Articles Posted in Constitution

Published on:

While prisons are designed to further purposes of deterrence and retribution, do those aims come with an unfettered right to abuse incarcerated individuals? 

In 2015, the nation was shocked to hear the story of Kalief Browder, a 16-year old wrongfully arrested for robbery who served two years in solitary confinement prior to trial.  After his release, Browder committed suicide.  A documentary entitled Time: The Kalief Browder Story, produced by iconic hip-hop rapper Jay-Z recounts Browder’s experience in Rikers and the psychological tortures of solitary confinement.[1]  In that same year, Terry Poole, a North Carolina inmate, committed suicide after serving time in solitary confinement.[2]  A recent article found that there are nearly 300 inmate suicide attempts in American jails and prisons every year.[3]  The statistical prevalence of suicide and suicide attempts increases for inmates in solitary confinement.[4] The deleterious physical and psychological effects of solitary confinement has wide-spread social science support[5], but is the repudiation of solitary confinement progressing rapidly enough?

Ultimately, Americans—by and through the casting of theiJuvenile-in-Cell-300x248r ballots—must decide whether the conviction of a crime, putting aside the heinousness of felony offenses generally, warrants an extraneous, additional punishment to include prolonged physical and psychological suffering.  Does the Eighth Amendment allow for carte blanche treatment of inmates?  Because of an adjudication of guilt, are prisoners properly cast into dark holes without recourse from our Constitution? I think not.

Published on:

Buffalo_Hunt-300x209On July 10, 1890, Wyoming’s statehood was granted and it became the 44th state of the U.S.Decades and decades later, in January 2014, Clayvin Herrera of the Crow Tribe of Indians pursued a pack of elk outside his tribe’s reservation in Montana , and was led into Wyoming’s Bighorn National Forest. This hunt led to him being fined, receiving a suspended jail sentence, and having his hunting privileges suspended for three years.

When the decision was upheld by a state appellate court and then passed over by the Wyoming Supreme Court, Herrera asked the Supreme Court for review. The question at issue was, when Wyoming became a state, did the Crow Tribe members’ right to hunt outside the bounds of their state lines cease to exist? Herrera contended that his rights under an 1868 treaty between the tribe and federal government weren’t cut off when Wyoming achieved statehood, because, as the court came to find, the Wyoming Statehood Act did not negate the Crow Tribe’s hunting rights nor did the 1868 treaty expire at that time. Herrera also argued that the creation of the Bighorn National Forest actually reinforced the Tribe’s hunting rights by prohibiting settlement on that land. Understandably, Herrera expressed concern that his tribe was not the only one affected by the Wyoming court’s ruling.

The State of Wyoming argued that Herrera’s conviction should stand because Wyoming becoming a state abolished his tribe’s off-reservation hunting rights.