Explain the basis and impact of the hands off doctrine. Include examples of the courts response to challenges.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The hands-off doctrine basically articulated the reluctance of the judiciary to interfere with the management and administration of prisons—to keep their “hand off.” The doctrine rested primarily on the status of prisoners who suffered a kind of legal and civil death upon conviction. Most states had civil death statutes, which meant that those convicted of crimes lost all citizenship rights such as the right to vote, hold public office, and—in some jurisdictions—the right to marry. The philosophical justification for civil death statutes, ironically, came from the text of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery in the United States. The 13th Amendment reads, “Neither slavery or involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime whereof the party being duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Thus, slavery was abolished “except as a punishment for crime.” This enabled prison officials to lease prisoners to local businesses for profit and to use them as unpaid labor to maintain the financial self-sufficiency of prisons; in short, to treat them like property. In affirming the ruling of a lower court in Ruffin v. Commonwealth (1871), the Virginia Supreme Court made it plain the slave-like status of convicted offenders stating that inmates existed in a state of penal servitude to the State and as a consequence of their crime forfeited their liberty and all their personal rights and for the time being the slave of the State. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Pervear v. Massachusetts clearly enunciated the lack of concern for prisoners’ rights contained in the hands-off doctrine. Pervear had been sentenced to 3 months hard labor and a large fine for failing to obtain a license for his liquor store and challenged his sentence on the basis of the “cruel and unusual” clause of the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court made plain the slave-like status of prisoners, ruling that they did not even enjoy the protections of the Eighth Amendment. Convicted felons thus found themselves at the mercy of prison officials and fellow prisoners, without any constitutional protection provided by judicial oversight. Lastly the hands-off doctrine also prevailed because the courts viewed correctional agencies as part of the executive branch of government and did not wish to violate the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine. Correctional officials were considered quite capable of administering to the needs of prisoners in a humane way, without having to deal with the complicating intrusions of another branch of government. Besides, if prisoners have been stripped of any rights under civil death statutes, there is nothing that the courts have to monitor and protect.