Right to Rehab. U.S. Supreme Court in Pell v. Procunierstated rehabilitation was one of three primary purposesof punishmentAmerican Correctional Association Prison serves to protect society from crimeWhen its emphasis is on rehabilitationMany states have statutes that encourage rehab. Cour
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
2. Right to Rehab
U.S. Supreme Court in Pell v. Procunier
stated rehabilitation was one of three primary purposes
American Correctional Association
Prison serves to protect society from crime
When its emphasis is on rehabilitation
Many states have statutes that encourage rehab
3. Court Decisions Courts have refused to hold there is an absolute right to rehabilitation
4. Right to Rehab Padgett v. State, 406 F.Supp. 287 (M.D.Pa. 1976)
Inmates sued claiming failure to provide meaningful rehab programs was cruel and unusual punishment
Court held no constitutional duty on govt to rehabilitate prisoners
Question as to whether state should try to rehabilitate inmates in view of issue of effectiveness of rehabilitation programs
Public policy issue best left to legislatures
5. Does Rehab Work?
1970s trend among researchers was that “nothing works”
If programs are ineffective, no reason to require states to attempt rehab
6. Does Rehab Work? Recent research indicates that treatment programs do reduce recidivism
Drug treatment courts (DTCs)
Offenders who complete DTC have statistically significantly lower recidivism rates
7. Rehab in Prison
Prison and the “inmate culture” not conducive to effective treatment
Inmates who sign up for rehab or educational programs just to build their parole file
Treatment works best in a “therapeutic community”
But research does support use of rehab programs in prison
8. Right to Rehab Lack of meaningful rehabilitation programs has been one factor that courts have cited in finding state prison systems unconstitutional
But only an element, not the sole element
9. Right to Rehab
Penal system cannot be operated in manner that impedes ability of inmates to attempt their own rehabilitation
Harris County, Texas jail ordered to provide educational and vocational programs
But inmates had no right to attend rehab programs outside institution
10. Rehab Without Consent Aversion therapy (Clockwork Orange treatment) held unconstitutional.
Inmates given nauseating injections for infraction of rules.
Attempt to produce Pavlovian aversion to bad behavior.
8th Circuit held this cruel and unusual punishment.
It was not treatment regardless of what they called it.
11. Rehab Without Consent Courts held institutions could require educational programs
Arkansas inmates sued to enjoin mandatory literacy programs
Court held state had sufficient interest in eliminating illiteracy among inmates, and could require participation
More than mere attendance can be required
States can require meaningful participation, and impose sanctions for failure
Completion of educational/vocational programs can be a factor for parole release.
12. Consent to Experiments
Is inmate’s consent voluntary or coerced?
Scientists need volunteers
Parole boards can reward volunteers for experiments
Is it truly voluntary?
13. Consent to Treatment Inmate has right to refuse drug treatment
14. Type of Treatment
Scope of rehabilitation is left to institution
Court held that it within administration discretion to reject inmates for x-ray technician training program
Absent arbitrary or capricious selection, court will not intervene
Court has held pre-trial detainees entitled to continue methadone treatment program they were in prior to arrest
15. Mental Health Cases
District Court D.C. held persons who had been involuntarily committed to mental institution after acquittal on basis of insanity had right to treatment
Minnesota D.C. has held that persons who were committed after involuntary civil commitment hearing were entitled to at least minimal treatment
NYDC held that persons who had been committed were entitled to treatment regardless of whether commitment was civil or criminal
16. Mental Health Cases O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975)
5th Circuit had held that mental patient who had been involuntarily committed to state hospital was entitled to rehabilitative treatment, or at least to adequate habilitation if treatment was impossible.
Non-dangerous person could not be held in custody if he could survive on his own or with help of family or friends.
Superintendent of hospital entitled to defense of qualified immunity to civil damages because there was state law that authorized continued confinement of person like P.
U.S. Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit and remanded for determination of liability in light of qualified immunity defense.
Supreme Court refused to decide whether mental patients have constitutional right to treatment as result of their detention by the state.
17. Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291 (1982)
18. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982)
19. Juveniles and Treatment District of Columbia Juvenile Court Act mandates treatment
Morales v. Turman, US District Court (E.D. Texas) held that incarcerated juvenile had to be placed in treatment program that had been designed to suit needs of juvenile.
These cases could indicate a trend that could eventually expand to adults and treatment.
20. Sex Offenders and Treatment
California enacted indeterminate sentence for sex offenders (1 day to life)
Calif. Supreme Court held that confinement for this sentence without treatment was cruel and unusual punishment
Indeterminate sentence implied that inmate could be released if he got better and no longer a danger
Only way to get better was through treatment
21. Sex Offenders and Treatment
New York modified its sex offender statute to eliminate a right to treatment
Ohlinger v. Watson, 9th Circuit ruled Oregon sex offender statute requires treatment for sex offenders
Research on effectiveness of treatment of sex offenders – mixed results
22. Right to Treatment If state confines a man for purpose of helping him;
Right to withhold freedom depends on whether help is provided
When legislature justifies confinement on promise of treatment, it commits state to provide resources to fulfill promise
23. Administrative Review Supreme Court held that administrative review (rather than court review) was most effective way to determine whether or not inmates should be required to take antipsychotic drugs
24. Administrative Review
Washington State Prison had special unit for felons with severe mental disorders
Some inmates refused to take medication prescribed
25. Administrative Review
State Prison administration established review board to conduct administrative hearing to determine whether inmates should be required to take drugs
Hearing conducted by review board
Associate warden of unit
26. Administrative Review
None of board members were involved in treatment of inmates
Hearing complied with Turner v. Safley
State had interest in safety and security which may exceed rights of inmate to refuse treatment
Inmate had right to be present at hearing
Right to present evidence
Right to counsel substitute
Any decision to medicate was subject to periodic review
27. Right to Medical Care Common complaint is inadequate medical care
Inmate cannot provide for own medical care
Inmates are restrained
Cannot select treatment provider
Cannot control treatment from open market
28. Right to Medical Care
Inmates have greater need for medical care than general public
Many inmates have mental problems
70% inmates have drug or alcohol problems
AIDS, hepatitis and TB
Overcrowding, poor nutrition, lack of exercise aggravate problems
Incarceration intensifies concern over physical symptoms due to boredom
29. Inmate Suits Over Medical Care Inadequate medical care
Denial of medical care
Improper medical care
30. Federal Jurisdiction Over Medical Care Issues Inmate must allege existence of a federally protected right.
Due process under 5th and 14th Amendments
Right to be free from abuse of discretion regarding life and health
Right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under 8th Amendment
Intentional denial of needed medical care
Official’s conduct indicates deliberate indifference to medical needs of inmate
31. Federal Tort Claims Act 42 USC §2674
Provides cause of action against US government for negligence, including medical negligence
Applies to medical treatment of federal prisoners
32. Americans With Disabilities Act 42 USC §12101
Prevents discrimination against persons with disabilities
Applies to persons in any federally funded “program or activity”
Can apply to federal prisoners
33. Right to Medical Care - Remedies
Constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment do not mean inmate will be cured of any real or imagined medical problems
Inmate only entitled to medical care through diagnosis and treatment as is reasonably available under the circumstances of his confinement and medical condition
34. Adequacy of Medical Care Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974)
Medical treatment at Mississippi State Penitentiary
One full-time physician and several inmate assistants
Court ruled services and conditions inadequate
35. Adequacy of Medical Care Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974)
State ordered to employ three full-time physicians, including one psychiatrist; two full-time dentists; two full-time physicians assistants; six full-time RNs or LPNs; one medical records librarian; two medical clerical personnel; consultant services of a radiologist and pharmacist.
Upgrade hospital and equipment
Comply with American Correctional Association standards regarding medical care for inmates
36. Adequacy of Medical Care Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974)
Not punish inmates for seeking medical care unless superintendent finds the inmate was malingering
Not use inmates to fill above positions, but may use inmates to supplement this staff
37. Adequacy of Medical Care
Lack of funds is not a defense
When institution reaches the level that care is “adequate” courts again back off to the old “hands off” position
38. Adequacy of Medical Care Individual treatment
Generally, court will find a constitutional violation only if the medical condition was serious and not attended to
The “deliberate indifference” standard
39. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)
40. Deliberate Indifference Elements
Objective element- must be “sufficiently serious”
Subjective element - Official must act with “sufficiently culpable state of mind”
41. Deliberate Indifference More than negligence, but less than intentional conduct
Knows of and disregards a substantial risk of serious harm
42. Deliberate Indifference What is “sufficiently serious”? (need not be life-threatening)
Even lay person would recognize condition needs doctors attention
Condition significantly affects persons daily activities
Possibility of life-long handicap or serious loss if untreated.
43. Pre-Trial Detainees Supreme Court has not ruled on what standard applies
Lower courts have held same standards of medical care of Estelle v. Gamble that apply to prison inmates apply to pretrial detainees
44. Initial Screening
Several cases have held adequate medical system requires medical screening of all inmates within reasonable time after entering the prison
Determine whether inmate has a condition that requires treatment
Whether inmate has any contagious disease
45. HIV Inmates
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
Disease where immune system fails
Viral agent is human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)
If virus is in person’s blood they are HIV positive
If virus develops into AIDS, it is fatal
46. HIV Inmates-Litigation
Tests became available in 1985, but not fully reliable
Delay between infection and when test will show positive
Suits to require testing for AIDS
Courts usually defer to judgment of prison
Suits to prohibit mandatory testing-grounds that it violates right to privacy
Courts usually defer to prison
Held that prison has reasonable basis for testing inmates
47. HIV Inmates-Litigation
Uninfected inmates have sued to force segregation of HIV positive inmates. Courts have refused to require prisons to segregate
Infected inmates have sued to prevent being segregated. Courts have refused to prevent segregation when prison deems it necessary.
48. HIV Inmates-Litigation Reasons given for upholding segregation are prevention of spread of disease; protection of infected inmates from hostile uninfected inmates and diagnostic and treatment ease.
49. HIV Inmates-Litigation
Some courts have found that unnecessary disclosure of HIV status violates right to privacy
Crucial factor is whether disclosure is necessary
disclosure to doctor will always be necessary
disclosure to another inmate usually not necessary
50. HIV Inmates-Litigation
AIDS inmates entitled to treatment just like any other disease
Failure to treat will be 8th Amendment violation
Inmate only entitled to minimally adequate treatment
Negligence is not enough for a valid claim-must be deliberate indifference
Education on spread of AIDS is essential element of AIDS treatment programs
51. HIV Inmates-Litigation
Access to Programs and Services
HIV inmates often segregated-this results in denial of certain prison programs
Early cases held this was not a violation
Recent cases look at whether or not the denial is reasonably related to medical factors
52. HIV Inmates HIV inmates who are seriously ill should seek:
Jail suicide is a serious problem
Intoxicated inmates make up large number of jail suicides
Duty to protect inmates who are at risk for suicide
No liability on part of city or county unless plaintiff can show a causal link between the suicide and the jail policy.
Two categories of liability for jail suicide claims
Jailer failed to discover the inmate’s suicidal tendencies
Jailer discovered suicidal tendency, but failed to take preventive measures
55. Rellergert v. Cape Girardeau County, 924 F.2d 794 (8th Cir. 1991)
Most cases of jail suicide will be negligence cases, not constitutional cases of “deliberate indifference.”
Cases that are deliberate indifference will be for failure to have adequate staff to monitor inmates; failure to train staff in screening for suicidal tendencies.
Also, liability will be found when suicidal tendency of inmate is discovered, and failure to take basic steps to prevent; such as observation of inmate and training of officers.
57. Right to Life Derived from 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment
Originally intended to prohibit torture and related punishment
Furman v. Georgia held that it applied to death penalty
Death penalty was applied in arbitrary and capricious manner
2 justices held death penalty was cruel and unusual per se
58. Right to Life Majority of states modified death penalty statutes to create standards
Gregg v. Georgia considered standards of five states death penalty laws
Georgia had bifurcated proceeding
Jury decided whether to impose death penalty
Considered aggravating and mitigating circumstances
Automatic review by appellate court
59. Right to Life
U.S. Supreme Court upheld three states DP laws, Georgia, Florida and Texas, and struck down two, North Carolina and Louisiana
Florida law had bifurcated proceeding where judges decide penalty based upon specific standards, following recommendation by jury
Texas had bifurcated proceeding whereby jury decided penalty based upon specific guidelines
North Carolina and Louisiana had mandatory DP for certain offenses. This was struck down.
60. Standards fo Death Penalty Supreme Court has not allowed DP where defendant did not kill victim
61. Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977)
62. Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343, Decided June 25, 2008
63. Death Penalty Standards
Enmund v. Florida, reversed DP for non-triggerman in felony murder case. But in that case the reason for reversal was because state did not allow evidence of lack of intent
Court will allow DP where killer did not have specific intent to kill if evidence shows reckless indifference to human life
64. Mitigating Circumstances Supreme Court has held that state may not prevent jury from considering mitigating factors in deciding penalty
State must allow all relevant evidence of mitigating factors
Sumner v. Nevada, 483 U.S. 66 (1987) – Nevada law required DP for prisoner who convicted of murder while serving life without parole for an earlier murder. Court ruled this unconstitutional. State must allow jury to consider mitigating circumstances.
65. Aggravating Circumstances State’s list of aggravating circumstances may be so vague as to allow too much discretion.
66. State Constitutional Law States may have higher standards than U.S. Const
Thirteen states have abolished capital punishment
67. Mental Condition of Defendant 8th Amendment prohibits DP for insane defendant. Ford v. Wainwright
In 2002 Atkins v. Virginia held DP for mentally retarded person was cruel and unusual punishment
68. Age of Defendant 16-17 year old person may get DP, Penry v. Lynaugh
DP reversed for 15 year old defendant, Thompson v. Oklahoma
69. Methods of Execution Hanging has been upheld
Hanging was method of capital punishment at time of ratification of Constitution and the 8th Amendment
Just because hanging does not always cause instantaneous death not render it cruel and unusual
Method must only not cause unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.
70. Methods of Execution Lethal Injection
71. Methods of Execution Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. ___ (2008)
72. Civil Disabilities Loss of civil rights
Historically felons lost all civil right –“civil death”
This no longer the law
73. Voting rights Supreme Court held California law which disenfranchised felons not violate equal protection clause.
Some states allow felons to vote after completion of sentence
All states allow voting after pardon
74. Firearms Gun Control Act prohibits felon from possessing firearm that has been shipped in interstate commerce.
Includes firearm that was ever shipped interstate even if felon purchased the firearm within his state
Persons convicted of misdemeanor or felony domestic violence also prohibited from possessing firearm
75. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Supreme Court held that ADA does apply to state prisons-
Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998)