Haywood versus Drown Essay

A) The topic concerning this case is negligence law. The issue is whether Simon would be successful perusing a negligence claim.

Hendrickson. In this case Mr. Kingsley was a pretrial detainee at the Monroe County Jail in 2010 when he was asked by an officer to remove a piece of paper concealing the overhead light in his cell and he refused to do so. After being asked by a sergeant Hendrickson a few more time and each time refusing, a lieutenant had his men remove it and more Mr. Kingsley to another cell. On the way to the new cell he didn’t act in the way the guards wanted him to so the yanked him to his feet and hit them on the frame of the bed so bad that he was unable to walk. Once in the cell Mr. Kingsley refused the officers attempt to have the cuffs taking off so Hendrickson“his knee in Kingsley's back and Kingsley yelled at him. Kingsley also claimed that Hendrickson smashed his head into the concrete bunk. After further verbal exchange, another officer applied a taser to Kingsley's back” (“ Kingsley v. Hendrickson”). Mr Kingsley sued Hendrickson and the other jail members involved saying what they did violated his due process rights given to him by the 14th Amendment. He lost the first time but he appealed saying that the jury was given bad instruction on how to judge if the force was excessive or not and what the intent was the U. S. Court of Appeals agreed with him. Mr. Kingsley narrowly won his case with a 5-4 vote in his favor. The Supreme Court said: “The Court held that,

Also, in some cases, records were falsified to justify the actions of the corrections officers. Another example was the misuse of the prisons’ integration policy. Within an isolated location known as the security housing unit, this policy was supposedly established to bring unity among rival inmates in effort that they could ultimately transfer to the prisons’ general population. As of a result of these unethical actions the civil rights of the inmates were violated. (Dryburgh, 2009, pp.164-165).

Plaintiff claims false arrest and excessive force. Plaintiff claims he was trying to enter his apartment building when was stopped by Det. Selwyn Fonrose and ordered to get on the floor. Plaintiff states Det. Fonrose forcibly put him on the ground and hit with a police radio. Plaintiff states he was arrested and taken to the precinct, then the hospital where he received staples to his head.

In 2010 a MTC prison in Kingman, Arizona had three inmates escape. The three inmates were all in prison for murder charges. They each qualified to be housed at the MTC facility based on their good behavior while in prison. They were considered low to medium risk inmates in spite of their convictions being murder. As a result of their escape they claimed more victims through carjacking and murders. This year at the same MTC facility a riot broke out which displaced over 3,000 inmates due to unlivable conditions; conditions that were the result of inmates destroying their own dorms in a defiant protest against prison administration. The riot was a result of trying to place a new inmate in the yard of over 3,000 inmates, many of whom voiced their objections for the inmate to be housed there. State ran Arizona Department of Corrections has a policy in place which prohibits an inmate from being housed at a specific facility against his will. Private prisons that are contracted with Arizona do not have to follow this policy. The riot which is still not considered to be over was brought to a manageable level by MTC requesting trained tactical support units from Arizona Department of Corrections. In addition, to tactical support units the Mohave County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to help secure the outer perimeter and prevent escapes. Six officers were assaulted. One of the six officer assaulted committed suicide weeks later. Now Arizona Department of Corrections must house over 3,000 inmates that had to be removed from MTA into Arizona’s existing state ran prisons. The result of a mismanaged MTC prison has caused Arizona to pay counties to house inmates until more beds can be added to state ran yards that are already overcrowded and dangerous. In the end taxpayers see their taxes pay for these dangerous situations instead of being used for

The Court has issued a Show Cause giving the Department 21 days to respond to complaints raised in correspondence from James E. Houck, # 421-024. He raises several complaints; however, the Court’s Order directs that the Department presently only address Mr. Houck’s claim that “he is in danger from known enemies and an inmate was placed in his cell by a correctional guard to kill him.” The Court has directed that the response include declarations and verified records. See p. 4 of Order.

Mr. Hubbard’s first misbehavior report given on 2/13/15 for 106.10 Direct Order, 107.11 Harassment, 101.10 Sex Offense, 101.22 Stalking and 180.11 Facility Correspondence by O.R.C. Allen resulted in a hearing set for 2/24/15. According to the record C.O. Wentzel brought the paperwork for Mr. Hubbard to choose an employee assistant on 2/14 and 2/26. C.O. Wentzel reported on these forms that Mr. Hubbard refused to sign them both. Then on the day of the hearing (2/24/15) C.O. Sewsey testified he went to get Mr. Hubbard for his hearing and that Mr. Hubbard refused to attend or sign the paper waiving his right to attend. At this hearing the officer gave Mr. Hubbard 270 days of S.H.U. and a loss of 9 months good time.

Inmates held in the United State’s prison system face critical exposure to numerous violations of their basic human rights. Abuses of power present themselves in a myriad of ways, including; the unregulated approach in which prison facilities enforce solitary confinement, the misuse of “compassionate release” policies and the judicial system’s wrongful imprisonment of individuals suffering from mental illness and, or mental disability. In most cases, prisoners will experience at least one, if not all, of these disparaging interactions during incarceration. Without federal regulations demanding system accountability, the unjust applications of physical violence, non-lethal weaponry and and needless use of excessive force will continue to take place.

Correctional facilities are not a safe environment for people to reside in. However, prisons are home too many. That being said, one of the jobs of a correctional officer, or CO, is to keep the inmates, as well as fellow workers safe (Gaines & Miller, 2015, p. 258). The CO’s are the men and women on the front line who deal with the inmates’ face to face (Gaines & Miller, 2015, p. 259). As a result, the CO’s possess a great deal of power over the inmates, and this can sometimes lead to abuse. However, there are measures that were put into place to prevent the inmates from being physically harmed by the CO’s. To better elaborate, CO’s can only use force against inmates under specific disciplinary acts (Gaines & Miller, 2015, p. 260). According to the textbook, there are 5 reasons why a CO is

▪ Discuss the facts of the case study. What facts are in dispute? What facts are agreed?

Correctional officers or prison guards: these classifications are used to identify those in authority in institutions throughout the world. Correctional institutions in the United States are formulated on fairness and productivity, and the administrators within the institutions are held at the highest responsibility to see fit the safety and wellness of inmates during their time of rehabilitation. However, with the vast exposure of insubordination overtime, prison guards are being targeted as the true criminals. In certain cases, correctional officers are abusing their authority and neglecting inmate’s constitutional rights. This misconduct has tainted the integrity of correctional officers throughout much of the United States. Evidently, I will further demonstrate the unlawful misconduct among those in positions as correctional officers, the reason for their misconduct, and their effects on inmates.

Prisoners rights, some people believe when you go to jail or prison all your rights are terminated but there not. Even though you may have to give up many rights and privileges that you have in everyday society, does not mean all your constitutional rights are terminated. Jails and prisons must balance the constitutional rights of prisoners and the functions of the jail or prison. In this paper I will explain the mandatory rights that prison administrators must provide prisoners and discuss how those rights are balanced with the security, safety, court requirements, visits, and other functions of the facility, and provide an example of where a corrections officer must balance the rights of the inmates with his own daily functions.

The case was carried on the trail court which gave decision in favour of Ms. Palsgraf, then the case was appealed at intermediate New York which has also given decision in the favour of Ms. Palsgraf; then it was taken the court of appeals, highest court in New York which provided the reverse decision and dismissed. This was a classical example in the tort law.

In addition to the jail facility that is in question, the boards is responsible for sixteen court detention facilities, three hospital wards and four borough jails, that will eventually feed prisoners into the Rikers Island Facility City of New York,” n.d.) This amounts to rough twelve thousand prisoners being in the control and custody of the NYCBOC with a minor number of incidents being reported each