstration of feasibility. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 35(5–6), 492–500. doi:10.1002/bsl.2319
Oaks, D. H. (1965). Habeas corpus in the states: 1776-1865. The University of Chicago Law Review, 32(2), 243-288.
Richmond, C. (2015). Toward a More Constitutional Approach to Solitary Confinement: The Case for Reform. Harv. J. on Legis., 52, 1.
Stojkovic, S., & Lovell, R. (2019). Corrections: An introduction (2nd Ed.). Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu
UPI. (2018). Justice Department: Alabama prisons may violate 8th Amendment. Retrieved from https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/04/03/Justice-Department-Alabama-prisons-may-violate-8th-Amendment/8921554309036/