Turner v. Safley
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Turner_v._Safley an entity of type: Thing
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of two Missouri prison regulations. One of the prisoners' claims related to the fundamental right to marry, and the other related to freedom of speech (in sending/receiving letters). The court held that a regulation preventing inmates from marrying without permission violated their constitutional right to marry because it was not logically related to a legitimate penological concern, but a prohibition on inmate-to-inmate correspondence was justified by prison security needs.
rdf:langString
rdf:langString
Turner v. Safley
rdf:langString
William R. Turner, Superintendent, Missouri Department of Corrections, et al. v. Leonard Safley, et al.
xsd:integer
1470171
xsd:integer
1116547238
xsd:integer
85
rdf:langString
Rehnquist, White, Powell, Scalia; Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens
<second>
172800.0
<second>
17280.0
xsd:integer
78
xsd:integer
482
xsd:gMonthDay
--01-13
xsd:integer
1987
rdf:langString
Turner v. Safley,
xsd:gMonthDay
--06-01
xsd:integer
1987
rdf:langString
Cheryl Dunn
rdf:langString
William R. Turner, Superintendent, Missouri Department of Corrections, et al. v. Leonard Safley, et al.
rdf:langString
A prison regulation preventing inmates from marrying without permission violated their constitutional right to marry because it was not logically related to a legitimate penological concern; but a prohibition on inmate-to-inmate correspondence was justified by prison security needs and so was permissible under the First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth.
rdf:langString
Giles
rdf:langString
Turner v. Safley
rdf:langString
O'Connor
xsd:integer
219
rdf:langString
Safley v. Turner, 586 F. Supp. at 595
rdf:langString
Turner v. Safley, 482 US at 85
rdf:langString
Turner v. Shafley, 482 US at 100
rdf:langString
Turner v. Shafley, 482 US at 115
rdf:langString
In pointing out these inconsistencies, I do not suggest that the Court's treatment of the marriage regulation is flawed; as I stated, I concur fully in that part of its opinion. I do suggest that consistent application of the Court's reasoning necessarily leads to a finding that the mail regulation applied at Renz is unconstitutional.
rdf:langString
How a court describes its standard of review when a prison regulation infringes fundamental constitutional rights often has far less consequence for the inmates than the actual showing that the court demands of the State in order to uphold the regulation. This case provides a prime example . . . if the standard can be satisfied by nothing more than a "logical connection" between the regulation and any legitimate penological concern perceived by a cautious warden, . . . it is virtually meaningless. Application of the standard would seem to permit disregard for inmates' constitutional rights whenever the imagination of the warden produces a plausible security concern and a deferential trial court is able to discern a logical connection between that concern and the challenged regulation. Indeed, there is a logical connection between prison discipline and the use of bullwhips on prisoners . . .
rdf:langString
. . . defendants have no right to have the last word on a personal decision of this import. Even inmates have the right to make their own mistakes.
rdf:langString
Running a prison is an inordinately difficult undertaking that requires expertise, planning, and the commitment of resources, all of which are peculiarly within the province of the legislative and executive branches of government. Prison administration is, moreover, a task that has been committed to the responsibility of those branches, and separation of powers concerns counsel a policy of judicial restraint.
rdf:langString
Turner v. Safley and Its Progeny: A Gradual Retreat to the "Hands-Off" Doctrine
xsd:integer
35
xsd:integer
1993
rdf:langString
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving the constitutionality of two Missouri prison regulations. One of the prisoners' claims related to the fundamental right to marry, and the other related to freedom of speech (in sending/receiving letters). The court held that a regulation preventing inmates from marrying without permission violated their constitutional right to marry because it was not logically related to a legitimate penological concern, but a prohibition on inmate-to-inmate correspondence was justified by prison security needs. The case has been cited as precedent, establishing the "Turner Test" for constitutional challenges to prison regulations. According to the test, a prison regulation is constitutional if it satisfies four factors: 1.
* There is a rational connection to a legitimate government interest; 2.
* There are alternative means for prisoners to exercise their right(s); 3.
* Accommodation of the right(s) would have excessive "ripple effects"; and 4.
* There are no "ready alternatives." This test has been used for decades by US courts, but it has also been criticized by legal scholars for being too deferential to prison administrators.
rdf:langString
Stevens
rdf:langString
Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun
rdf:langString
Ariz. L. Rev.
xsd:integer
1987
xsd:nonNegativeInteger
25712