Prisoner law

A theoretical form of prison surveillance is called the Panopticon. The Panopticon is a building composed of a middle tower for the surveillance of the surrounding cells. Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon makes it possible that “each individual in his place is securely confined to a cell from which he is seen from the front by the supervisor; but the side walls prevent him from coming into contact with his companions”.^[5] In America the first prison was established during the 1790s in Philadelphia which was named after the name Walnut street.^[3]

The hands-off doctrine was the decision of the federal courts to stay out of the regulating the administration of how prisons and rules for prisoners are decided. In essence this meant that if an inmates’ rights were said to be violated the court would not get in between.^[6] This stems from the idea that these corrections institutions knew more about how to make decisions over prisons and prisoners than the courts did.^[6] Also, judges believed that if a prisoner became incarcerated then they shall expect to lose their rights. Due to the complexity of the issues that have arisen among prisoners and their rights, the hands-off doctrine in the courts has diminished.^[6] This led to a greater awareness of the rights of prisoners as well as increased court involvement within the violation of rights. In fact, the detachment from using the "hands off" approach began during the 1960s and courts started to look into specific violations regarding prisoners.^[7] Some of the related cases begin with Procunier v. Martinez, which was the first case where the Supreme court began to interfere between the prisoner and prison administration relationship.^[7] This case revolved around controlling and censoring the correspondence of prisoners. A final decision over this issue was not made until the occurrence of the Turner v. Safley case. It concluded that the ability to send mail to and from other prisoners was not allowed in order to keep prisons safe and controlled.^[7] Moreover, it was decided that marriage between prisoners was to be allowed.^[7] In Coffin v. Reichard, the idea that prisoners have and should maintain their constitutional rights as human beings was acknowledged. However, becoming incarcerated does in fact take away from many of those constitutional rights. This led to a complexity of cases that decided what protections would be available to prisoners through incarceration.^[6]

Both the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion are protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. For prisoners there have been an abundance of case laws that have emerged which protect these rights and the various violations they have faced within prison.

As part of the constitution, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects prisoners' privacy by forbidding “unreasonable searches and seizures” of individuals' property.^[1] There are a variety of cases that fought to protect this privacy right, yet there are many cases that attempted to take it away. For example, the case Lanza v. New York ruled that prisons and inmates would not be protected under the fourth amendment.^[12] Further, in Bell v Wolfish which had to do with searches and seizures it was decided that prisoners shall not expect to have any privacy in prison.^[12] Both of these cases ruled against the protection of prisoners themselves being search or their property from being confiscated. However, in Wolff v McDonnell the courts established that prisoners should still be entitled to some rights even if they have committed a crime.^[12] In addition, the 1975 Bonner v. Coughlin case also protects that these privacy rights remain available to individuals in prison, to an extent.^[13] Searches and seizures of inmates and their property in prison occur without any prior announcement. The function of this is to search for any unauthorized property that inmates may be hiding and are needed in order to prevent or get rid of unauthorized property.^[12][14] In the case Parrat v Taylor an inmate's property was destroyed by a member of the prison staff which was not ruled as a violation by the courts. Essentially, this decision supported the conclusion that prisons must prioritize their own security and well-being over the privacy rights of inmates.^[12] Moreover, in the 1984 Hudson v. Palmer case, the Supreme Court decided that the privacy rights of inmates against searches were not protected.The case stated that this was important in order to maintain control and security within the prisons.^[15] Additionally, the case Timm v. Gunter decided that searches and seizures were not in violation of an inmates rights if it was for the sake of the prison and its security.^[14] Similarly, the case Levoy v. Millsقضت المحكمة بأنه مهما بلغ حجم انتهاك الخصوصية، يجب تبريره بشكل مشروع لصالح مصلحة السجن حتى يُؤخذ في الاعتبار لصالح السجن. ^{[ 14 ]}

يُعدّ التعديل الثامن لدستور الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية حمايةً للأفراد من "العقوبة القاسية وغير المألوفة". ^{[ 14 ]} وعندما يخضع السجناء للمراقبة والتفتيش، قد يُنتهك هذا التعديل. ومن القضايا التي تناولت هذا الموضوع بالتفصيل قضيتا جاكسون ضد ويرنر وجوردان ضد غاردنر . في قضية جاكسون ضد ويرنر ، قررت المحاكم أنه لا يوجد انتهاك للعقوبة في التفتيش والمراقبة، لأنهما يُفترض أن يكونا لصالح المؤسسة السجنية. وذكرت أنه ينبغي على النزلاء التعود على ذلك لوجودهم داخل حدود مؤسسة وُجدت لمعاقبتهم. ^{[ 14 ]} أما في قضية جوردان ضد غاردنر ، فقد استندت المحاكم في قرارها إلى فكرة أن النزلاء ربما يكونون قد تعرضوا سابقًا للاعتداء أو التحرش الجنسي. وكان القرار يهدف إلى منع المزيد من الصدمات النفسية للنزلاء، وقضت بأن عمليات التفتيش والمراقبة قد تُسبب "ألمًا". ^{[ 14 ]} إضافةً إلى ذلك، في قضية إستيل ضد غامبل ، حدثت حالةٌ لم يُمنح فيها سجينٌ حقه في الرعاية الصحية ، ما أدى إلى تدهور حالته الصحية. وقد أدى ذلك إلى استنتاجٍ مفاده أن قراراتٍ كهذه قد تُفضي إلى تدهور أوضاع السجناء، وتُخالف التعديل الثامن للدستور، لأن هذا الحرمان قد يُؤدي إلى عقوبةٍ قاسيةٍ وغير مألوفة. ^{[ 16 ]}

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals' privacy and one instance is being "observed by strangers naked or stripped of [their] clothes"^[4] Due to the way that prisons function these privacy rights may not be protected by the fourteenth amendment. Female guards employed within male prisons have the right to walk around areas in which men may be naked or using the restrooms. Along with being able to monitor these areas they are also allowed to search the men if needed.^[4] This also occurs with female prisons within where men are employed. According to a report from the Human Rights Watch, male corrections officers have abused their right to search prisoners. This includes the harassment and sexual abuse of female prisoners.^[4] Consequently, officers have threatened female inmates to engage in sexual activity with them.^[15] In court, prisoners may be subjected to prove that they have been wrongly harassed and that their privacy has been breached in order to be protected.^[15]

تتوفر لمعظم النزلاء وسائل للتواصل مع الأفراد خارج السجن، تشمل إرسال واستقبال البريد، والمكالمات الهاتفية، وحقوق الزيارة. ^{[ 17 ]} تُعدّ كتابة الرسائل وسيلة شائعة للحفاظ على تواصل النزلاء مع العالم الخارجي، فهي تُمكّن النزلاء وأفراد أسرهم من التواصل عبر البريد. ويقرأ موظفو السجن والحراس جميع الرسائل الواردة والصادرة. ^{[ 17 ]} وبالمثل، تتوفر المكالمات الهاتفية لمعظم النزلاء باستثناء المحبوسين في الحبس الانفرادي . ^{[ 17 ]} وتبلغ مدة المكالمات المسموح بها حوالي خمس عشرة دقيقة. وتُراقَب المكالمات الهاتفية وتُسجَّل، كما توجد كلمات مُحدَّدة قد تؤدي إلى قطع الاتصال من قِبَل الحراس، مثل الألفاظ النابية. ^{[ 17 ]} وللنزلاء خيار استقبال زيارات من أفراد أسرهم وأصدقائهم، وتتراوح مدة هذه الزيارات بين ثلاث وست ساعات، ويراقبها حراس السجن باستمرار. إلى جانب مراقبة الحراس، توجد كاميرات مراقبة كثيرة في غرف الزيارة لرصد هذه التفاعلات. جميع التفاعلات الجسدية محدودة للغاية. ^{[ 17 ]} بالإضافة إلى مراقبة لقاءاتهم، يخضع أفراد العائلة للتفتيش عند دخولهم المنشأة للزيارة. ^{[ 18 ]} قد تكون هذه الزيارات "مهينة ومذلة" للزائر. ^{[ 18 ]}

In prison the physical environments that prisoners are exposed to are becoming more overcrowded through time.^[19] However, aside from dealing with overcrowded spaces they face a privacy concern regarding corrections officers. Corrections officers risk losing their jobs or not attaining a job at all within prisons of the opposite sex in order to maintain the privacy of inmates.^[4] When privacy of inmates is protected by disallowing guards to wander private areas those areas become more dangerous to the inmates. On the other hand, if those areas are monitored than inmates may lose their sense of privacy.^[15] In order to secure the privacy of inmates, oftentimes individuals of the opposite sex are denied employment in prisons. This occurred in the case Dothard v. Rawlison where a female was discriminated against when applying to a male prison in the state of Alabama. The supreme court focused on arguing that females are sexually susceptible in a male environment.^[15] This was justified by the idea that if a female was to work in a male prison that prisoners would become more violent.^[20] In Bowling v. Enimoto male inmate rights were challenged by deciding that these inmates have the right not to be monitored while either showering, changing or using the restroom.^[15] Similarly, in Forts v. Ward females' inmate rights were challenged.The case ruled that there was a need to block surveillance of areas such as showers and toilets.^[15]

قضت قضية إستيل ضد غامبل بأن للسجناء الحق في تلقي الرعاية الصحية داخل السجن. ^{[ 19 ]} كما أقرت أن للسجينات الحق في إجراء عملية إجهاض إذا رغبن في ذلك. ^{[ 21 ]} ينطبق قانون نقل التأمين الصحي والمساءلة (HIPAA) على الرعاية الصحية في السجون، حيث يحمي هذا القانون جميع المعلومات المتعلقة بصحة السجين. ^{[ 19 ]} ومع ذلك، وبموجب استثناء الاستخدام والإفصاح المسموح به في قانون HIPAA ، يجوز للسجون مشاركة معلومات السجناء مع مؤسسات أخرى عند الحاجة ودون موافقتها. ^{[ 19 ]} هناك طرق عديدة لانتهاك خصوصية صحة السجناء، وتشكل هذه الانتهاكات عوائق أمام حصولهم على الرعاية الصحية. ^{[ 22 ]} أولًا، يمكن إجراء العديد من فحوصات الدم على السجناء في أي وقت ولأي سبب، وهذا لا يحميه التعديل الرابع للدستور الأمريكي. ^{[ 15 ]} يؤدي انعدام الثقة إلى شعور السجناء بعدم الارتياح عند الإفصاح عن مشاكلهم الصحية للحراس. ^{[ ٢٢ ]} كما أدى الاكتظاظ في السجون إلى انتشار المشكلات الصحية والأمراض. وقد كشفت اللجنة الوطنية للرعاية الصحية في السجون أن انتقال الأمراض والمشكلات الصحية الأخرى مرتفع في السجون، وقد ينتشر أكثر بعد إطلاق سراح السجين. ^{[ ٢٢ ]} وتتم مراقبة الأمراض المعدية باستمرار، ويتم إبلاغ مسؤولي الصحة العامة بها فورًا. ^{[ ١٩ ]}

بعض الأمثلة على هذه المشكلات الصحية والأمراض هي: ^{[ 19 ]}

• فيروس نقص المناعة البشرية/الإيدز
• التهاب الكبد
• مرض الدرن

تُثار تساؤلات حول ازدواجية المعايير المتعلقة بالجنس في السجون. ففي بعض الحالات، يُزعم أن إجراء عمليات مراقبة أو تفتيش من قِبل أفراد من نفس الجنس ضروري للحفاظ على أمن السجون. بينما يُعتبر إجراء هذه العمليات من قِبل أفراد من الجنس الآخر انتهاكًا لحقوق السجناء. ويزداد احتمال اعتبارها انتهاكًا أو تعديًا إذا تمت هذه المراقبة والتفتيش نيابةً عن الجنس الآخر. ^{[ 14 ]} غالبًا ما تتأثر قرارات القضاة الفيدراليين بالصور النمطية المختلفة التي تُميز الرجال والنساء. ^{[ 4 ]} ولهذا السبب، ترى المحاكم أن للنساء الحق في خصوصية أكبر من الرجال. ^{[ 4 ]}

In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII protects the employment rights of workers against any discrimination pertaining to who they are or where they come from.^[20] However, there is a debate between inmates' privacy rights versus corrections officers' and equal employment rights.^[14] Complaints come from prisoners because they believe that their privacy is breached by guards of the opposite sex.^[20] Contrarily, guards complain that they are being discriminated against when it comes to obtaining a job within an institution of the opposite sex.^[20] An example of a violation of the equal employment rights is shown in Brooks v. Industries. This is seen mainly with cross-gender searches. In the case, Brooks v. Industries, a female janitor working in a male prison lost her position due to gender in prison issues. The decision concluded that having to clean a male bathroom should not be done by a female because it would invade the male privacy.^[14] Conflicts like these lead to a call to balance the two situations in the best way possible.^[20]