Posted: March 21st, 2022

Part III: Correctional Officers and Rights of Inmates

Part III: Correctional Officers and Rights of Inmates
Summary of the Events and Persons Involved
The first scenario shows one of two officers; Officer Torres, who were authorized to wake, and quickly gather up four inmates for a court visit to the Sally Port, threatening inmates for attempting not to comply with his orders. These inmates had voiced their concerns about not having breakfast, but as a result of instructions given by another officer that inmates in that area were acting up, Officer Torres finds himself completely ignoring their expression of their rights and carrying out the instructions he was given.
In the second scenario, the same officers are meant to gather up inmates and escort them to their church service. The instructions were that anyone that would like to attend the service should stand by their door where the officers would get them, but Officer Torres refuses to open the door for one inmate. This inmate voices their concerns but is told that he has been acting up so he cannot be allowed to attend church; the inmate then asks to get a Bible to at least read the scripture. But Officer Torrez refuses and threatens the inmate with solitary confinement for ‘acting up.’ Officer Torres is summoned to the Sergeant’s office and questioned as to why there are so many complaints and that one of the inmates was denied access to a church service.
Applicable Constitutional Amendments
The First Amendment, as highlighted by Waltman (2013), protects a prisoner’s right to practice their religion of choice, which is further enacted through the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). This right extends to incorporate a prisoner’s right to access religious material, attend religious service, engage in prayer, and observe one’s designated Sabbath day. Additionally, the Eighth Amendment protects the prisoner’s right from unwarranted cruel, or unusual punishments (Reinert, 2015). In scenarios one, the inmates were treated unfairly as humans; denial of food should not be used as a punitive measure especially if the inmates have done nothing wrong, while in scenario two, the inmate was denied a right to practice their religion regardless of their behavior which was uncalled for and unconstitutional.
The Hudson Test
Both incidences portrayed that the officer carried with them a perceived threat; that inmates were acting up. Expression by the inmates regarding their rights or alternatives to the issue were made, in a bid to deescalate the issue. There was no need for the application of force, although the officer used threats and restriction in the second scenario, which surmounts to some force considering it was unnecessary. There were no injuries, but some of the inmate’s rights were infringed. So it can be seen that the correctional officer acted maliciously, unreasonably, and unnecessarily.
Sergeant’s Response
The Sergeant needs to take disciplinary measures against the officer for infringing inmate rights as well as train all officers on the proper ways to respond to inmates’ concerns and regarding inmates’ constitutional rights and freedoms. This will prevent reiteration of the officer’s action as well as allow inmates to feel like their concerns are being addressed.

References
Reinert, A. A. (2015). Reconceptualizing the Eighth Amendment: Slaves, Prisoners, and Cruel and Unusual Punishment. NCL, Rev., 94, 817.
Waltman, J. (2013). The landscape of contemporary jurisprudence regarding the free exercise of religion. Politics and Religion Journal, 7(2), 261-283.

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Part III: Correctional Officers and Rights of Inmates