Because of Section 1983. That’s the federal law that lets prisoners sue state prison systems if they violate the United States Constitution.
I never said they didn’t apply, I said a constitutional argument could be made to that effect. (Note my word “maybe” in post #7.) Explain to me why some fundamental rights, but not others, can be denied to prisoners and even convicted felons who have served their time and are free. How would the Constitution be interpreted to permit the lifetime revocation of a convicted felon’s Second Amendment rights, but not Fourth or Fifth?
It’s pretty easy to make the argument that prisoners owning firearms would be an unacceptable risk to the good order of the prison. But it’s a lot harder to make the argument that giving prisoners due process poses the same threat to good order.
Right, this is like many things in life. The more serious the disciplinary measures being sought, the more procedural and substantive protections the accused has.
For example, many jurisdictions stack the deck against you if you want to fight a parking or speeding ticket. No right to a jury trial, sometimes the prosecution is not required to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. But if you get charged with DUI (which is significantly more serious), you have the right to a full criminal trial in open court before a jury of your peers.
Yes, you used the word “maybe” in post #7. You also posted a lot of gibberish in post #7 that indicates very clearly that you don’t know the first thing about Constitutional law. Why do you think anybody is interested in what you “think” may be a Constitutional argument when you don’t even know what you are talking about?
The really short answer is that no Constitutional right is absolute. The government has the power to curtail or infringe a Constitutional right under certain circumstances.
The next short answer is that we don’t treat each Constitutional right exactly the same. We have to go look at the specific right to determine when the government has the power to infringe. Usually we apply a standard of review (such as rational basis or strict scrutiny) and look at what the government’s asserted interest is. Obviously, the government’s asserted interest will be different depending on the Constitutional right in play, so our analysis will be different depending on the right involved.
What about jurisdictions? Let’s say an inmate of the (Federal) Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn assaults a fellow inmate and breaks his nose. Will this inmate be prosecuted by Federal authorities or will he stand trial in a New York court?
We know that convicted felons cannot own firearms and in some states, vote. Does it logically follow that since the 2nd amendment is infringed, that the 5th is also infringed? Could a convicted felon be executed (deprived of life) by lethal injection without trial on a subsequent accusation?
If you (as I hope) say “hell no” then you are starting to understand the different tiers of scrutiny and realize that an analysis is done based upon the government interest involved and the individual liberty being infringed.
Please re-read my post. Why do you suppose that prisoners must be given time to pray as they choose and be given religious-specific meals? Because they have first amendment rights and still retain them when they can be accommodated while still maintaining good order in the prison.
In GQ, you should either cite to where that argument has been tried with some success, or not post about it.
As a general rule, all crimes committed on federal property are federal crimes. The federal government may decline to prosecute, of course, and the state may exercise concurrent jurisdiction. Mostly federal inmates will be tried in federal court for crimes committed while in federal custody, though. See here for an example.