McKune v. Lile
http://dbpedia.org/resource/McKune_v._Lile an entity of type: Thing
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that Kansas' (SATP) served a vital penological purpose and determined that allowing minimal incentives to take part in the SATP does not equal compelled self-incrimination as prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. There were three main points to the case that were used to determine the SATPs were constitutional as summarized by the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA). These included the distinct findings that, “[t]he SATP in Kansas is supported by the legitimate penological objective of rehabilitation”, that, “the fact that Kansas does not offer immunity or privilege in response to statements made by participants does not render the SATP invalid under the [fifth] amendment”, and
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
McKune v. Lile
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
McKune, Warden, et al. v. Robert G. Lile
xsd:integer
35302179
xsd:integer
1116314384
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
<second>
172800.0
<second>
25920.0
xsd:integer
24
xsd:integer
536
xsd:gMonthDay
--11-28
xsd:integer
2001
rdf:langString
McKune v. Lile,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-10
xsd:integer
2002
rdf:langString
McKune, Warden, et al. v. Robert G. Lile
rdf:langString
The state's consequences for non-participants of the SATP program do not constitute a violation of the respondent's Fifth Amendment rights.
rdf:langString
McKune v. Lile
rdf:langString
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that Kansas' (SATP) served a vital penological purpose and determined that allowing minimal incentives to take part in the SATP does not equal compelled self-incrimination as prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. There were three main points to the case that were used to determine the SATPs were constitutional as summarized by the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA). These included the distinct findings that, “[t]he SATP in Kansas is supported by the legitimate penological objective of rehabilitation”, that, “the fact that Kansas does not offer immunity or privilege in response to statements made by participants does not render the SATP invalid under the [fifth] amendment”, and that the, “consequences that follow for nonparticipation, do not, under the Kansas plan, combine to create compulsion, thereby infringing upon the participant’s [fifth] amendment right”. Due to the plurality of the case, no singular decision was held as a majority.
rdf:langString
O'Connor
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
rdf:langString
Kennedy
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
13617