Why Do Prisoners Need Frivolous Lawsuits?

This paper discusses three critical issues in the criminal justice system. It touches on the general issues of punishment philosophies, sentence decision making, and prison overcrowding and focused more specifically on the negative effects of each. Highlighted in this informational paper is the interrelated nature of the issues; each issue affects and is affected by the others. Data and information has been gathered from the FBI Uniform Crime Report, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Amnesty International, the NAACP Legal Defense

Ever since the first prison opened in the United States in 1790, incarceration has been the center of the nations criminal justice system. Over this 200 year period many creative alternatives to incarceration have been tried, and many at a much lower cost than imprisonment. It wasn’t until the late 1980’s when our criminal justice systems across the country began experiencing a problem with overcrowding of facilities. This problem forced lawmakers to develop new options for sentencing criminal offenders.

Mass incarceration is one of very many huge problems we have here in America. But when you really look into the core of the situation, whose fault is it really. Right away you think it is the criminals fault for getting arrested in the first place right? More people should be well behaved and not end up in prison? But what a lot of people fail to notice are the ones that actual do the actual sentencing. In Paul Butlers book, Lets Get Free he writes, “I became a prosecutor because I hate bullies. I stopped being a prosecutor because I hate bullies.”

The influx of inmates in the late 1970s through 1980s led to unsustainable prions condition that violated inmate’s rights granted by the Eight Amendment. As the budgets were being exhausted, transpired the issues of inmate’s poor medical treatment, abusive physical security, and unsuitable physical conditions (Newman and Scott 2013, 547). In the 1976 case of Estelle v. Gamble, the Supreme Court of the United States “established that an inmate's Eighth Amendment rights were violated if prison personnel demonstrated “deliberate indifference” to a prisoner's “serious illness or injury” (Newsman and Scott 2012, 548). The increased volume of filed lawsuits led to the passing of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which “ targeted frivolous lawsuits by limiting waivers for the requirement that inmates pay filing fees,

Over the past years, it have been obvious, that jailhouse lawyers have increased the number of lawsuits filed by prisoners. In the year of 1980, prisoners filed 12,395 petitions of civil rights claims and in the year of 2000, prisoners filed 24,463 petitions of civil rights claims, in the Federal Courts, by State prisoners.(Mays & Winfree Jr, 2005, pp.304). Jailhouse lawyers have helped inmates file these petitions against the Federal Courts, in the favor of other inmates challenging their conditions of confinement. The conditions of their confinement seems to be, prisoners way for wanting to receive a sentence reduction, sometimes, a release from prison. On the other hand, prisoners tend to use jailhouse lawyers to file petitions that

When we think about prisons, jails, and courthouses, our minds are meant to draw a connection to cold, hard, justice and fair punishments for guilty and deserving parties. Yet, in our judicial and prison systems around the world, this idea is nowhere close to reality. From inhumane punishments, to mass incarceration, and “trapping” people in the system based on race or financial status, justice is far from being served.

Muller, Christopher and Daniel Schrage. "Mass Imprisonment and Trust in the Law." Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science, vol. 651, no. 1, Jan. 2014, pp. 139-158. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/0002716213502928.

Almost every day, we hear about justice being served upon criminals and we, as a society, feel a sense of relief that another threat to the public has been sentenced to a term in prison, where they will no longer pose a risk to the world at large. However, there are very rare occasions where the integrity of the justice system gets skewed and people who should not have been convicted are made to serve heavy prison sentences. When word of this judicial misstep reaches the public, there is social outcry, and we begin to question the judicial system for committing such a serious faux pas.

Mass Incarceration is a growing dilemma in the United States that populates our prisons at an alarming rate. Michelle Alexander is a professor at Ohio State University and a graduate of Stanford law school. She states in her award winning book, The new Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness “In less than thirty years, the U.S. penal population exploded from around 300,000 to more than 2 million” (Alexander, 6). These young men and women are unable to afford a decent lawyer because they come from such a poverty-stricken background. Men and women are at a financial disadvantage in our justice system. Lawyers and attorneys cost a fortune and most people can just simply not afford them. Others plead to their charges because

The United States Supreme Court ruled that prison overcrowding in California was equivalent to cruel and unusual punishment. This decision recharged a long-standing disagreement among scholars and politicians as to whether or not courts should intervene to protect make changes. Some believe this is a matter or the well-being of those unable to make decisions for themselves. Others believe this is not a top priority and by forcing states to improve state institutions, the already costly industry will have cost increase. The journal also discusses the economic effects reform has had. Concluding that they have made positive changes at a slightly higher expense. The changes made by the state made the facilities closer to “humane” by court standards. (7)

Defendants, RICHARD DIAZ and CHARLES LOGAN, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, move for Summary Judgment on Defendant’s liability under a civil action using 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants, former correctional officers, engaged in nonconsensual sexual conduct with Plaintiff, an inmate, depriving her of her right under the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution to remain free from cruel and unusual punishment. In further support of this Summary Judgment requesting that Plaintiff’s request for relief be denied, the Defendants respectfully refer the Court to this Memorandum. As grounds therefore, Defendants state the following:

The preferred method by many inmates is to file under 42 United States code 1983 or 42 USC 1983. “Section 1983,” as inmates call it, states that if a government official, such as a correctional officer, denies an inmate protection under the constitution, the injured party (inmates) can sue for liability and monetary damages. Inmates have preferred to file Section 1983 suits in federal courts than to file torts in state courts, where the scope of relief is less broad. Also, the federal courts through the hands on era to now have shown more sympathy at time to inmates’ claims. A 1992 study by the National Center for State courts (NCSC) with assistance from the bureau of Justice Statistics studied Section 1983 cases disposed of in the United State.

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.

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

The mass tort problem that emerged in the 20th century can be attributed to various causes. Generally, it is considered that it happened as a result of a mixture of political, economic, intellectual and procedural developments. These advancements have delivered a domain in which prosecution over mass torts and requests for their thorough determination are for all intents and purposes unavoidable—absolutely, are matters that will challenge the lawful framework for a long time to come.