What are the two main issues in the Turner v Safley case?
The court held that a regulation preventing inmates from marrying without permission violated their constitutional right to marry because it was not logically related to a legitimate penological concern, but a prohibition on inmate-to-inmate correspondence was justified by prison security needs.
What happened in Turner v Safley?
In Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the Supreme Court determined that restrictions on inmates’ constitutional rights, including those of the First Amendment, were subject to a rational basis standard of review.
Who won Turner v Safley?
In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Byron White, Justice Louis Powell and Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court upheld the Missouri Department of Correction’s restriction on correspondence between inmates.
What ended the Hands Off Doctrine?
The hands-off doctrine formally ended with two decisions from the Supreme Court in the early 1970s. In the first decision, the court held that “[T]here is no Iron Curtain between the Constitution and the prisons of this country” [Wolf v. McDonnell, 418, U.S. 539, 555-56 (1974)].
Do prisoners have a right to marry?
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Turner…
S. 78 (1987) ruled that prisoners have a right, under the U.S. Constitution, to marry.
What is the issue in the case Procunier v Martinez?
In Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974), the Supreme Court established a protective standard of inmate First Amendment rights of free speech — a standard that the Court would reduce in later years to accommodate prison officials.
What was the holding in Ex Parte Hull?
In Ex Parte Hull (1941) 312 U.S. 546, the court invalidated a prison regulation that permitted prison officials to intercept petitions for habeas corpus they deemed not to be in proper form and return them to the prisoner instead of forwarding them to the courts.
Why do prisoners lose their rights?
Inmates generally lose their right to privacy in prison. While inmates do retain their Due Process rights and are free from the intentional deprivation of their property by prison officials, this does not include any form of contraband.
What is Pell v procunier?
In Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974), the Supreme Court upheld California prison restrictions on face-to-face interviews with inmates. Inmates and journalists had challenged the restrictions as a violation of the First Amendment right of freedom of the press.
What was the purpose of the Turner test?
Turner Test. The case also resulted in a widely used test to determine if prison regulations that burden fundamental rights are constitutional. The Turner test attempted to balance the punitive and rehabilitative goals of corrections officials with the constitutional rights of prisoners by asking if such regulations were “reasonably related”…
What was the outcome of Turner v Safley?
The Turner test is a deferential standard for prisoner speech cases Ten years later, in Turner v. Safley (1987), the Court upheld broad restrictions on inmate-to-inmate correspondence — and, in the process, reaffirmed its commitment to a deferential standard in prisoner speech cases.
Why are federal courts concerned about prisoner privacy?
Federal courts have expressed “heightened concern” for protecting the privacy and the unimpeded flow of all correspondence between a prisoner and his attorney.
Why was a prison regulation entitled to deference?
The regulation is entitled to deference on the basis of the significant impact of prison correspondence on the liberty and safety of other prisoners and prison personnel, in light of officials’ testimony that such correspondence facilitates the development of informal organizations that threaten safety and security at penal institutions.