U.S Law ammendments Law Article Research Coursework (Article Sample)

United States Inmates Rights
Authors Name
Institutional Affiliation
Introduction
The life of law from its infancy has not been logical. It has been baby step experience. The need of time, moral growth, political theories, public policy intuitions asserted or unconscious have had a positive impact on developing rules by which men should be governed. These slow but steady developments are the reasons for the vast knowhow about every single human rights. Upon sentencing and conviction of a crime, going to jail one or more human rights are diminished or entirely cut. This does not totally mean that inmates do not enjoy basic human rights. The United States constitution protects even the concierge of crime. Even though some of these privileges vary depending on stage of case, some cut across every single inmate. The following cases elaborate violations of inmate rights and rulings in relation to respective amendments.
Turner v. Safley
William Turner a prisons superintendent sued Safley of intent to marry a fellow inmate and sending her romantic letters. During the ruling the United States supreme court stood its ground and was for the opinion that inmates constitutional rights and as stated in the first amendment which protects freedom of speech, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances were subject to review. Though the court assured that inmates would retain a reasonable measure of their rights, it emphasized that the court ruling should clearly point out the extent to which these rights will be enjoyed to prison wardens as they manage their institutions.
The court ruled in Safley’s favor allowing him to marry a fellow convict by arguing that he had the right to exercise his right to speech by sending letters as articulated in the first Amendment. A later appeal by Turner saw the marriage ban scrapped off. Justice Sandra Day was on the side that prison walls are in no way a barrier for inmates to enjoy their constitutional rights, but such rights have limits and conditions that must be adhered to. This case remains to be a crucial the first amendment philosophy of law.