1. Read and respond to the interactive syllabus.

2. Read my lecture, read pages 1 through 35 of the text.

3. Answer the questions in the quiz (40 points).

4. Write your introduction paragraph and post it to the discussion group.

5. Answer the discussion question on the bottom of this page (17 points).

Welcome to Legal Aspects of Corrections. This class should give you a legal foundation of the field of corrections.

I want to make some observations regarding those of you that have limited educational goals. I have students who take one or two of my courses on corrections, get a job in one of the systems and drop out of completing their formal education. This is a choice that a person can make. Being a career prison worker, I think this decision to drop out is a mistake. After five years in the system, most employees want to have the opportunity to promote to the position of sergeant, counselor, or higher. Completing all of the courses: ADJU 14 Introduction to Corrections, ADJU 16 Control and Supervision in Corrections, ADJU 17 Correctional Interview and Counseling, ADJU 18 Probation and Parole, this course and obtaining an Administration of Justice Degree, Associates of Arts Degree can put a person in a position to do just about anything that they want in the corrections systems A person is very competitive with this academic background for further advancement. I have worked for Wardens and Chief Deputy Wardens whose sole education was an Associate of Arts Degree. I encourage you to stick it out and go further than just taking a couple of classes to obtain an entry position. The life time rewards will be much greater. Society’s belief is that you are not educated unless you are formally educated. I encourage you to get formally educated.

The first thing I want you to do is to read and fill in the interactive syllabus. Please submit it immediately if you haven’t done so.

Assignment One

Read pages 1-35 of the text book.

Now that the syllabus is out of the way, I shall make some observations regarding the legal decisions as applied to Corrections work. Why is it important for a prospective employee in corrections, law enforcement to study this very dry legal material? Because daily, you will be making decisions that must be guided by the legal decisions revealed in this textbook and the many rules that your agency will provide for you. You will need a depth of understanding of these rules that you can apply in a decision making environment.  From your first day on duty, you will be making these types of decisions. Within two months of being employed as a Correctional Officer at San Quentin in 1973, I was required to shoot with a rifle two knife fighting inmates. Fortunately, I had read the rules they had given me, listened very closely to the orientations that I received. That information combined with my college instruction gave me the confidence to make the correct decisions.

I was in Federal Court in Fresno, California in June 2001 because of an inmate civil suit where the suing inmate had his throat cut by another inmate. I was not in charge of the section of the prison where he was confined at the time of the act and I did not make the decisions that he was suing about. The case was thrown out of court after three days of hearings. It could just as easily gone the other way if it had not been for a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring the inmate to completely go through the administrative appeal process before suing in federal court. This case decided by the Court is Timothy Booth v C.O. Churner et al., decided May 29, 2001 (Page 98 of the textbook).

The first week in August 2001, I received another law suit (this is over a year since I retired). Because these suits involve civil rights allegations, there is no statute of limitation time requirements for filing the law suits. An April 23, 2000 Los Angeles Times news article reveals that in the year 2000, 29 years after the September 9, 1971 Attica prison riot, the Attica inmates received $12 million as a settlement for their law suit. We are being represented by State's Attorney General’s Office. The form letter that I receive with this law suit has "scary" language in it. "The Department of Corrections is reserving its rights to deny you further defense in the event facts establish that your conduct in this case was outside the scope of your employment, or was fraudulent, corrupt, or malicious". A number of Correctional Officers along with many other staff members are named in the suit. This is an example of a law suit that you could be involved in as part of your employment in corrections law enforcement. It also helps reinforce my teaching point that your knowledge of laws, interpretation of laws and regulations is a key part of this vocation.

This text is a good text and simplifies the information so as to make the material easily understandable. In preparing to teach this class, I consulted with my old supervisor back at Bakersfield College. She is an attorney and is more critical of the text. I will pass her criticisms on now because they have academic merit for the teaching of this course. My previous supervisor describes the text as extremely limited in its presentation and rule oriented, regulation oriented, like a training manual. The cases in the text do not include the procedural history, what rulings take place in the lower courts. The cases are very brief. They do not include dissenting opinions or a view of how the case was put together. There is nothing on the procedural history of the case. The case crawled up a lot of chairs and a lot of courts.

Taking this criticism into account, and understanding the writing requirement must be part of this class, two writing projects are assigned. For a total of two cases, you are required to write a brief paper following the same format as the text comparing the actual supreme court case on the web sight www.findlaw.com. www.findlaw.com. with the case description in the text book. Once on the website, activate the right hand corner where it asks if you are a legal professional, activate visit our professional site. Then, in the left hand corner activate "cases and codes" screen. The new screen in the middle of the page is the heading: Popular Federal Resources. Under this heading is U.S. Supreme Court. Activate this button for U.S. Supreme Court. A new screen will pop up that will have a search engine. Activate the tab on top of the search engine that says "party name search", Then type in the first case first name: Turner. The assigned case will be located third from the bottom of the page. Activate the case and the full U.S. Supreme Court Case findings will appear allowing you to complete the assignment of comparing it with the information in the text book. You are to point out some salient issues that were not described in the text. This web site discloses the full United States Supreme Court case. You will not include information from the text. You will compare the text case with the actual supreme courts’ case as disclosed on the web site and point out some salient issues that were not described in the text. The format to be used as listed in the text is: Capsule of the case; facts; issue; decision; reason; case significance. The cases will be sent to me over the internet at my web address and be due at the same time as the lesson quiz. If I do not see evidence of information for the case from the website findlaw, I will give you no credit for this assignment "0". For another description on how to find these cases on the web, go to page Vi of the text book. Both cases are due the same week as the midterm test. You will fail this course if these cases are not submitted.

The assigned cases are as follows:

Turner v. Safley, page nine of the text, due: week as the Midterm

McKune v. Lile, page 139 of text, due: week of the Midterm

My lectures for each lesson are based on my personal experiences and quotes from the California Code of Regulations which is at the website http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Regulations/Adult_Operations/docs/Title15-2008.pdf.  

When I started to work in the California prison system in the early 1970s, we only had a few rules contained in a small booklet that we were issued. Before retiring in June 2000, the rules had grown where they were in a very large booklet informally called the "Director’s Rules," otherwise known as the California Code of Regulations. The smart departmental employee keeps a copy of these rules, posts the updates and occasionally reviews its contents. I also yellow high lighted sections that I routinely used to handle reoccurring requests and demands. Management at the institution is ready to support the technically correct employee. The only way to achieve this level of technical proficiency is to know the rules and to use them in our daily decision making. Many of these rules are taken directly from court decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts who have jurisdiction of the Department you are working in. These rules are mandatory and not following them can result in disciplinary action for the employee, employees.

In the California Department of Corrections there is another set of Manuals that are used called Departments Operations Manual, nick named the "DOM". This set of manuals is so large that they are kept in central locations, allegedly in locations where an employee can have access to them. If all else fails, the In Service Training Staff at each institution has a complete set which is available for employees' use.

The text on page 5 describes the new philosophy on prisoners' rights. Under this philosophy, "prisoners retain all the rights of free citizens except those on which restriction is necessary to assure their orderly confinement or to provide reasonable protection for the rights and physical safety of all members of the prison community." The text describes further the government interests that justify curtailing inmates’ rights. This is another reason why we have so many written rules. We are in a situation where we must justify in writing all rules that curtail an inmate’s privileges. Regardless, we will be attacked and challenged with inmate appeals regarding how we interpret these written rules. One of my positions before retiring was Associate Warden Operations at the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi. In this particular assignment, I supervised the staff that coordinated and responded to the inmate appeals that went past the first stage of the appeals process. Four full time staff worked in this section who responded to 273 appeals monthly, 3,276 appeals annually. Only three percent of these appeals were granted to the inmate. The importance of keeping good records, knowing and following the rules can not be stressed enough. I know that many of you are in shock. There is a common misperception by the public that inmates in prison do not have "rights".

A key point in the text is on page 7 where it describes how prison law, is mostly case law, meaning law created by court decisions, and not by the legislature. Please do not interpret this to mean that this law can be ignored. Judges are ready to hold individual managers in the system guilty of contempt for ignoring this case law. Also, the system can be fined as took place in Texas when the Texas government officials refused to submit to the courts’ orders. At the individual employee level, we can be processed for disciplinary action and if the violation of the rule (these court decisions have been made into written rules to be followed) is a serious one (compromising the security of the institution or the community at large) will result in termination of employment. Fortunately, to compensate for all these rigors of employment, the employees are paid money by the agency that they are employed by.

Another key word is used on page 7: bureaucratization of prisons. This is described as one of the effects of litigation and judicial intervention. Many other prison management books that I have read refer to this word "bureaucratization" and refer to this as the predominate style of managing prisons that has been adopted by Wardens throughout the United States. "Do it because the rules say to do it, not because I am telling you to do it". Labor organizations have also pushed for this type of management. "If it is not in our post orders, position job descriptions, we cannot be held accountable to do it". I personally see this as a fine method of management and is better than some of the less noble styles of leadership that I have experienced in the distant past while working is some of California States Prisons. Also, working in this type of environment in a jail, prison, as a parole agent, or as a probation officer, it helps for a person’s job survival if they are aware of the rules and follow them.

The first case is Turner v. Safley and touches on some sensitive issues in prison. Custody staff are very much against inmates in separate prisons from corresponding with each other. There is great concern that plans will be made for future criminal activity, such as smuggling drugs into prison. The other area that prison staff are not enthusiastic about is inmate marriages. Marriages in the institution are a major custodial night mare. Also, most institutions are not staffed for a "marriage coordinator". This means that staff are taken away from their regular duties to handle the extensive administrative requirements involved. Another down side to inmate marriages is that prison Chaplains do not want to perform the marriages of inmates. Many Chaplains over the years have told me that the chances of an in prison marriage lasting are very slim. The Chaplains are also concerned about the religious merits of such marriages and see them more as a justice of the peace activities. Marriages disrupt the institutional routine.

Obviously, the taxpayers will not fund the prison so as to give inmates every activity that they could participate in outside the prison. The taxpayers through their elected representatives in the legislature routinely complain regarding the amount of money that is being spent on inmates that is funding many court mandated requirements. Because of this, prison employees are routinely in a position where they must respond to most of the inmate requests by saying or writing no. The Turner v. Safley decision gives employees the ability to say "no" and back it up with basing the denial on a reasonable penalogical interest.

On page 17, is the case of Wilson v. Seiter. This case includes inmate complaints of overcrowding, excessive noise, insufficient locker storage space, inadequate heating and cooling, improper ventilation, unclean and inadequate rest rooms, unsanitary dining facilities and food preparation, and housing with mentally and physically ill inmates. When I worked at San Quentin in the early 1970s, any one of these objections could have been made of this very old set of buildings, equipment and the very violent inmates that were housed there. We used to say that San Quentin, by collecting the terrible inmates from the other institutions in the California Department of Corrections, allowed these other institutions to function in a safe manner. We knew our Warden would be happy to upgrade the plant if he had the money. The legislature did not allocate the money, and as a result the place was unsanitary and medieval in character. So, the Warden and we did not have a culpable state of mind and we did not have an intent for the inmates to suffer because we were there with them and also suffering. Of course, as an individual staff member, it is never very smart to go around and say to the inmates "you have this coming, you deserve it", because this does show a culpable state of mind. See streaming video: www.howstuffworks.com, Breaking Points: Prison System Problems.

From 1987 to 1989, most of the higher risk inmates were transferred from San Quentin to Corcoran, Pelican Bay, Tehachapi, and other high security California State Prisons. Because San Quentin is of an obsolete design, it is one of the most expensive facilities to operate in the state’s 33-prison system. Efforts are continuous to close the prison down. The prison system has nowhere to put the 6,000 inmates that reside there (LA Times, March 19, 2001).

The Helling v. McKinney case is one in which is similar to one I had pending against me that went on for a number of years. On page 20 of the case it describes how this case gives prison officials authority to control or even completely prohibit smoking in prisons, justifying a no-smoking policy on the ground of possible lawsuit emanating from inmates who do not smoke. California, a few years ago went to a no smoking policy inside housing units. Smoking was still allowed in outside areas in inmate general population units. It also went to a no tobacco policy in reception centers. Reception centers are where the inmates were received for processing from the counties to be sent to other institutions to be incarcerated in. We knew that in the Reception Center that I worked in at Tehachapi, the black market for tobacco involved a substantial amount of currency. It appears that this Supreme Court decision had a lot to do with this policy.

The case Rhodes v. Chapman declared double celling of inmates in prison is not, in and of itself, cruel and unusual punishment. I worked at Soledad in 1978 when we went to double celling and the inmates did minor demonstrations to show their discontent. It was a tense period of time there regarding inmate unrest. The cells are small (not as good as motel 6). To understand how small a cell is, extend your arms twice and this is how long the cell is. If you stand in the cell and extend your arms out to your sides, that is how wide the cell is. Body odors, toilet use, personal habits become major issues in such close confines. Many times the staff in these units become social directors resolving interpersonal difficulties among such closely confined inmates. It would be very expensive for the tax payers if we were not allowed to double cell the inmates. The number of cells do not exist to house in single-occupancy cells all the inmates in the California Department of Corrections (CDC). To cope with the housing crisis most institutions have the inmates housed in day rooms and gymnasiums.

In Johnson v. Avery it was determined that prison authorities cannot prohibit prisoners from helping other prisoners prepare legal writs unless they provide reasonable alternatives whereby inmates can have access to the courts. As Associate Warden Operations at the California Correctional Institution (CCI) in Tehachapi, one of my responsibilities was to supervise all the inmate libraries and the inmate law libraries. The courts were requiring us to show videos to the inmate clerks working in the law library to train them. The Courts take this very seriously. In (http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Regulations/Adult_Operations/docs/Title15-2008.pdf) Title 15, Crime and Prevention and Corrections, Division 3 Department of Corrections, Chapter 1, Rules and Regulations of the Director of Corrections, Article 6. Legal Documents, Section 3163. Assisting Other Inmates, it is written that "One inmate may assist another in the preparation of legal documents, but shall not receive any form of compensation from the inmate assisted." The inmates are receiving some compensation for this service. They can not reveal this information to us or we would have to report this violation of the rules and the inmate would be subject to corrective action.

Discussion Question:

Do you think that the inmates in jails and prisons are entitled to these rights as convicted criminals?  Would you cause inmates to have less rights in prison if you had the authority? Do you think the courts have exceeded their authority by creating court made law? Why? After viewing the video stream on prison problems do you think prison overcrowding is an issue? Why?

Don't forget to take the quiz for this lesson by clicking the quiz button below.