Abstract:As is the case with other constitutionally protected rights, the freedom of religion is not unlimited nor without restriction or constraint. Rather, the courts have long held that the state may have legitimate reasons for placing reasonable restrictions on the otherwise free exercise of religious practice. The courts have also held that the state cannot restrict religious practice in a capricious or gratuitous manner. However, the courts have also held that individuals have a constitutional right to due process legal protections. In many instances, these two freedoms exist independently of each other. In instances when they intersect, conflict may result from one right seeking hegemony over the other. In instances such as these, the courts may have to resolve conflicts by establishing legal principles and precedents regarding which of these constitutional protections will be granted contextual prominence over the other. Thus far, the legal evaluation of this important question has been confused at best and contradictory at worst. This has resulted in a number of substantive outcomes that pose significant challenges to the practice and application of both rights and an underlying avoidance of broader constitutional questions.
Accountability in the corrections system is essential to protecting the well-being and safety of inmates. To provide a better understanding of the methods of ensuring the humane treatment of inmates, this article traces the history of Kansas's jail inspection policy, beginning with passage of the state's 1973 jail inspection statute. An examination of the legislative history of Kansas's inspection statute and jail inspection reports, in addition to oral history interviews with corrections officials, reveals that the statute was effective in providing accountability and producing measurable improvements in jail conditions. The history of Kansas's jail inspection statute, including its repeal in 1996, also reveals that the statute's failure to address key issues undermined the overall effectiveness of the legislation. A survey and evaluation of other states' jail inspection statutes provides guidance so that moving forward, states considering implementing inspection statutes will know what issues an inspection statute should address.
In Morrissey v. Brewer (408 U.S. 471 [1972]), the US Supreme Court held that although a parole revocation proceeding is not part of the criminal prosecution, the potential loss of liberty involved, despite its conditional nature, is significant enough to be protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Additionally, the Court set out the minimum requirements of due process for the revocation proceedings, including requirements that the parolee be given: (1) a preliminary hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a violation of a condition of parole has occurred; (2) an impartial examiner to conduct the hearing; (3) notice of the alleged violation, the purpose of the hearing, and disclosure of evidence to be used against the parolee; (4) an opportunity to present evidence on the parolee's own behalf; and (5) a limited right to cross‐examination.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.