Personally, I feel as though Turner v. Safley was the most significant case to further and make sure prisoners rights remain intact. Turner v. Safley according to the textbook established in 1987 set the “legal standards for judging whether prison regulations infringe on prisoners rights” (Alarid & Reichel, 2018, p. 185). Before discussing the specifics of the impact court case it is important to know what inspired the lawsuit. Missouri's Renz Correctional Institution in Cedar City was a complex prison that housed both male and female inmates. Safley became involved with a female inmate, Watson (Hudson). Safley was transferred due to their relationship and when he sent her letters they were rejected. There was a strict no inmate-to-inmate correspondence
…show more content…
187). In other words, is the rule they are enforcing actually benefiting the prison and the government. For example, abusing an inmate has no governmental interest. Second, “do inmates have available alternate means to exercise the asserted right?” (Alarid & Reichel, 2018, p. 187). Alongside this factor is the Cooper v. Pate case which examines religious freedoms and making sure that the First Amendment is not neglected while incarcerated. Cooper v Pate made it accessible to Black Muslims to participate in their religious activities which were not previously sanctioned. Third, “how would accommodation of the right affect correctional officers, inmates, and prison resources?” (Alarid & Reichel, 2018, p. 187). Prison systems are a delicate mix of cooperation between guards and inmates. If there is a disturbance the main goal is to ensure the safety of everyone in the facility. A prison regulation cannot be enforced if it will disrupt the function and security of the institution. Fourth, “are there ready alternatives to the regulation?” (Alarid & Reichel, 2018, p. 187). If the regulation is considered to not have a legitimate purpose are their other means in which the same result can be accomplished but have a governmental interest that does not harm prisoners or the
187). In other words, is the rule they are enforcing actually benefiting the prison and the government. For example, abusing an inmate has no governmental interest. Second, “do inmates have available alternate means to exercise the asserted right?” (Alarid & Reichel, 2018, p. 187). Alongside this factor is the Cooper v. Pate case which examines religious freedoms and making sure that the First Amendment is not neglected while incarcerated. Cooper v Pate made it accessible to Black Muslims to participate in their religious activities which were not previously sanctioned. Third, “how would accommodation of the right affect correctional officers, inmates, and prison resources?” (Alarid & Reichel, 2018, p. 187). Prison systems are a delicate mix of cooperation between guards and inmates. If there is a disturbance the main goal is to ensure the safety of everyone in the facility. A prison regulation cannot be enforced if it will disrupt the function and security of the institution. Fourth, “are there ready alternatives to the regulation?” (Alarid & Reichel, 2018, p. 187). If the regulation is considered to not have a legitimate purpose are their other means in which the same result can be accomplished but have a governmental interest that does not harm prisoners or the