Describe and discuss the differences and similarities between the hands-on doctrine, the hands-off doctrine and the one hand-on one hand-off doctrine.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The hands-off doctrine is the period of time during which the Supreme Court and the lower courts avoided intervening in prison operations. This was based on two premises. First was the premise that, under the separation of powers inherent in the U.S. Constitution, the judicial branch was not justified to interfere with prisons that were operated by the executive branch. The second premise was, simply put, that judges should leave prison administration to the prison experts. The hands-on doctrine was due to a number of court cases that determined that the Court was responsible for protecting against misuses of power that was possessed by those vested with state authority. Therefore, state prison personnel who violated an inmate’s constitutional rights while performing their duties under state law could be held liable for their actions in federal court. The clarity provided in Cooper v. Pate (1964) and the route of litigation opened for inmates essentially created the hands-on doctrine. From 1980 onward, the Court has taken a more balanced approach to inmate litigation, known as the one hand-on, one hand-off doctrine. This doctrine contends that while incarcerated, (1) inmates do not forfeit their constitutional rights, (2) inmate rights are not as broad and encompassing as are free person’s, and (3) prison officials need to maintain order, security, and discipline in their facilities. Over time, the Supreme Court has become even more conservative regarding inmates’ rights and meddling into the affairs of prison operations.