Search icone
Search and publish your papers
Our Guarantee
We guarantee quality.
Find out more!

Case history and their reasoning

Or download with : a doc exchange

About the author

Unemployed
Level
General public
Study
criminal law
School/University
Colorado...

About the document

Kat K.
Published date
Language
documents in English
Format
Word
Type
case study
Pages
3 pages
Level
General public
Accessed
0 times
Validated by
Committee Oboolo.com
0 Comment
Rate this document

?Facts: McDonnell, a prisoner, filed a class action suit against the state of Nebraska claiming that the disciplinary procedure was unconstitutional in both actions in general and revocation of good time off sentencing. The state courts ruled that the case did not meet the minimum requirements of the case while the Supreme Court stated that revocation itself was fully constitutional, the procedure with which it was done was not and was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

?Issues of the case: While the good time revocation was allowed by the state and correctional institutions the procedure used was violating prisoners Fourteenth Amendment rights.
?Decisions: The Supreme Court ruled that the state and correctional institutions were in the wrong. The state court of Nebraska, however, would not rule on the issue stating that the claimant did not meet the minimum requirements of disciplinary proceedings.
?Reasoning: The Supreme Court ruling is based on the idea of extension of the Bill of Rights to all federal and state subjects and entities as per the Fourteenth Amendment
?Dissenting Opinions: Justice Douglas of the Supreme Court stated that while due process does apply to revocation of good time he does not agree that the state and correctional systems should be sanctioned for this and believes the prisoner is sin the wrong as declared by the state court.

[...] Decisions: Appeals Court went on to reverse District Courts initial decisions and reinstate the case for decision. After re-evaluating the District Court determined that inmates have the right to medical treatment under the Eighth Amendment. They also stated that this is applicable by the Fourteenth Amendment. Reasoning: The Eighth Amendment protects inmates with the right to a lack of cruel and unusual punishment which includes the need for medical treatment when necessary. This is applicable by the Fourteenth Amendment's application of the right to the Bill of Rights and due process. [...]


[...] (n.d.). Retrieved January from Corneel University Law School: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0429_0097_ZO.ht ml McKinnon, K. M. (2007, September 15). Estelle v. Gamble. Retrieved January from Sage Reference: http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/prisons/n115.xml NCJRS. (1980). NCJRS Abstract. Retrieved January from Publications: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=76728 Princeton University. (n.d.). WordNet. [...]

Similar documents you may be interested in reading.

Reason nations, thoughts on democracy in Europe by Pierre Manent

 Politics & international   |  Political science   |  Book review   |  01/27/2011   |   .doc   |   9 pages

Logistics in society: the case of Morocco-Colas (2005)

 Business & market   |  Logistics   |  Case study   |  01/27/2011   |   .doc   |   44 pages

Recent documents in criminal law category

Managerial Economics: Welfare Corporate Social Responsibility

 Law & contracts   |  Criminal   |  Case study   |  05/13/2015   |   .doc   |   5 pages

Where Prosecutions Go erroneous - Crime and Punishment

 Law & contracts   |  Criminal   |  Case study   |  04/10/2015   |   .doc   |   3 pages