(American legal system only, not other countries):
If an inmate is accused of, let’s say, murdering another inmate while in prison, is he still entitled to trial by jury, legal counsel, and all the other legal protections afforded to people outside of the prison system? If not, how does that work out Constitutionally?
Yes, of course they are entitled to full legal rights and procedure. How could you imagine they wouldn’t?
I’m discussing the New York state system because that’s what I’m familiar with.
There are two different levels of charges a prisoner can face. A prisoner can be charged with violating a prison regulation and face an internal disciplinary hearing. One of the possible charges he can face is breaking a penal law. So a prisoner can be charged internally with committing murder because that’s a penal law.
Due process at an internal disciplinary hearing is a lot lower than due process in a criminal court. There are no juries and prisoners do not get a legal representative. They are allowed to call witnesses and testify on their own behalf. The person conducting the hearing will be somebody like me. The standard of guilt in a prison disciplinary hearing is much lower than in a court.
A prisoner cannot be given extra time beyond his current sentence. However he can lose some of his “good time” which might have gotten him released early.
That’s the internal system. In addition, a prisoner who committed a serious crime like murder would face regular criminal charges. For these charges, he would go through the regular legal system. He would be formally arrested by the police, the district attorney would indict him, and he would have a regular trial before a judge. He would have all of the same legal rights as anyone else.
This is not considered double jeopardy because the possible penalties are kept separate. And nothing that is said at a disciplinary hearing is admissible as evidence in a trial.
This will show my extreme ignorance, but I was under the impression that they get dealt with under an internal “prison justice system” where the administrators or superiors determine guilt and punishment.
Kind of like, “For breaking that window, your exercise privileges are suspended a week,” or “For punching your cellmate, you’re going to solitary confinement for five days.” Only now, it’s “For murdering that inmate, your 30-year sentence is now a life sentence.”
I see, thanks!
I’m puzzled by the OP for the same reason.
One further thing. There are some charges which the prison has to automatically report to the police. If we charge a prisoner internally with possession of drugs, possession of a weapon, assault, or any violation of penal law we have to notify the police. They will then pick up a copy of all our reports and forward them to the DA so he or she can decide whether or not to file criminal charges.
Off the top of my head, maybe not, for the same reason that convicted felons can be denied the constitutional right to vote. Given that, a state may at its pleasure deny all convicted felons of any right to pursue happiness, and it would be unsupportable to say that some constitutional provisions can be denied to convicted felons, but others may not be, unless such a distinction is spelled out in the Constitution itself.
Convicted felons have no more entitlement to the fourth or fifthor sixth amendments, than the second.
Little Nemo’s post accurately describes the way it works in Florida, too (except that we call good-behavior credits “gaintime” rather than “good time”.)
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
How does this work practically in terms of confinement and bail? If, say, #24601 in State Prison reportedly stabbed #32767, do the police come pick up #24601 from the prison and book him into County Jail and schedule him for a bail hearing, or do they just book him and send him right back to prison? If an incarcerated prisoner is granted bail for charges related to acts allegedly committed in prison and is able to pay it, do they actually go free for that period or does “bail” in that case mean that they get to go back to prison as opposed to spending more time in the local jail?
I’m not sure either.
Prisoners have constitutional rights. (Although “the pursuit of happiness” is not one of them - that’s in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. Nor is there any constitutional right to vote.) But prisoners have fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment rights - they’re just applied in a way that’s appropriate to the circumstances.
In most cases, we will continue to house the prisoner in the prison and bring him back and forth to the court as needed for his trial. Keep in mind that any crime that occurred in a prison will be tried in the local county court so there’s no great distance involved. But sometimes a prisoner will be moved to a county jail if it’s more convenient.
I suppose, in theory, a judge could grant a prisoner bail. But it would be a moot point. The prisoner is confined to prison based on a completely separate sentence and that would still be in effect. So if a judge “released” a prisoner on bail for the current charges, he would just go back to prison on the previously existing sentence. The only way a prisoner gets actually released is if he’s appealing his original sentence and the judge rules in his favor.
At least here in Kansas, yes, the police will take #24601 to county jail. He’ll be booked, and then there’ll be an arraignment hearing, probably appointment of public defender and so on, but it will be stated in the court record that 24601 is already an inmate in another case, so no bail is set and no chance to go free. Usually he’ll stay in the county jail while that new case works its way through the courts, although there is some room for county/state negotiation (such as if the county facility is at/over capacity, or #24601 has medical/psychiatric/security needs that the county can’t or isn’t prepared to meet).
Now if 24601 is close to getting out of prison on the original charge (sentence expiration, parole, whatever), he or his counsel may ask for bail, but it would only be paid and the prisoner released when the original sentence is no longer in effect.
This is completely wrong.
FYI, jtur88, I revived your pitting:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17850327#post17850327
Let’s say I am serving a 2 year term in prison. Nine months into my sentence I hit another inmate with a food tray, knocking out two of his teeth. This can start two distinct processes.
First, I can be punished by the institution. Say I was eligible for early release after 1 1/2 years. That can be taken away. They can put me in administrative segregation, tell me no TV for a month, no rec time for a week, or whatever reasonable for the circumstances prison rules that they want to tag me with. They cannot, however, add time to my sentence.
Second, I can be charged criminally for battery. Like any other citizen, I am entitled to full due process protections. At this trial, like any other, I can be punished. Maybe I get 1 more year added to my sentence.
As such, punishment in prison is not totally unlike punishment when you are a member of an organization. Say instead of prison, I am a member of the local Rotary Club and hit another member. I suffer the internal punishment of the Rotary Club and can also face criminal punishment.
But to address another point, prisoners certainly have constitutional rights, but those are restricted for purposes of the penal environment. No mouthing off of the guards because that hurts prison discipline. Prisoners are free to worship, however. Guns? No, for obvious reasons.
Fourth amendment rights are curtailed for prison discipline purposes, but it still must be reasonable; no slicing open a stomach to search for hidden items. But fifth and sixth amendment protections remain intact as curtailing them would be unrelated to legitimate penological purposes.
I’ll try again. State legislatures have had no problem denying felons their Second Amendment rights, nor their presumptive right to vote, so why would they be squeamish about denying felons their 4th, 5th or 6th Amendment rights?
Jtgain, by joining the Rotary club voluntarily, you agree to allow the club to discipline you in any manner consistent with the rules that you agreed to.
And do you have any cites: (a) showing a state has denied the rights in those Amendments to an inmate charged with a criminal offence? and, (b), if so, any cases where the courts have upheld the state’s decision to deny constitutional rights to an inmate charged with a criminal offence.
And finally, ©, the Constitution is not a Rotary club charter. :rolleyes:
I second this!!
Think of prison as being a Rotary Club that you are forced to join due to a criminal conviction, and one that you cannot resign from. But don’t fight the hypo. Prisons or any other organization have rules that one must adhere to in order to remain a member. These organizations have internal rules to make that group run efficiently. But those rules have limits.
The Rotary Club From Which Their Is No Resignation or Termination (TRCFWTISRT) can remove you from committee assignments or forbid you from speaking, but it cannot take your house. Likewise there are limits on prison discipline. To go beyond simple prison discipline, procedural and substantive due process applies.
I would also ask for a cite where the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments don’t apply to prisoners.
Give it up already. It’s clear that you have no idea what you are talking about. You are spreading misinformation and making this unnecessarily confusing.