American Prisons



American Prisons

Introduction

In the United States, there is a properly designed prison system. Prisoners are kept in state prisons, county jails or federal facilities. Those individuals whom cases are being heard in the court or those who are imprisoned for less than one year, are held in county jails. People found guilty of violating state laws and are imprisoned for more than one year are kept in state prisons. Whereas, persons held guilty of violating any military or federal law, they are kept in federal prisons (Terry, 2003).

Due Process Rights of Prisoners

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits state actions that deprive “any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that people cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without adequate procedural due process. However, specifying the particular procedures and quantifying the precise amount of protection required by the Due Process Clause is decided on a case-by-case basis by the judiciary. Questions of “how much process is due” a person who faces or has already suffered one or more deprivations of liberty or property controversial, and have been the focus of ongoing debate and interpretation (Ross & Richards, 2002).

The right to due process of law, like other constitutional rights, has never been distributed equally to all segments of the population. The rights enumerated in the Constitution, for example, have never been fully extended to those who are incarcerated. The history of prisoners' rights is maligned with cases of indifference and neglect. The problems of determining the particular protections afforded by the Due Process Clause are especially difficult in the context of imprisonment, which by design, curtails inmate liberty.

Prior to the 1960s, federal and state courts typically refused to review cases brought by prisoners complaining of harsh conditions of confinement, arbitrary punishments imposed without due process protection, or other prison policies or practices that were constitutionally questionable. In declining jurisdiction over litigation involving prisons, the courts relied upon a policy generally known as the hands-off doctrine. This approach to inmate lawsuits reflected the views that a convicted prisoner was a “slave of the state” without enforceable rights, and that the courts lacked the expertise and authority to intervene in prison management. In practice, the hands-off doctrine made it virtually impossible for prisoners to seek judicial relief from alleged mistreatment at the hands of prison officials (Haney, 2006).

In the 1960s, many federal courts and a few state courts began to relax their traditional hands-off attitude toward the legal rights of prisoners. The early 1970s were years of growth and development in prison litigation. Although most cases were decided in favor of prison authorities, prisoners nevertheless prevailed in a number of well-publicized cases finding that inmates had been subjected to arbitrary beatings; contaminated and nutritionally inadequate food; poor sanitation; severe overcrowding; and prolonged confinement in filthy isolation cells that were lacking light, ventilation, and any means of maintaining bodily cleanliness. The Supreme Court enlarged the scope of prisoners' rights of ...