Constitutional Rights of Prisoners the Hands Off

Constitutional Rights of Prisoners

The hands off doctrine that existed throughout the United States through the 1960s was the notion that the law did not apply to prisoners. It Convicted offenders, who were incarcerated, were not eligible for the same rights that applied to liberated U.S. citizens. The doctrine mandated that prisoners had forfeited those rights when they were convicted of whatever crime they committed. This doctrine made it impossible for the court system to intervene with prison administration or the daily affairs that took place in prisons throughout the country.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed in 1993 and that was supposed to prevent laws being passed that would impede on a person's free right to practice whatever religion he or she chose to practice. It was fairly broad in its original incarnation, until it was deemed unconstitutional at the state and the local level of authority in 1997, following the court case known as the City of Boerne v. Flores. This court case found that RFRA did not permit Congress to enforce the Fourteenth amendment. Therefore, RFRA is still applicable at the federal level, although it is not so at the state and the local levels.

The effect of the court's ruling in Johnson v. Avery was that it allowed for jailhouse attorney and for prisoners to help one another with their litigation processes and procedures, but only within certain parameters. Such limitations are generally held within the time and the place in which prisoners can assist one another with their court cases. There are also circumscriptions on the manner in which inmates can help one another. However, this case mandated that prison administration and officials could not just disrupt any and all support of inmates with one another's court cases.

One legal remedy that prisoners have on matters relating to disciplinary processes is to sue in a court of law, although there has been legislation passed to restrict this particular avenue. Prisoners can also file a habeus corpus lawsuit as well. However, prisoners are encouraged to seek several administrative resources and help before pursing legal activity.

One of the most prominent federal protective statues employed by prisoners is 42 U.S.C.A 1983, which allows for prisoners to sue for a federally protected or constitutional right that has been denied. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act allows for people and prisoners to receive compensatory measures and treatment to assist with their disabilities. The Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a similar federal protective statue.

The extradition process can generally be stratified into the following phases. A parole officer must submit a violation report when someone on parole is considered to have violated the terms of his release from prison. Based on this report, a warrant will be issued for the arrest of the parolee once a parole division board reviews the report and deems that there is probably cause for the violation of parole conditions. Then, there is a hearing to determine whether or not the defendant has violated his or her parole. Before the hearing takes place, usually the offender is interviewed by a parole officer for that hearing, and read his or her rights regarding the parole revocation hearing process.

A significant amount of federal litigation has been considered and passed to account for the burgeoning amount of lawsuits instigated by prisoners. These measures include limitation on civil litigations: such as the fact that inmates have to exhaust all other administrative resources before being allowed to sue. There are also pecuniary payments to be made in the cases in which inmates lawsuits are found to be indigent, and there are laws that call for the dismissal of civil suits if they are found to be malicious or to state a legally recognizable claim. In 1996, the Prison Litigation Reform Act was passed to reduce prisoner litigation and limit the amount of federal involvement in state court cases.

This litigation affects prisoners and correctional administration in a number of ways. In terms of correctional administration, Title II holds that prisons are covered under this title whether or not they are receiving federal funding. Therefore, prison administrators must be more diligent and honest in their handling of prisoners in order to avoid lawsuits. For prisoners, they are also part of Title II and are eligible for certain rights under this title -- rights which the administration must provide or risk a lawsuit. The FLSA establishes minimum wage, overtime, and stipulations regarding record keeping, child labor, and hours that are worked. These also help to regulate the means by which prisoners can utilize lawsuits regarding these facets of their experience within a prison.