Correction in the Legal System
CJ120: Introduction to Corrections
Module 2: Court Project 1
Johnson v. Avery
Using the EC Library, review the case of Johnson v. Avery. and locate two additional articles which focus on the impact of this ruling. Summarize the facts of the case, and describe its impact on future corrections court cases using the additional resources you have collected.
The EC Library Criminal Justice Research Guide (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. can be a valuable resource for locating resources for this project.
Your submission should be made using 750–1000 words, double-spaced, and written in APA style.
Be sure to submit your project in one WORD document in APA format and place it in the appropriate assignment dropbox.
Use the EC Library resources to properly cite your work:
Citing Sources (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Plagiarism & Copyright (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site
Correction in the Legal System
Summary
The case of Johnson v. Avery involved inmates in a prison environment. The Petitioner of the case was a Tennessee prisoner who was punished for violating a prison regulation that does not allow inmates to Help other prisoners in preparing writs. The District Court played a significant role by outlining the regulations were void and could have an effect of barring the illiterate prisoners from access to the federal habeas corpus and was against the outlined laws. The case was then transferred to the Court of Appeals reversed the directive of the District Court by stating that the State had a role of ensuring discipline among the inmates, and the work of the attorney was to clarify for any burden imposed by the regulation regarding the access to federal habeas corpus. The case was held that the State might not enforce the regulations which bar the inmates from seeking Helpance from other prisoners.
In case the State lacked the provision of outlining how the illiterate or poorly educated inmates can prepare the petition, then the State had no interference whatsoever. The Petitioner was serving the life sentence in the Tennessee State Penitentiary and later transferred to the maximum-security prison due to the violation of the regulations governing the prison. The regulations prohibit any inmate from Helping the other inmates in preparing the writs or other legal matters. In any jurisdiction, when an individual believes he/she is unlawfully held, they can prepare a complaint in the form of a letter and address to the attorneys. Later, the Petitioner was transferred from the maximum-security prison to the ordinary prison (disciplinary) following the directive of the District Court. The Petitioner was later held in the disciplinary cell block, where he was entitled to the few privileges as compared to other inmates and was given a condition to refrain from Helping the other inmates for him to enjoy the other privileges.
The State appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The State outlined that the decision was against the Sixth Circuit and stating that the regulations did not unlawfully conflict with the federal right of habeas corpus. Each of the parties had clear outlined roles such that the State’s duty was to preserve discipline while the licensed attorneys practice the law and justify the burden that might exist in the access of federal corpus. Both the Petitioner and the State agreed that the writ is applicable for those who feel unlawfully incarcerated to regain their freedom. However, Tennessee maintained that the work of the State remains to initiate disciplinary measures on the prisoners.
Indeed Tennessee had not adopted and enforced the rule of forbidding the illiterate prisoners from filing the corpus petitions. Tennessee exercised the rule that deemed where the gap exited. The District Court maintained that inmates could not seek Helpance from a jail-house lawyer. The judgment of the Court of Appeal was reversed due to the existence of the techniques in helping inmates to present the writs. Justice Douglas concurred with the opinion of the Court but admitted that the government apparatus, both at the local and the federal levels, had compromised the process by which an inmate can make a claim or a complaint.
Tennessee lacked the measures that provided the post-conviction counsel to prisoners. The legal offices have pressing obligations of the civil and criminal nature that cannot provide Helpance to the prisoners. However, some States have programs that are designed to Help the inmates. The initiative is to allow the senior law students to attend to prisoners matters. The Johnson v. Avery case calls for the State to introduce professional help to inmates who seek to file a complaint.
Impact on Future Correction Cases
The case has an impact on future correction cases. There is a need for the provision of the representation to the inmates in corrections litigation. The mechanisms involve the introduction of the strategies and expansion of the scope of the quality of lawyers in representing the inmates and the correctional institutions in accordance with the constitution (Center on Sentencing and Corrections, 2013). The case influences the continued need for corrections litigation. The field of corrections has been advancing, resulting in the call of measures to strengthen the process. Therefore, there is a need for correction reforms, which is significant for the correction litigation in the future. The litigation process plays an important role in maintaining as well as achieving the correctional institution, and the process is expected to advance in the future.
The case addresses the health and safety of the inmates that continue to be a challenge for many correctional institutions. The future cases should comply with the standards outlined in the constitution has not been achieved by the state institutions (Russo, Drake, Shaffer & Jackson, 2017). Most of the correctional institutions are currently under court orders to comply with the minimum standards of the protection of inmates. There is also a continued lack of vigorous judicial enforcement aimed at maintaining constitutional conditions. The case provides a challenge for addressing the overcrowding in the correctional institutional to maintain the adequate living conditions of the prisoners. Overcrowding is an issue of urgency because of its negative impacts such as violence, inadequate delivery of services, poor living conditions, among others.
The case advocate for the importance of scrutiny in the public institutions and the need to hold officials accountable for their actions (Stinchcomb, 2016). The external scrutiny, as well as accountability, has a positive impact in preventing the prisons and jails from subjecting the inmates to brutal conditions. Organizations such as Human Rights Watch should come in place to Helps the inmates in advocating for their rights. The appropriate litigation should be in place to allow the inmates to seriously take the concerns of the inmates. The inmates have to power to advocate on their own, and therefore, the State should introduce a measure that will improve the conditions of the inmates.
The reforms in the jails have not progressed well as compared to the state correctional facilities (Sturm, 1993). The inmates in jail are incarcerated for a short period and therefore leave the institutions before their cases are completed. The litigation process in rural areas is a challenge in several States. The case impacts how the inmates will be treated in future correctional institutions, especially in issues of punishment.
In conclusion, the case presents several issues regarding judicial systems. The inmates continue to face a challenge in writing for applications for reconsideration of their cases. The other inmates who are literate have played a critical role in aiding poorly educated or illiterate prisoners. However, the move has resulted in controversies and arguments on the position that the inmates have no rights in Helping their fellows. The case forms a challenge of introducing reforms that will shape the working conditions of prisoners. The process has a positive impact on future corrections.
References
Center on Sentencing and Corrections, Vera Institute of Justice. (2013). The Potential of Community Corrections to Improve Communities and Reduce Incarceration. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 26(2), 128-144.
Russo, J., Drake, G. B., Shaffer, J. S., & Jackson, B. A. (2017). Envisioning an Alternative Future for the Corrections Sector Within the US Criminal Justice System. Rand Corporation.
Stinchcomb, J. B. (2016). Corrections: foundations for the future. London: Routledge.
Sturm, S. P. (1993). The Legacy and Future of Corrections Litigation, 142 U. Pa. L. Rev, 639, 699-700.
