Divide your answer into 2 clearly labeled parts. In the first part discuss the Worshipers? case. In the second part discuss the
Q1 Divide your answer into 2 clearly labeled parts. In the first part discuss the “Worshipers” case. In the second part discuss the state’s case. Be sure to mention the RLUIPA, passed by the U.S Congress in 2000, to replace the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1997. A minimum of a 1 page and ½, double-spaced, 12-font.
Q2 Before the court ruled on his lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case Holt v. Hobbs. The prison system argued that its policy was still lawful because a 4-inch beard is much longer than a ½-inch beard (which was the issue in Holt v. Hobbs) and a kufi is a separate danger.
Analyze the issues (4-inch beard and kufi) in Rasheed’s case using the Supreme Court’s decision in Holt v. Hobbs. Make sure you read the Holt case carefully and understand the RLUIPA! 1 page minimum!
MODULE 3: FREEDOM OF RELIGION
LISTEN TO: COMMENTARY ON MODULE 3
READ:
1) Chapter 4 in the textbook
2) The U.S. Supreme Court decision Holt v. Hobbs (2015): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/574/352/
3) “Native American inmates win right to long hair in Texas prison” in the Houston Chronicle (3/18/2019): https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Native-American-inmates-win-right-to-long-hair-in-13698552.php
4) “Supreme Court halts execution of Texas 7 inmate denied spiritual advisor” National Public Radio (3/29/2019):
5) “Muslims Overrepresented in State Prisons, Report Finds,” National Public Radio (7/25/2019) – 3 minute audio: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/745226402/muslims-over-represented-in-state-prisons-report-finds
Module 3 Assignment (due 2/23, no later than 11:59 pm)
Worth a maximum of 22.5 points toward the final grade
QUESTION 1
Inmate Leonard (a/k/a Rocky) Hardnose decided to form a group of fellow inmates at the maximum-security unit where he was incarcerated. Rocky drafted a set of principles for the group. The group is called “Worshipers of the Ancient Souls.”
Through group meditation and prayer, Rocky encourages inmates to develop relationships with their personal God. He has declared himself the Grand Poompa of the faith.
Hardnose preaches that every person is inhabited with an ancient soul, and it is our duty to communicate with that soul through rigorous yoga, a vegan diet, and through “soul-calling.”
Members of the group must wear colorful headbands that signify their religious convictions – proof that their heads (and the brains inside them) are united in one consciousness.
Rocky has asked the prison warden for permission to assemble the group every Friday evening at 8:00 p.m., the group’s holiest day of the week. At the worship services prisoners attempt to go into a trance in order to “call” their ancient soul. Trances typically last for an hour or so and prisoners fall to the floor, writhe around, and shout to their souls. Very few inmates are scheduled to work on Friday evenings.
Prison officials have denied permission to the “Worshipers of the Ancient Souls” to assemble.
1) Officials maintain that because it is the end of the prisoners' work week, the unit has fewer correctional officers on duty on Friday evenings than are needed to escort inmates to the worship meetings and to provide security at the meetings.
2) Officials will not allow the group members to wear headbands because of security reasons.
3) Officials deny worship services because the “soul-calling” trances are dangerous.
4) Officials also argue that the “Worshipers of the Ancient Souls” is not a true religion because it was the creation of Rocky Hardnose and there is no counterpart in the free world.
Rocky sues on behalf of the “Worshipers of the Ancient Souls” and argues that the inmates' First Amendment right of freedom of religion has been infringed. Analyze the arguments both for and against the “Worshipers.”
Divide your answer into 2 clearly labeled parts. In the first part discuss the “Worshipers” case. In the second part discuss the state’s case. Be sure to mention the RLUIPA, passed by the U.S Congress in 2000, to replace the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1997. A minimum of a 1 page and ½, double-spaced, 12-font.
QUESTION 2
Rasheed is a Texas inmate who is a devout Muslim. He asked but was denied permission from prison officials to wear a 4-inch beard and a kufi (a short, round skull cap – officials allowed inmates to wear a kufi in their cells but not outside their cells). Officials argued that a 4-inch beard and a skull cap could hide contraband and weapons. It could also impact a prisoner’s appearance as they moved around a facility, making it more difficult for officers to identify prisoners quickly.
Before the court ruled on his lawsuit, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case Holt v. Hobbs. The prison system argued that its policy was still lawful because a 4-inch beard is much longer than a ½-inch beard (which was the issue in Holt v. Hobbs) and a kufi is a separate danger.
Analyze the issues (4-inch beard and kufi) in Rasheed’s case using the Supreme Court’s decision in Holt v. Hobbs. Make sure you read the Holt case carefully and understand the RLUIPA! 1 page minimum!
,
Chowdhury 1
Chowdhury 2
Module 2 Assignment
QUESTION Using the Turner v. Safley (1989) four-step test to argue for the prisoners based on the violation of the Long Term Segregation Unit (LTSU) inmates' Constitutional rights because prison officials have taken away their rights to television, newspapers, magazines, and personal photos. They have alleged this is an abuse of their Eighth Amendment rights, citing "cruel and unusual punishment."
Test for the prisoners – Step1 . The prisoners have alleged that the regulations to remove all of their rights to magazines, newspapers, television, and photos along with segregation violate their Eighth Amendment rights and are cruel and unusual punishment. The prisoners feel that the prison administration's regulations do not correlate with the violent and unruly crimes they have committed while in custody. Removing their liberties is not an appropriate punishment for gang membership, drug and alcohol abuse, or assaults.
Step 2 . Removing prisoner rights has taken away all access to news and world events as they do not have access to newspapers or the internet. The prisoners do not have access to the commissary to buy toiletries such as toothpaste and deodorant or basic supplies necessary for personal hygiene. Additionally, there is no set amount of time for the prisoner to have these restrictions, allowing for unequal treatment. The most argued fact of the limits is that they are left in their cells 24 hours a day with no outside access.
Step 3. Impeding the Constitutional liberties and rights of LTSU inmates will only impact the officers' threat to these inmates. There is no other impact to prisoners or employees that correlates with removing the prisoners' rights.
Step 4. The unspecified amount of time required for a Level 2 inmate to earn back their privileges is not evidence of reasonableness. Additionally, there are still restrictions once the inmate earns their way into Level 1. They do not have access to their photos which may cause undue hardship on some prisoners. They are left in their cells 24 hours without any outside access, which is "cruel and unusual" punishment.
Test for the prison administration – Step 1 . There is a valid rationale to take away prisoner rights as they have committed behaviors that are dangerous to the remainder of the population and prison employees. Through their disregard for rules, the violence they have caused against prisoners and employees, and general unruliness, they cause a valid threat. They pose a real danger to increasing gang populations, escape attempts, increased criminal activities, including drug and alcohol use and sexual assaults. Therefore, separating them is necessary for the positive operation of penological interests.
Step 2 . The prison administration is still allowing the prisoners to have some alternative rights such as one visit a month, access to legal and religious personnel, and writing and receiving personnel correspondence. Additionally, they can earn their way out of either Level 1 or Level 2 of LTSU based on good behavior and following the rules set forth by the prison administration.
Step 3 . Limiting the rights of LTSU prisoners is protecting the rights of other prisoners, prison employees and administration through removing the threat of additional violence, disruption, and danger that the LTSU inmates pose. They are removing the threat of inmate-to-inmate violence, increases in gang populations, and the physical danger that all prisoners and employees face due to the LTSU inmates' eradict and disruly behavior.
Step 4 . There are no other alternatives available to prison administration to ensure the safety of others. Although the LTSU prisoners are losing some of their freedoms, they can earn them back with good behavior. Therefore, the restrictions put on these prisoners are not "cruel and unusual" per their Eighth Amendment right. The Supreme Court has decided that although the prison regulations violate the prisoners' Constitutional rights, that is allowed as the prison administration is acting in a way that is "reasonably related to legitimate penological interests."
The Turner v. Safley (1989) four-step test applies to both the prisoners and the prison administration. It clearly defines that the prison administration has not overstepped its rights to set up rules and regulations that will encourage rehabilitation and protect the safety and liberties of other prisoners and employees within the prison. Limiting the LTSU inmates' access to others and the amount of property available diminishes the effects these inmates can have on others in prison.
QUESTION 2 The Turner v. Safley (1989) four-step test is applied to Ms. Simpson's charges that the county jail's new postcard-only policy violates her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
For Ms. Simpson – Step 1 . They limit a United States citizen's right to free speech by restricting her son's amount to write. She is not a convict and therefore has all of the rights and liberties granted to citizens of the United States by the Constitution. Additionally, she has been writing to her son before this new rule without any incidents. The jail should "grandfather in" her correspondence to not violate her rights.
Step 2. Although the postcard program is an alternative to inmates, it is not viable as it limits what can be said to the inmate. There is no privacy as anyone can read what she wrote. If they want to cut back, they should limit the inmates to mailing out postcards, not receiving them. The inmates can make phone calls, but at $9.99 for every 10 minutes, that is not a viable option for everyone. Also, the fifteen-minute offers are too short as it often takes the prisoner that long to be brought in and have the handcuffs removed. Therefore, the options available to Ms. Simpson are not suitable alternatives to her letters.
Step 3. The new postcard system takes longer to get mail to the inmates, and they don't often receive them in order. When Ms. Simpson writes her son, he usually doesn't get parts before the guards take them away because he has ten in his possession. Also, the new system takes employees longer to sort them and pass them out than it previously did. The inmates are also getting more mail now than before the jail implemented the new system. They are also limiting what can be said as Ms. Simpson has no privacy in her correspondence as it is open to anyone to read.
Part of the regulations for the postcards is that they cannot have stains. They depend on the U.S. Mail system to deliver the postcards in pristine condition with no stains or alternations. We all know that is not possible based on the mail we receive every day throughout the country in our mailboxes. When they receive the damaged and stained postcards, they must return them to the sender. Lastly, they must remove the stamps from all postcards which are received. The removal process adds to the time it takes to sort the mail. Therefore, the new postcard system costs the county jail more to maintain than the previous system did.
Step 4 . The county jail can offer another solution to incoming mail. They can limit the number of pages or weight that letters can be. They could also use the postcard policy for outbound mail instead of inbound mail. Either of these options would not violate Ms. Simpson's Constitutional rights.
For the county jail- Step 1 . The county jail implemented its new postcard policy to reduce the number of contraband items coming into the jail. The postcards reduce the time it took for officers to look through each piece of mail, read them for redactions needed and return them to the sender if necessary. The system saves the prison money on the labor required to sort through all incoming mail.
Step 2 . The county jail has offered many alternative ways for inmates to interact with friends and family. They have 15-minute visits every week, they have the option to make collect calls, and they offer correspondence with postcards. The jail is not removing all mail from the inmate. They are simply limiting what the inmates receive to postcards and only allowing each inmate to have ten at a time in their possession. There are alternative options available to inmates for correspondence.
Step 3. The new postcard system dramatically reduces the time and money spent for officers to search through the mail each day. It cuts back on the amount of incoming contraband and the codes gang members use to communicate. It also cuts back on the amount of property in each inmate's possession, reducing the risk of them having drugs and weapons.
Step 4 . The new postcard system gives the county jail a viable option for inmate correspondence. The system still allows them to send and receive mail without violating their Constitutional rights to free speech. The inmates can send multiple postcards if needed to get their letters out.
The four-part test established in Turner v. Safley (1989) finds the county jail. Using the test, it is clear that the county jail did not violate Ms. Simpson's Constitutional rights. The jail has given her multiple alternatives if she does not want to correspond through postcards. Therefore, the jail has not violated and freedoms or liberties of the inmates.
,
Module 3 Assignment (due 2/23, no later than 8:00pm)
Textbook: The Legal Rights of the Convicted
Barbara Belbot, Craig Hemmens, Michael R. Cavanaugh
Link to textbook:
https://www.perlego.com/book/2028034/the-legal-rights-of-the-convicted-pdf
Log in: [email protected]
Password: Jamie2022
PLEASE ONLY USE TEXTBOOK AS REFRENCE TO COMPLETE ASSIGNMENT AND LINKS PROVIDED
LISTEN TO: COMMENTARY ON MODULE 3
Chapter 4 in the textbook
2) The U.S. Supreme Court decision Holt v. Hobbs (2015): https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/574/352/
3) “Native American inmates win right to long hair in Texas prison” in the Houston Chronicle (3/18/2019): https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Native-American-inmates-win-right-to-long-hair-in-13698552.php
4) “Supreme Court halts execution of Texas 7 inmate denied spiritual advisor” National Public Radio (3/29/2019):
5) “Muslims Overrepresented in State Prisons, Report Finds,” National Public Radio (7/25/2019) – 3 minute audio: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/25/745226402/muslims-over-represented-in-state-prisons-report-finds
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
