CRJ303: Corrections (BLL1407A)
Instructor: Karyn Goldmeier
March 17, 2014
Nationally, increases in serious crime, changes in political ideology, the "war" on drugs, the determinate sentencing movement, and related factors combined to result in greater attention to incarceration and expansion of prison capacity nationwide from the early 1980s through the middle 2000s, slowing appreciably from then to the present” (Lovell, 2013) Their have been a lot of changes over the years when it comes the laws from years ago to now what might have been just a fine years ago is now a prison sentence. But mainly the laws and how people are when just going to Wal-Mart even. Years ago you could go to Wal-Mart and when your child acted up you could give them a whipping right then and their but now when your child acts up and you even raise your voice someone is right there looking at you and ready to call the law or children services its almost like you have to let your kids be brats because you cant discipline them anymore.
The existence of constitutional rights for any individual is dependent upon mechanisms to uphold these rights and protect them from violation or denial. Consequently, access to the courts is a pivotal right upon which the vindication of prisoners' other constitutional protections depends. It is important to understand that, with the exception of the U.S. Constitution, federal and state statutes do not guarantee any significant rights for convicted prisoners. Most of the rights now guaranteed to prisoners, including the civil rights extended to all other U.S. citizens, are the result of judicial rulings rather than legislative or administrative action.
During the last three decades, the Unites States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have recognized and confirmed these rights and ended the existing "hands-off" policy previously applied by courts to inmates. Although federal courts had long received habeas corpus petitions, until the 1960s the "hands-off" policy prevented the judiciary from considering other claims from prisoners. The courts lent great discretion to prison administrators regarding the internal management of prisons, which led to extensive abuse(Lehmann, 1994) Visitation restrictions do not violate the Constitution unless they have no reasonable relationship to a legitimate penological goal (a goal related to prison management and/or criminal rehabilitation). NDOC views visitation as a privilege for inmates that can be suspended. If visitation privileges are suspended, inmates and visitors are to be given notice and the reason for suspension. Restrictions on time, place, and manner of visit Courts generally uphold restrictions on the time, place, and manner of visiting. NDOC provides that the warden/designee of each facility will regulate the number of visitors, visiting hours, and termination of visits based on security, space, and institutional emergency considerations. Courts have upheld rules restricting visitors. NDOC requires that visitors obtain prior approval before showing up at the facility. Anyone who arrives without prior approval will not be allowed to visit unless the warden/designee grants an exception. In certain circumstances, with certain categories of visitors, prior written approval from the warden/designee or director may be needed. All inmates have a right to legal visits, but the Sixth Amendment does not require full and unfettered contact between an inmate and his or her attorney in all circumstances.3 NDOC permits attorneys to visit in reasonable numbers during normal visiting hours, consistent with the security needs of the institution. Exceptions must be approved by the warden/designee. New laws after September 11th have limited the privilege of confidential communications with an attorney. If the Attorney General believes there is “reasonable suspicion” that a person in custody “may” use communications with attorneys or their agents