Supreme Court and Prisoners Rights

The United States highest court has set standards for the way in which prison operations work especially because of their methods of choosing not to intervene. In this article by Jack E .Call he discusses three periods in a chronological perspective of the court's involvement, they explain the overall position that they took when confronted with any prisoner's rights or prison condition cases. The three periods identified in the article are "The Hands- off Period" which is dated 1964, "The Rights Period" dated from 1964-1978 and the last period "The Deference Period" dated 1979 till present. Prisoner's rights is still a very new concept, for most of the 1960's the courts did not interfere with problems in this area, not until the late 1960's did they begin to take interest and involve themselves. Until now the Supreme Court has decided over thirty prisoner's rights cases.

During the early 1960's as I preciously mentioned the Supreme Court did not have any involvement with prisoners' rights and this was mostly because of a legal stance that stated that prisoners were basically a slave to the state so they had no rights. Once a person is convicted they lose all their legal rights and were only entitled to rights extended to them. This time was the "Hands-off Period" as the name implies, gave to an abstention approach from the courts especially because of the convict as slave approach. Although the courts were not getting involved they did realize that prisoners did reserve constitutional rights but they believed it was not their place to deal with these problems and the Legislative and executive branches were better suited for dealing with the constitutional rights of inmates. They also believed that they lacked knowledge and expertise in this subject and would cause more harm than good by getting involved and protecting prisoner's rights. The biggest reason they did not get involved was that they knew if they began protecting prisoner's rights they would be flooded with law suits from the prisoners.

Around 1964 lower federal courts began to show a little more willingness to help prisoners with their constitutional rights. This period was known as the "Rights Period", this transition began because prisoners were becoming more aggressive and radical in trying to gain their rights, this intrigued many public interest lawyers as well who were willing to take on inmates cases. A major breakthrough was a civil statute known as Section 1983 suits which created a better environment for prisoner's rights cases. Another breakthrough during this period was The Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment, as Jack E. Call states "the Due process Clause prohibits a state from depriving persons of life, liberty or property without due process of law".

Finally during the "Deference Period" prison inmates were beginning to lose more cases as oppose to during the rights period. The case Bell v Wolfish set the tone for the deference period in which the court ruled against them stating that cells 75 square feet that were double bunked did not constitute as overcrowding. After this the court held several times those actions taken against inmates by correction officials did not affect the liberty interest of inmates and would not be protected by the Due Process Law. Also during this period inmates lost three 8th amendment issues. A few of the cases that took place during the deference period were Whitley v. Albers in which an inmate sued a prison guard for wounding him during a prison up rise in which he was not involved in, he felt it was cruel and unusual punishment but when brought in front of the court, the court held that the inmate must be able to prove that the official acted maliciously and with intent to hurt him. The inmate was unable to prove foul intent or allege such facts. Another case was Wilson v. Seiter where allegations were made about conditions of confinement and overcrowding, but it was concluded that conditions of confinement are not part of the rights awarded when convicted and the inmates must be able to show that the officials acted to harm by limiting confinement. During the deference period cases were often lost sand made it difficult for future cases to be won.

The Due process Clause as I mentioned before was a major breakthrough for prison inmates, many questions have risen regarding when a person is entitled to these rights and if they are what type of process is due. Inmates are entitled to due process rights when an