Legal Considerations in Confinement
Criminal confinement or unlawful restraint can generally be defined as the act of holding a person in conferment or transferring them from their initial location to another place against their wish and will (Criminal Attorney, 2008). The State law categorizes this act as a misdemeanor offense, which may be upgraded to a felony according to the circumstances revolving around the act. Owing to the fact that the Law enforcement bodies are in charge of keeping law and order, they face exemption from the legal penalties of confinement; however, they are liable to face charges in situations that are egregious (Meeropol, 2003).
Prisoners' are some of the individuals who have very limited rights. These limited rights are still being violated and compromised upon despite the constitutional amendments. It is a general consideration that most prison and jail inmates may only demand for a considerable measure of food and shelter. According to The Jailhouse Lawyer’s Handbook, “The courts generally follow some basic principles in deciding how and whether to acknowledge and recognize a particular prisoners’ right. They outline that inmates give up many of their privileges and rights the moment they are imprisoned. Secondly, the courts consider that inmates relinquish or lose all their constitutional rights upon imprisonment” (Meeropol, 2003). Finally, they argue that all the constitutional rights that are retained by the prisoners must be guarded and balanced against the concerns of prison’s security. Such court considerations have formed the base that has led to the compromising of most prisoners’ complaints.
Court Cases that exemplify Constitutional amendments, which comprise most prisoner complaints, include cases on first amendment that deals with freedom of speech and religion, cases on eight amendments that deals with solitary confinement, unusual and cruel punishment, cases on fifth amendments that deals with deprivation of liberty, life and property, and cases on fourteenth amendment that affirms the fifth amendment.
A concrete and prime illustration of the violation or compromise on the first amendment is the 1987 Safley verses Turner case, numbered 482 U.S. 78. It is a case, which dealt/concerned with first Constitutional amendment rights of prisoners to have free speech and communication with other inmates and even having marriages (Net Industries and its Licensors, 2011). The first amendment rights are normally highly guarded and protected against infringement and compromise. Unless the government or the law enforcement agencies have legitimate reasons to restrict it, the amendment should not be abridged. In this case, a court ruled through a close vote of five proponents to four opponents, that an application of the first amendment would greatly incapacitate the prison official’s ability to anticipate and detect security concerns and problems. This made it hard for them to adopt proper measures to the prison administration’s intractable problems. Despite the argument, the Court compromised and violated the prisoners, right by choosing a variation of a reasonable relationship test, which is regarded as the lowest level for justification of the constitution. Such decisions are usually reserved for governmental regulations analysis that do less than intrude on political and economic rights of citizens.
The author of the Solitary confinement, unusual, and cruel punishment is another area in the amended Constitution that is still being compromised. A 1991 case of Seiter verse Wilson numbered, 111 S.Ct 2321, illustrates the violation of the eight amendments. It is stated in the eighth amendment that, “solitary confinement is adopted as a form of punishment in many prisons, yet it is a clear violent of inmates’ rights. Many prisons in the country are designed to render unusual and cruel practices to inmates against the provisions of the amendments” (Net Industries and its Licensors, 2011). Solitary confinement and cruel punishment were stopped due to the detrimental effects they had on the well being and psychology of the inmates. The Courts’ act of passing new laws that do not regard as unconstitutional some conditions in the prisons that seem to be objectively uncivilized, promotes the compromising of this amendment. However, they say that this can be averted if there are findings and evidence that the officials of the prison subjectively exposed inmates to unusual, unfair, and cruel punishment.
The Fifth Amendment also comprises prisoner complaints. This amendment in the U.S constitution state that, “all prisoners have the right to liberty, life, and property” (Justia.org, 2011). Many a times, disciplinary procedures and action is taken according to the word and instruction of the prison administrator or guard. The inmates have minimal opportunity or power to alter the charges and remain with nothing other than to obey even if it is against his or her rights. The amendment affirmed that there should be procedural justness and fairness in all institutional rules and decisions given by the guards. This is exemplified in the 1974 McDonnell verses Wolff case numbered, 418 U.S. 539. Were the court passed that inmates have the right to early release or shortening of sentences from prison via parole, which is issued by the after an application to the parole board (Hudson, 2011). This should end up providing the inmates with their right to life, liberty, and property as affirmed in the Fourteenth Amendment, but because of the compromise, they are not accorded the same.
References
Meeropol, R. (2003). How to Bring a Federal Lawsuit to Challenge Violations of Your Rights in Prison. The Jailhouse Lawyer’s Handbook. (4th ed.). New York: The Center for Constitutional Rights and the National Lawyers Guild.
Criminal Attorney. (2008). Criminal Confinement. Retrieved from http://crimelawyers.org/Content333.htm
Net Industries and its Licensors. (2011). Prisoners' Rights Under Law - Due Process Complaints. Retrieved from http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2563/Prisoners-Rights-Under-Law-DUE-PROCESS-COMPLAINTS.html
Hudson, D. L. (2011). Inmate’s Complaint Ruled Long but not Strong. First Amendment Scholar Center. Retrieved from http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/inmates-complaint-ruled-long-but-not-strong
Justia.org, (2011). Rights of Prisoners. U.S Supreme Court Centre. Retrieved from http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/64-rights-of-prisoners.html
