REMOVE plagiarism from LAW Paper ASAP

Anonymous
timer Asked: May 8th, 2018
account_balance_wallet $10

Question description

In a big hurry...need the parts that are highlited as plagiarized removed ASAP....Please make sure it's oringial...MY PROFESSOR WILL CHECK!

eee by Muntaisha Ross Submission date: 08-May-2018 10:28AM (UT C-0700) Submission ID: 960893699 File name: IP3_Prison_Law.docx (26.2K) Word count: 1371 Character count: 7211 eee ORIGINALITY REPORT 21 % SIMILARIT Y INDEX 17% 0% 21% INT ERNET SOURCES PUBLICAT IONS ST UDENT PAPERS PRIMARY SOURCES 1 8% Submitted to American Intercontinental University Online St udent Paper 2 Submitted to Colorado Technical University Online 8% St udent Paper 3 4 5 4% supreme.justia.com Int ernet Source 1% www.law.cornell.edu Int ernet Source 1% www.legco.gov.hk Int ernet Source Exclude quotes On Exclude bibliography On Exclude matches Of f
Running Head: MANAGEMENT OF PRISONS 1 Management of Prisons Name Institution Date MANAGEMENT OF PRISONS Impact of US Supreme Court decisions on the Management of Prisons Prison Management is the procedural and structured running of prison systems that allows inmates to express their views on a wide range of issues or relevance for their collective lives in prison. Disciplinary process is an approach used by prison management to gap or regulate undesirable behaviors and performances using corrective action process. This majorly helps to regulate disciplinary cases in prison systems and help in upholding prisoner relations According to the hearings of Wolff v. McDonnell (1976) and Sandin v. Conner (1995), there are some addressed issues that are clearly depicted, this issues include; According to Wolff v. McDonnell (1976), a prisoner filled a complaint for damages and injunctive relief in which he alleged that the proceedings violated the due process and that the inmate legal assistance program did not meet the constitutional standards. The inmate also alleged that the regulations governing the inmate’s mail were unconstitutionally restrictive; the district court dismissed the prisoner’s being the respondent claim regarding the procedural due process but the courts couldn’t ignore all evidence brought to stage and they issued partial relief on the respondent and held that the inmates policy of inspecting all attorneyprisoner mail was improper, the court also posed that the restrictions on inmates legal assistance were not constitutionally faulty. The prisoner in question being the respondent appealed his case to the courts of appeals which they ruled on his favor on the claim with respect to the due process claim, holding that the procedural proceedings and requirements outlined in the intervening decisions basing their arguments on Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471. The courts of appeal even though they helped in hearing the respondents’ case, they left the specific requirements including in this case the MANAGEMENT OF PRISONS circumstances or the situations which the counsel might be required to be determined by the district court on remand. The court of appeal also held the restoration of good time credits referencing to 1983 suit but commanded complete removal from inmates records misbehavior determinations that were arrived at that had not complied with the due process. Generally the courts of appeal helped in provision of prisoner legal assistance and they gave them some rights to protect them. The courts of appeal showed that by overruling the district court judgment and upholding the prisoner’s claim. According to Sandin v. Conner (1995, a respondent alleged in a suit that the petitioner and Hawaii prison official deprived him procedural due process when an adjustment committee refused him to present a witness during a disciplinary hearing and ending up throwing him in jail because of segregation to misconduct. After the prisoner appealed his case to the courts of appeal overruled the district courts by granting the prisoner privilege that the prisoner had liberty interest in remaining free of disciplinary segregation and that there was a disputed concern whether the prisoner had received all of the process due in regards to Wolff v. McDonnell (1976),. The courts instructed the committee to find guilt when a misconduct charge is supported by substantial evidence on prison regulation rules. This instruction posted a disclaimer of whether the committee may not impose segregation if it might not find substantial evidence in regards to misconduct. Also under Wolff, states in certain circumstances create liberty interests that are protected by the due process; this clause is still being used up to date in modern courts in solving civil and mostly criminal cases. MANAGEMENT OF PRISONS These courts provided a line of duty or operation line for the officers or prison wardens and also the justice firms involved in prisoner cases. They showed that any civil servant offending the rights of a prisoner can be held responsible and the consequences of the same are severe that it affects the life of the victim directly. Some of the consequences are as below; 1. Job loss – This is applicable to all the civil servants breaking the law, this measure was enacted this people are trained to keep and treat prisoners in a particular rightful manner and so there is no reason to not be punished if you break the law which you are enforcing on others. This is depicted well on the courts of appeal overruling the case in Hawaii in s of law the district courts. That time the judges were not fired but it led to creation of such law punishing law enforcement agents conducting unlawful acts. The U.S constitution protects the law enforces being stripped off their jobs as a result of appeals which are made by people who are considered dangerous to the society or other inmates. Some prisoners may take advantage of such laws and collaborate to get rid of lawful civil servants who put them in jail in the first place. 2. Scheduled segregation – This describes the separation of inmates from the general population, this act is effected on high or adult prison jails mostly where all sorts of criminals are held. Scheduled segregation was enacted to help in putting dangerous law offenders in separation or solitary cells. This segregation was enacted as a result of Hawaii case of a prisoner being denied his rights to present a witness in the courts of law. This measure is allowed to be effected on prisoners who are considered dangerous to the prison guards or other inmates, but also the law or the U.S constitution protected inmates MANAGEMENT OF PRISONS who are unlawfully exposed to the act wrongfully or as an act of punishment. Such measure is not a punishment at all. 3. Loss of commissary privileges – This is a prisoner deprivation of privileges in the prison system, such privileges may include, loss of telephone calls for a certain duration of time, loss of recreation and sun bathing, loss of TV privileges and many more depending on the correctional facilities and laws governing these systems. This are necessary measures that are helpful in keeping prison in order or making it easy for prison wardens and prison officials in smooth running of prison systems. This is because the inmates are afraid of such measures being effected on them, no one would love to be punished twice as being in prison itself is a punishment on its own. Again the law protects the inmates interests and rights by defending the unrightfully implementation of the same punishment when one does not deserve it. The U.S constitution protects the prisoners who presents their cases well in courts of law and they even allow the inmates or complainants to appeal their cases to a higher courts if they feel their cases were not properly heard. But at the same time this courts do not take it easy on law offenders who deserve such sanctions on them, the constitution supports the implementation of this kind of punishment to those who lawfully deserve loss of commissary privileges. Basing on the two cases above, the courts are amending laws to the best interest of both the defendant and the complainant. The modern courts of law still practice these laws and judges come to decision of complicated cases basing their arguments on relating cases of past times. MANAGEMENT OF PRISONS References Al-Rousan, T., Rubenstein, L., Sieleni, B., Deol, H., & Wallace, R. B. (2017). Inside the nation’s largest mental health institution: a prevalence study in a state prison system. BMC public health, 17(1), 342. Narag, R. E., & Jones, C. R. (2017). Understanding prison management in the Philippines: A case for shared governance. The Prison Journal, 97(1), 3-26. Carter, J. (2017). Mass Incarceration, Co-Governance, and Prison Reform in Honduras: Inmate councils have been crucial to the day-to-day administration of a prison system functioning at its financial limits. But President Juan Orlando Hernández has other reforms in mind. NACLA Report on the Americas, 49(3), 354-359. Goffman, E. (2017). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. Routledge. Fleisher, M. (2017). Prison Gangs, Street Gangs: A Critique of Theories of Prison Violence and Prison Research Methodologies: Very Rough Draft. Shrestha, G., Yadav, D. K., Sapkota, N., Baral, D., Yadav, B. K., Chakravartty, A., & Pokharel, P. K. (2017). Depression among inmates in a regional prison of eastern Nepal: a cross-sectional study. BMC psychiatry, 17(1), 348.

Tutor Answer

Mrevees20
School: Rice University

Attached.

Running Head: MANAGEMENT OF PRISONS
1

Management of Prisons
Name
Institution
Date
Results of United States Supreme Court ruling on of Prisons management
Prison Management is the procedural and structured running of prison systems that allows
inmates to express their views on a wide range of issues of relevance for their collective lives in
prison. A disciplinary process is an approach used by prison management to gap or regulate
undesirable behaviors and performances using corrective action process. This majorly helps to
regulate disciplinary cases in prison systems and help in upholding prisoner relations
According to the hearings of Sandin (1995) and Wolff (1976), there are some addressed issues
that are clearly depicted, these issues include;

MANAGEMENT OF PRISONS
According to Wolff v. McDonnell (1976), a prisoner filled a case for injunctive relief and
damages in which he argued that the proceedings violated the awaiting process and thus the
constitutional standards were not met by the inmate legal assistance program.
The inmate also alleged that the governing regulations for the inmate’s mail were restrictive in
an unconstitutional manner; the prisoner was dismissed by the district court as the respondent
claim regarding the procedural due process but the courts couldn’t ignore all evidence brought to
stage and they issued partial relief on the respondent and held that the policy for inmates
inspecting all emails for the attorney-prisoner was not proper, the court also posted that the
restrictions on inmates legal assistance were not faulty according to the constitution.
The prisoner in question being the respondent appealed his case to the courts of appeals which
they ruled on his favor on ...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
Excellent job

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors