Arguments Against Strip Searches

Decision: The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit holding that strip searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment. They concluded that due to the likelihood of inmates smuggling illegal/prohibited items, it was reasonable that the facilities conducted thorough searches in order to maintain the safety and order of the institutions.

In 2005, Albert Florence was admitted to a New Jerseyś Burlington County Jail for a minor offense and was thoroughly searched. According to Florence, his 4th Amendment was violated, and the searches conducted against him were unreasonable. He was forced to disrobe, squat while naked, shower in front of security, and prove that there was no contraband stored in or under his genitals. After Florence 's release from jail, he sued the government and went to the federal trial court, which ruled in favor of the petitioner (Albert Florence). However, the Third Circuit reversed, deeming that searches done in jail were constitutional due to the fact that they were promoting and protecting safety. The law states that “Strip search, including a digital rectal search, of a prisoner who allegedly refused to cooperate and injured a guard in resisting was reasonable and justified by a legitimate interest in maintaining order and security.” After the Third Circuit 's reversal the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. After viewing the precedent cases, the Supreme Court ruled that searches were lawful and did not in any way revoke 4th Amendment rights.

In my opinion, why incarcerate felons if the states will possibly strip them of their rights anyway. I understand to lose of some rights (i.e., those influencing operation of government) while serving time, but why post-imprisonment? Essentially, this is telling the ex-cons “once a con, always a con.” This same discrimination is seen also in the employment of ex-cons where finding work after prison becomes difficult. Ultimately, some end up back in prison. I don’t believe that ex-cons are to be striped of their basic rights after serving time. How would a ex-felon be allowed full access to their “inalienable” rights if they could elect someone to represent them in

An unlawful strip search was conducted on Matthew Green by Toronto police on Nov. 3, 2016. It was agreed upon by watchdogs that Green, who was arrested for public intoxication, should not have been subject to a strip search for this offence. The Toronto Police and Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) said that it was a police misconduct of a less serious designation, hence no public disciplinary hearing, but Green insisted the strip search was ‘serious, unconstitutional behaviour’. Young, Green’s lawyer, argued that there was no purpose of complaining if the complainant did not know the punishment being served by Chambers, the officer who ordered the search. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that strip searches should not be implemented routinely, yet legal experts called it ‘an epidemic of unjustified strip searches’. Toronto police and OIPRD rejected making the case serious.

We are a democracy. In a democracy everyone has a say in the government. The voting rules are different for prisoners in each state. In some states prisoners voting rights have to be restored. In South Dakota felons must serve their full term of incarceration, parole, or probation before they are allowed to register to vote. In Washington, felons have to wait to be off parole to be able to vote. In some states, prisoners cannot get their voting rights back once they have left prison if they have committed a very serious crime. In Alabama, most felons have to apply to get their voting rights back, but if the felon committed a very serious crime like a murder, or treason they cannot get their rights back. In Delaware no matter what crime a felon may have committed they have to wait five years before they can vote, but if they committed murder, manslaughter, or abuse they have their voting rights permanently taken away. In Mississippi, when felons commit murder, theft, arson, bribery, carjacking and more they are banned from voting , but they can go to their state representative and convince him/her why they should be able to vote. Taking away prisoners voting rights even after they have been released is unfair. Two million people are in prison. That’s a lot of people who cannot have a say, plus all the felons that have been released

Mr. Florence was in the passenger seat of his BMW with his wife, when a state trooper then pulled them over for speeding. The officer then runs their names in the database and Mr. Florence appears to have a warrant for an unpaid fine. Mr. Florence was in multiple jails for a week and for each new jail he would be in they would stripe-search him each time. The court decided on a 5-4 ruling that supported the strip-search for people who get arrested. Justin Kennedy who was part of the majority feels that we should always be on the lookout because inmates find any way to smuggle contraband into the prisons. In addition, he also argues all thought they do have metal detectors and pat-downs inmates always find a way to smuggle contraband into prisons.

Sometimes I think of prisons in the same way as running a daycare. The prisoners cry, and they get a pacifier. I say that because, had the inmate not done whatever he or she did to land in prison they would not be there in the first place. Prison is a place or should be of reform and rehabilitation. “Reflecting individual inmates' institutional adjustment more than anything else, the systems typically assigned inmates to one of three grades based on their behavior and offered gradually increased or decreased privileges as they moved up or down the grade structure” (Roberts, J.W., 2000, pg.102). Prisoners male and female should have to earn every little luxury that a prison has to offer. According to what is shown on television, it appears prisoners lay around most their days watching tv and partaking in card games. That does not help with rebuilding self-awareness and good decision-making skills.  “Prisons

Although inmates may not have full Constitutional rights while incarcerated, they are entitled to basic human rights, freedom and dignity. U.S. penal systems have been reformed at the beginning of the 1960’s. The reason for this reformation is to prevent inhumane treatment, provide inmates with religious freedom, and due process (Smith, 2010). The U.S. Supreme Court

In two Supreme Court cases and one Court of Appeals case, the Fourth Amendment’s clause on searches and seizures has been questioned in a public school setting. These cases are based on the question of what constitutes a reasonable search in a public school, as well as, what is defined as a search and how far that search and seizure can go. These cases collectively examine the exclusionary rule, the change from probable cause to reasonable suspicion, what constitutes a search and how far that search can go. In a public school setting, students rights to be free from searches and seizures differ from others, as shown in TLO v. New Jersey, Vernonia v. Acton, and Doe v. Renfrow.

Also, inmates have the right of the First Amendment such as freedom of speech or press, the right of the people peaceably to assemble, establishing of religion and redress of grievances. Because of the preferred position of this amendment, it is surprising that some of the early prisoners’ rights cases concerned rights protected by it consist of access to reading materials, and freedom of religious practice, according to the book.

There are a number of constitutional amendment(s) that are typically the focus of a number of issues with corrections and correctional policies and practices. One of the amendment(s) that is the focus of this is the Eighth Amendment which means that no one can be the subject of cruel and unusual punishment. This means that everyone should be treated equally and should not be beaten or tortured by the guards, must always be given food and water, and treated humane at all times which means that no matter what their crime was they are still allowed some form of protections by the guards to include being sexual harassed or sexual assaulted. They also retain their First Amendment right because they still have their freedom of speech and religion. Therefore, they must be allowed to practice whatever religion they believe in no matter how someone else may feel about it and they must have some time in order to practice this religion. However, there may be a number of other issues that may be raised but I feel the most important ones would be the Eighth and First Amendment because they are the biggest two that a lot of prisoners deal with in prison.

Equalizing the constitutional rights of prisoners and the functions of the jail or prison can create great strain on not only the correctional facilities’ staff but on the inmates as well. The treatment of prisoners is typically left completely to the prudence of prison administrators and other correctional officials. With that being said, this paper will discuss the differences between harmonizing those constitutional rights of prisoners and the functions of the facility. It will also explain the rights that prisoners are required to have, and how these rights are balanced within other aspects of the correctional institution.

First and far most what is considered proper living conditions for a criminal. Yes, I believe they should have a sanitary establishment where they could sleep, eat, and shower, that is least we could provide for anyone. I do not think taking away privileges from any confinement facility will promote less repeat offenders. Instead of taking away we should be trying to help the individuals who can be rehabilitated, with programs that can teach them how stay on the right track, help them get a job, and provide for themselves. I know that everyone is not able to recover but if we gave those men and women who are willing to learn these tools then we would see less repeat offenders. Prison should not just be a place of confinement, it's where these

Prisoners should be granted privileges depending on the type of crime they committed. There’s different types of felonies that determine how long a prisoner is going to stay in prison. Violent crimes such as rape, armed robbery, and murder are most likely to get life sentences . Most prisoners have about the same amount of rights. There’s those prisoners who committed non-violent felonies/crimes but are serving life sentences. Prisoners who committed non-violent felonies; does not involve high levels of damage or serious injury, should have more rights than someone who killed people, betrayed the nation or raped people.

While lawful incarceration deprives prisoners of most of Americas Constitutional rights, they do maintain a few constitutional rights. Federal courts, while hesitant to impede with the internal administration of prisons, will interfere to rectify violations of the constitutional rights that prisoners are still entitled to. A prison guideline that oversteps on a prisoner’s constitutional rights is lawful only if it is reasonably related to the safety of the inmates or the rehabilitation of that prisoner.