Posted: March 21st, 2022

Part III: Correctional Officers and Rights of Inmates

Part III: Correctional Officers and Rights of Inmates
Abstract of the Occasions and Individuals Concerned
The primary situation exhibits one of two officers; Officer Torres, who have been approved to wake, and shortly collect up 4 inmates for a court docket go to to the Sally Port, threatening inmates for making an attempt to not comply along with his orders. These inmates had voiced their issues about not having breakfast, however in consequence of directions given by one other officer that inmates in that space have been appearing up, Officer Torres finds himself utterly ignoring their expression of their rights and finishing up the directions he was given.
Within the second situation, the identical officers are supposed to collect up inmates and escort them to their church service. The directions have been that anybody that wish to attend the service ought to stand by their door the place the officers would get them, however Officer Torres refuses to open the door for one inmate. This inmate voices their issues however is informed that he has been appearing up so he can’t be allowed to attend church; the inmate then asks to get a Bible to a minimum of learn the scripture. However Officer Torrez refuses and threatens the inmate with solitary confinement for ‘appearing up.’ Officer Torres is summoned to the Sergeant’s workplace and questioned as to why there are such a lot of complaints and that one of the inmates was denied entry to a church service.
Relevant Constitutional Amendments
The First Modification, as highlighted by Waltman (2013), protects a prisoner’s proper to apply their faith of selection, which is additional enacted by way of the Spiritual Land Use and Institutionalized Individuals Act (RLUIPA). This proper extends to include a prisoner’s proper to entry spiritual materials, attend spiritual service, interact in prayer, and observe one’s designated Sabbath day. Moreover, the Eighth Modification protects the prisoner’s proper from unwarranted merciless, or uncommon punishments (Reinert, 2015). In situations one, the inmates have been handled unfairly as people; denial of meals shouldn’t be used as a punitive measure particularly if the inmates have performed nothing unsuitable, whereas in situation two, the inmate was denied a proper to apply their faith regardless of their habits which was uncalled for and unconstitutional.
The Hudson Check
Each incidences portrayed that the officer carried with them a perceived risk; that inmates have been appearing up. Expression by the inmates relating to their rights or options to the problem have been made, in a bid to deescalate the problem. There was no want for the appliance of pressure, though the officer used threats and restriction within the second situation, which surmounts to some pressure contemplating it was pointless. There have been no accidents, however some of the inmate’s rights have been infringed. So it may be seen that the correctional officer acted maliciously, unreasonably, and unnecessarily.
Sergeant’s Response
The Sergeant must take disciplinary measures towards the officer for infringing inmate rights in addition to prepare all officers on the right methods to answer inmates’ issues and relating to inmates’ constitutional rights and freedoms. It will stop reiteration of the officer’s motion in addition to permit inmates to really feel like their issues are being addressed.

References
Reinert, A. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing the Eighth Modification: Slaves, Prisoners, and Merciless and Uncommon Punishment. NCL, Rev., 94, 817.
Waltman, J. (2013). The panorama of up to date jurisprudence relating to the free train of faith. Politics and Faith Journal, 7(2), 261-283.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Part III: Correctional Officers and Rights of Inmates