Although prisoners do not have full Constitutional rights they are protected by the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. This protection requires that prisoners be afforded a minimum standard of living. Prisoners retain some other Constitutional rights including due process in their right to administrative appeals and a right of access to the parole process. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment has been held to apply to prison inmates. Prisoners are therefore protected against unequal treatment on the basis of ra

May a prison now restrict an Orthodox Jewish prisoner's right to have a beard? The answer today may most likely be "no." The religious freedom of prisoners has been specifically protected by the congressional enactment of RFRA. Moreover, many prisons have begun to update their regulations in order to comply with RFRA. Immediately following the passage of RFRA, state correctional officials in Oklahoma rescinded their prohibition on long hair and beards. The decision to rescind their policy was reported to have been based on the expense of litigating religious rights cases, the absence of security breaches, and the passage of RFRA. By enacting RFRA, Congress took a substantial step forward in protecting individual religious freedoms (Palmer John W. Constitutional rights of prisoners.)

Inmates retain only those First Amendment rights, such as freedom of speech, which are not inconsistent with their status as inmates and which are in keeping with the legitimate objectives of the penal corrections system, such as preservation of order, discipline, and security. In this regard, prison officials are entitled to open mail directed to inmates to ensure that it does not contain any illegal items or weapons, but may not censor portions of correspondence which they find merely inflammatory or rude.

Inmates' First Amendment rights are less extensive than other citizens' and their rights can be limited due to security or other penological concerns. Because of the particular challenges administrators face running prisons, the Supreme Court has acknowledged there is a compelling government interest which warrants limiting prisoners' rights. Courts have been deferential to prison officials' assessments of security threats, and sensitive to their related regulatory decisions, even if such decisions impact inmates' First Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court has held that inmates who are the subject of disciplinary investigations or proceedings are entitled to advance written notice of the claimed violation and a written statement of the facts, evidence relied upon, and the reason for the action taken. The inmate is also entitled to call witnesses and present documentary evidence if allowing him to do so would not risk order, discipline, and security. In that regard, inmates are rarely allowed to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses in an internal disciplinary proceeding. Inmates are entitled to a hearing if they are to be moved to a mental health facility. However, an inmate is not always entitled to a hearing if he or she is being moved between two similar facilities.

ce, sex, and creed (Lund, Lynn J., Deland, Gary, Gallaher, Sharon, and Bowker, Gary.)

Some topics in this essay:
Supreme Court, John Constitutional, Disabilities Act, Act PLRA, Act Pub, Court Appeals, Eighth Amendment, Bowker Gary, Act RLUIPA, Gary Inmates, constitutional rights, cruel unusual, supreme court, amendment rights, prison officials, male officers, federal court, deland gary gallaher, bowker gary, security regard, inmate entitled, lynn deland gary, gary gallaher sharon, lund lynn deland, sharon bowker gary,