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. [...]
[...] Case history and their reasoning Case History and Their Reasoning Wolff v. McDonnell 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. [...]
[...] Decisions: The Supreme Court decision rejected all occurrences of civil rights violations for prisoners and detainees alike. Reasoning: The thought process behind this decision stated that double- bunking was constitutional due to the fact that all pretrial detainees would be released within a matter of 60 days. Dissenting Opinions: The majority opinion stipulates that the court ignored fundamental distinctions between prisoners and detainees while avoiding the responsibility to protect the detainees from the arbitrary and inhumane practices of the prisoner officials and guards. REFERENCES Bartollas, C. (2004). Chapter 20: Prisoners Rights. [...]
[...] In C. Bartollas, Invitation to Corrections: with Built-in Study Guide. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Justia. (n.d.). Procunier V. Martinez 416 US 396 (1974). Retrieved January from Justia Court Center: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/416/396/case.html Justia. (n.d.). Wolff v. McDonnell-418 US 539 (1974). Retrieved January from Justia.Com Court Center: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/539/ Legal Information Institute. [...]
using our reader.