The Legal Mechanisms for Inmate Litigation in the US - Assignment Example

Inmates Rights and Special Circumstances Legal Mechanisms Inmate can use to Challenge his or her Confinement The legal mechanisms for inmate litigation are contained in the U.S. constitution, especially in the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Eight Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment as well in statutes of the Federal government and the states. The two most prevalent legal channels that inmates have exploited to challenge their confinement in Federal facilities includes the use of habeas corpus petitions, and the use of actions under section 1983 of the Federal Civil Rights Act, 1871. In the case Preiser v. Rodriguez (1973), in which Rodriguez a state prisoner filed a petition under section 1983 together with a writ of habeas corpus before a District Court to have his good-conduct time credits restored, arguing he was deprived them and convicted without the due process. The court ruled that the defendant was entitled to be released immediately on parole. The decision was later affirmed by the Appeals Court’s and the Supreme Court’s holding that, “When a state prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his physical imprisonment and, by way of relief, seeks a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus” Preiser v. Rodriguez (1973). For this reason, Whitehead, Kimberly and Edwards (2012) argue that since the Court of Supreme decided the case, many inmates have used habeas corpus to challenge the legitimacy and duration of their confinement while at the same time preferring their cases to be heard in Federal courts as provided under section 1983, lieu of the court system because section 1983 does not require state remedies to be exhausted before moving to the Federal courts. Habeas Corpus Law Therefore, suitable and most sufficient legal mechanism to seek redress for confinement is the law of habeas corpus. However, Wolf (2011) argues that even though this mechanism is considered to be one of the most critical safeguard against government abuse and illegal detention, in America, the mechanism is being used inappropriately making it a costly affair that has resulted to a waste of taxpayers’ dollars. She goes ahead to say to for habeas corpus to achieve its intended purpose, the congress should limit state prisoner’s access to habeas corpus to only those sentenced to death and those who have strong new evidence to prove their innocence (Wolf, 2011). Thus, from this sentiments it is evident petitions of habeas corpus are lengthy and time (can take up to 10 years) consuming endeavors that are only suitable for inmates sentenced to a long time in prison. In my opinion I believe because of the long procedures involved in filing suits, starting from lower state courts to the Supreme Court, a lot of dollars are spent in hearing the petitions and thus, a waste of resources and money. In addition, the appointment and compensation of counsel providing expert, investigative and her services in cases of capital nature as stipulated in 21 U.S.C. § 848(q) and emended by the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and recodified, 18 U.S.C. § 3599, requires under section 18 U.S.C. § 3005 to appoint two counsels or more as provided under section 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a) (1) when it its necessary (“Ch 6: Federal Death Penalty”, n.d.). These counsels are compensated on an hourly basis as determined by a presiding judicial officer in relation to section 21 U.S.C. § 848(q) (10) (A), which was recodified as 18 U.S.C. § 3599(g) (1) (“Ch 6: Federal Death Penalty”, n.d.). Therefore, given that attorneys appointed in capial cases are compensated on an hourly basis and given the lengthy time Federal capital habeas petitions take, it is undeniable that the process is costly to the Federal government. Management Issues in Prisons arising from Special need Inmates Special need inmates can be defined as those prisoners who demonstrate unique, mental, physical programmatic and social needs, which are different from those of other inmates whom the prison management and staff responds to in the traditional way (Stojkovic, 2005). Therefore, speed need inmates require a nontraditional and innovative approach from the management and staff of prisons. For this reason, a couple of management issues arise in regard to special need inmates and these includes the following. The use of mainstream housing vs. remodeling or construction of special need housing facilities (National Institute of Corrections, & United States of America, 2004). Recommendation-use a new dimensional thinking by considering special architectures such as showers, and grab bars in cells. Development of special architectures can help solve problems such as of those physically handicapped. Policies and procedures requirement for staff training. Recommendation-use medical trained staff to identify special need issues. This will save time and costs at the same time (National Institute of Corrections, & United States of America, 2004). Cost implications. Recommendation-outsource medical staff services from other medical facilities to contain medical costs. Outsourcing will enable management avoid incurring costs associated with staff training. Type of data collection mechanism for evaluation and management of the special need inmate program (National Institute of Corrections, & United States of America, 2004). Recommendation-develop prison facilities according to the standards of special facility’s needs. This can help management collect data easily by comparing them to the set standards. Use of Supermax Housing and the Eight Amendment The United States Department of Justice’s National Institute of Corrections defines a supermax prison as a “highly restrictive, high-custody housing unit within a secure facility, or an entire secure facility, that isolates inmates from the general prison population and from each other due to grievous crimes, repetitive assaultive or violent institutional behavior, the threat of escape or actual escape from high-custody facility(s), or inciting or threatening to incite disturbances in a correctional institution” (Pettigrew, 2002, p. 2). However, he goes ahead to argue that the definition fails to recognize the alarming trend in which supermax prisons that should house worst criminals are being used to hold prisoners who have not perpetrated heinous or grievous crimes because of congestion in other facilities (p. 2). However, this does not justify the solitary confinement of prisoners in supermax away from other fellow human beings and the outside world. Cohen (2012) argues that the Eight Amendment to the U.S. constitution prohibits the state from inflicting unusual and cruel punishment, on its citizens including those who have convicted of crimes to prisons. For this reason, solitary confinement of inmates in supermax prisons contracts the provisions of the Eight Amendment even though legal experts argue that the constitution does not succinctly define unusual and cruel punishment. Solitary confinement causes psychological effects resulting from incarceration or segregation (Cohen, 2012). Thus, it is undeniable that supermax prison facilities solitary confinement contradicts the provisions of the Eight Amendment. References Ch 6: Federal Death Penalty and Capital Habeas Corpus Representations. Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/AppointmentOfCounsel/CJAGuidelinesForms/vol7PartA/vol7PartAChapter6.aspx Cohen, A. (2012). Supermax: The Constitution and Mentally Ill Prisoners. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/supermax-the-constitution-and-mentally-ill-prisoners/258587/ National Institute of Corrections, & United States of America. (2004). Correctional Health Care: Addressing the Needs of Elderly, Chronically Ill, and Terminally Ill Inmates. Pettigrew, C.A. (2004). Comment: Technology and the Eighth Amendment: The Problem of Supermax Prisons. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 4(1). Preiser v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 475 (1973) Stojkovic, S. (2005). Managing special populations in jails and prisons (Vol. 1). Civic Research Institute, Inc. Whitehead, J. T., Dodson, K. D., & Edwards, B. D. (2012). Corrections: Exploring crime, punishment, and justice in America. Routledge. Wolf, A. (2011). An expensive abuse of justice? Why current habeas corpus must be reformed. Retrieved from http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2011/05/habeas-corpus-abuse-of-justice/ Read More