Prisoners Rights
A Brief History of Supreme Court Rulings Dealing with Prisoner Rights
As we evolved into a more civilized society many things changed. Medicine became better; schools and education improved, and treatment of our prisoners became more humane. The constitution of our country clearly prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. No longer would captors be allowed torture that captive with iron maidens or contraptions of the like. These basic rules seem obvious to us today, but they represent the foundation of prisoner rights, the idea that even if we break the rules of our society we are still afforded basic rights that can not be taken from us. What are these rights? When did they come about? Why did they happen? In this paper I will examine these questions in hope of becoming better informed of how our society progressed to where it is today in our legal treatment of those we incarcerate. The concept that prisoners have rights beyond the minimum required for living is relatively new one. Woody Ruffin was a convict charged with murder while working on a chain gang in 1871. The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia was called upon to decide the rights that he had. They decided:
"The Bill of Rights is a declaration of general principles to govern a society of freemen, and not of convicted felons and men civilly dead. Such men have rights it is true, such as the law in its benignity accords them, but not the rights of freemen. They are slaves of the State undergoing punishment for heinous crimes committed against the law of the land." (Cruel and Unusual, 2004)
This ruling essentially said that prisoners are afforded no rights what so ever. This would lay the groundwork for what was known as the hands off doctrine'. The hands off doctrine' was the policy that the federal courts would not interfere with state prison operations or call into question prison officials' judgment regarding its inmates (Seiter, p.24). This policy remained for
As we evolved into a more civilized society many things changed. Medicine became better; schools and education improved, and treatment of our prisoners became more humane. The constitution of our country clearly prohibits the use of cruel and unusual punishment. No longer would captors be allowed torture that captive with iron maidens or contraptions of the like. These basic rules seem obvious to us today, but they represent the foundation of prisoner rights, the idea that even if we break the rules of our society we are still afforded basic rights that can not be taken from us. What are these rights? When did they come about? Why did they happen? In this paper I will examine these questions in hope of becoming better informed of how our society progressed to where it is today in our legal treatment of those we incarcerate. The concept that prisoners have rights beyond the minimum required for living is relatively new one. Woody Ruffin was a convict charged with murder while working on a chain gang in 1871. The Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia was called upon to decide the rights that he had. They decided:
"The Bill of Rights is a declaration of general principles to govern a society of freemen, and not of convicted felons and men civilly dead. Such men have rights it is true, such as the law in its benignity accords them, but not the rights of freemen. They are slaves of the State undergoing punishment for heinous crimes committed against the law of the land." (Cruel and Unusual, 2004)
This ruling essentially said that prisoners are afforded no rights what so ever. This would lay the groundwork for what was known as the hands off doctrine'. The hands off doctrine' was the policy that the federal courts would not interfere with state prison operations or call into question prison officials' judgment regarding its inmates (Seiter, p.24). This policy remained for
Cited: 1) Seiter, William. Corrections: An Introduction. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2005. 2) "Rasul v. Bush." Cornell Law School; Legal Information Institute. 27Apr06. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/ 3) "Procunier v. Martinez." US Supreme Court Cases & Opinions from Justia &US court Forms and Oyez. 28Apr06. http://supreme.justia.com/us/416/396/case.html 4) "Johnson v. Avery." US Supreme Court Cases & Opinions from Justia &USs court Forms and Oyez. 28Apr06. http://supreme.justia.com/us/393/483/case.html 5) "Cooper v. Pate." US Supreme Court Cases & Opinions from Justia &USs court Forms and Oyez. 29Apr06. http://supreme.justia.com/us/378/546/case.html 6) Dayan, John. "Cruel and Unusual." John Dayan: Cruel and Unusual. 30Apr06. http://bostonreview.net/BR29.5/dayan.html 7) Rivkin, David. "Don 't Cross the Habeas Corpus Line" Las Angeles Times 10Nov2005.