3 ms·
They're in jail, by definition they have a restricted set of constitutional rights (they are incarcerated, ie they are not free!) For example, they can't own f
by sbaiddn 4y ago
They're in jail, by definition they have a restricted set of constitutional rights (they are incarcerated, ie they are not free!)
For example, they can't own firearms. It may seem obvious that a person in jail can't possesses a gun, but this is a very specific and enumerated right in the Bill of Rights! This right is so enshrined that it is not obvious that it can be restricted after being released. See for example ACB's jurisprudence.
So, if even a person released from jail is denied an enumerated right of the Bill of Rights (2A), it stands to reason that many other rights, (especially ones not as obviously constitutionally mandated) are also forfeited whilst actually in jail as chosen by the legislators and agreed by the courts.
Example:
- Freedom against search w/out a warrant. Inmates' cells are searched without a warrant
- Right to life. Capitol punishment is (unfortunately) legal and certainly constitutional.
- Right to vote.
Note some of these are partially retained whilst in prison, just not in prison itself. For example, the cops cant search your house w/out a warrant just because you're in jail.
They also retain some rights, fully or partially
- They retain their fifth
- They partially retain their first (they can worship as they please, but their freedom of speech is restricted).
- They obviously retain their right against "cruel and unusual punishment", since the amendment's purpose is for the incarcerated. Devil's in the details, unfortunately.
- they even retail some right against search in jail, for example the police cant listen in to conversations with council.
So when the prison guards search one's prison mail, it is quite legal because you lost one's constitutional right against being searched.
- 0xcde4c3db 4y agoAs far as I know, the prohibition on opening someone else's mail (or interfering with delivery of the mail generally) is not based on the addressee's constitutional rights, but rather on an independent power granted to Congress by the Postal Clause. I assume there's some exemption to this for people in government custody, but I don't know exactly where it would be codified. > The postal powers of Congress embrace all measures necessary to insure the safe and speedy transit and prompt delivery of the mails. And not only are the mails under the protection of the National Government, they are, in contemplation of the law, its property. [1] [1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C7-2/ALDE_00000076/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C7-2/...
- sbaiddn 4y agoSure, but my point is that if the highest of rights - the constitutional ones - can be forfeited in jail, surely rights set in law can be lost or suspended.
- 0xcde4c3db 4y agoMy point is that it's not obvious that this question even reaches the scope of "rights". Even if one were to suppose that citizens have no constitutional rights whatsoever under any circumstances, that would not imply that any state or local government has any authority to interfere with the exercise of the federal postal power.
- JohnFen 4y ago> this is a very specific and enumerated right in the Bill of Rights I don't want derail this with a discussion of a highly politically charged topic, but this is a very disputed (and modern) interpretation of the second amendment. I just bring it up because there's no consensus about it, and reasonable people have different opinions.
- telotortium 4y agoBut, to be fair, the other interpretation is also a very disputed (and modern) interpretation.