CRJS435 IP3

Prisoners Due Process

CRJS435-IP3

Name

Class

Date

Professor

Wolff v. McDonnell and Sandin v. Conner

In the case of Wolff v. McDonnell (1976) the Supreme Court ruled prison inmates should be afforded limited due process rights involving any disciplinary procedures within the prison. The prison inmate has limited rights that include advance written notice of the charge no less than 24 hours before proceedings, written statement of the evidence; prison inmate can call witnesses in their defense. The prison inmate, however, does not have the right to counsel or to cross examine witnesses. The court also ruled inmates have right to privacy in the written communication with their counsel.

In Sandin v. Conner (1995) the Supreme Court once again answered the question concerning liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause but only if the prison inmate could show where the state or federal prison official had violated a specific due process right. The Supreme Court ruled courts had to focus on the nature of the deprivation imposed on a prisoner. The ruling in Sandin changed how courts approach the potential due process violations. Now courts base their decisions on the nature of the deprivation does not impose an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,” the prisoner will not have a liberty interest in avoiding the deprivation (Cassell, 2010).

In Wolff v. McDonnell the case began when inmates sued the prison as a group based on several potential due process violations. When the court ruled prisoners have liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause but these liberty and property interests must be created by state statutes and regulations (Cassell, 2010). In other words state law is responsible for outlining the actual due process rights afforded to the inmate. In the case of Sandin v. Conner the Supreme Court created a new standard recognizing the prisoner’s right to due process for a violation of prisoners’ liberty interests if they experience a significant or atypical deprivation. An atypical deprivation was defined more clearly in Giano v. Kelly which includes a significant difference in the length of the isolation, absence of meaningful activities, and lack of recreational activities.

In a prison the Warden is the leader and prison staff is in charge of supervising the inmates. A prison acts as a small, individual city where rules and regulations are established by the leadership. Prison discipline is a necessary aspect of every prison. Without discipline processes in place the prison inmates cannot be properly managed or controlled. A prison is filled with individual that have chosen to ignore the laws of society and have been punished for this offense. The prisoner is not happy about being in prison and will act out violently or with disregard to prison staff. Even though they must be punished how they are punished is significant to their due process rights.

Prison discipline is central to the management of imprisonment; it is also central to a prisoner’s experience of imprisonment (Naylor, 2002). Prison inmates are subject to the rules and regulations of the prison and the discipline that is necessary to ensure inmates understand the consequences of their actions. Prisons are designed to punish the offender in a way where they recognize the authority of the prison staff and any failures to follow the rules will result in immediate disciplinary actions. The prisoner must be clear of these rules and regulations.

While the Supreme Court recognizes prisoners can be punished they cannot by denied certain liberty interests outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell and Sandin v. Conner. The prison is required to publish laws outlining all of the prisons rules and regulations concerning the discipline of the inmate. All regulations must be clear and when a prisoner violates a rule resulting in a deprivation of their liberty they must first receive written notice from the prison. Prisoners cannot be deprived liberty without first being warned. Written notice will give the inmate time to prepare a defense against the charges.

Job Loss

Since the ruling in Sandin v. Conner the rights of the prisoner have become more defined. A lack of the absence of a meaningful activity refers to the prison failing to keep prisoners busy with jobs, educational opportunities, and vocational training. In order for a prison inmate to loss their prison job in the prison setting they must first violate prison rules. Whether or not a prison is afforded an opportunity to work while in prison depends partly on prison polices and state policy. It is a privilege for prisoners to work in the prison environment not a right but the prison must provide the prisoner with an opportunity to engage in meaningful activities. In the case of Wolff v. McDonnell the Supreme Court ruled inmates must be provided with meaningful activities and recreational activities.

Prisoners are not guaranteed the right to work in the prison environment unless federal or state explicitly provides for this right. Federal law does not guaranteed the right to work and in most cases neither does state law. Instead prisoners earn the work to work or are made to work in the prison environment depending on the prison and their policies and state regulation. For example in a lot of prison inmates are assigned job that will ensue the functioning of the prison. For example cleaning the prisons or working in the kitchen.

These jobs come with little pay but are a privilege. Only trusted inmates, known as trustees, get these positions. Inmates are also not guaranteed the right to fair wages or even any wages. The prison does not have to pay the inmate anything for working and prison inmates cannot refuse to work if they are not paid. In fact prison inmates can be punished by prison officials for refusing to work.

In other prisons inmates are made to work in order to ensure they do not have any time for mischievous. In the past and even in some prisons today inmates work on what is known as chain gangs and are forced to work doing hard labor. In other prison all inmates work and earn pennies on the dollar. The money made in the prison goes to the prison to house the inmate. Prisons do not guarantee an inmate the right to work. The prison inmates have to earn this right. They are instead afforded an opportunity to get their GED or to seek way to better themselves and change their criminal behavior.

Scheduled Segregation

Prison inmates that do not follow the procedures and policies of the prison are subject to disciplinary action. This can include the inmate losing privileges or being segregated from other inmates in what is known as prison isolation the goal of the isolation cell is to give the prisoner time to reflect in their bad behavior. After enough time in isolation the inmate will learn not to engage in similar behavior in the future. Inmates, however, cannot be thrown into prison without first being provided some information about the disciplinary action and charge against them. In order to be segregated the inmate is first afforded a disciplinary hearing.

Based on the ruling in Wolff v. McDonnell inmates must be afforded no less 24 hours notice of a pending disciplinary hearing. In some states inmates are afforded written notice. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that people shall not be deprived of liberty without due process of law (Spector, 2010). Prison inmates, however, are not afforded the same rights guaranteed in the 14th amendment as the citizen. In Sandin v. Conner the Supreme Court ruled that segregation does not automatically apply as a due process violation. In order for segregation to be considered a liberty interest it must impose an “atypical and significant hardship.

The ruling in Sandin v. Conner did not explain what would constitute atypical and significant hardship. In other words is one month too long or is it two months that signifies an atypical and significant hardship. It was not until the ruling in Wilkinson v. Austin that this become clearer. The Supreme Court found open ended segregation was in fact an atypical and significant hardship. Prison inmates were not informed of how long they would be placed in isolation but instead were placed in isolation until prison officials deemed they could be released. The hardship came in not knowing when the punishment would end and in fact the punishment could go on forever if prison officials wished.

After the ruling in Wilkinson v. Austin prison are now required to provide a reason why isolation has been extended past the thirty day maximum placed on prison segregation. Prisoners in segregation also cannot be left in their cells for more than twenty two hours a day. The inmate must be afforded an opportunity to exercise. Before the inmate can be placed into segregation they have the right to notice in order to plan a defense or to develop evidence to call witnesses. If n inmate does not have council they can use substitute council on their behalf. Substitute council refers to other prison inmates. The inmate can call witnesses as well as confront witnesses and are always afforded an impartial hearing.

Loss of Commissary Privileges

When prison inmates fail to follow the rule and procedures of the prison they face punishment while segregation is one form of punishment received so is the loss of the prison inmate’s commissary privileges. Inmates are not afforded the right to commissary privileges and this is in fact a privilege inmates can earn in the prison environment. Privileges are not a right of the prisoner but instead are an award for inmates that display good behavior.

Prisons are only required to provide inmates with food, shelter, and medical care. They are not required to ensure the inmate has access to the treats provided by the commissary. When inmates are afforded the right to commissary goods they must use money in their account. Because many inmates do not get paid the money that is placed in their accounts is from family members. Prisons are under no obligation to provide a variety of foods or even to ensure food taste good. They are only responsible for providing for the inmates basic food needs. The food they are provided is enough to feed the average inmate and does not cater to the religious needs of inmates.

Conclusion

Prisons are places for punishment and not a place where the right s of the inmate are even considered. It is not until rulings are made in Supreme Court that inmates began to receive a small amount of liberty interests in the prison environment. Prisoners are not the same as citizens and are not afforded the same privileges and civil liberties. The rulings in Wolff v. McDonnell and Sandin v. Conner the Supreme Court outlined the privileges afforded the prison inmate concerning their limited due process rights. After these important ruling inmates are afforded notice of any disciplinary action and are afforded limited due process rights when they are subject to discipline.

References

Cassell, K. (2010). Due Process in Prison: Protecting Inmates Property after Sandin v. Conner.

Retrieved June 28, 2013 from

http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2110_Cassel.pdf

Naylor, B. (2002). Prison Disciplinary Systems: Process and Proof. Retrieved June 28, 2013

from http://www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre/publications/naylor-prato-prison-paper.pdf

Spector, D. (2010). The Rights of Prisoners in Administrative Segregation. Retrieved June 28,

2013 from http://www.prisonlaw.com/pdfs/AdministrativeSegregation,Jun10.pdf