Question types

Start with

Question limit

of 33 available terms

Print test

33 Multiple choice questions

  1. 1. Failure to identify.
    2. Failure to monitor.
    3. Failure to respond.
  2. Failure-To-Supervise case.
  3. 1. The inmate with limited reading skills.
    2. The inmate with limited English-language skills.
  4. Yes, both are against the law.
  5. The RLUIPA test is more difficult. It reduces the level of deference courts give correctional administrators. It increases power of the courts to second guess decisions by imposing the "least restrictive" alternative.
  6. Increased deference to the judgment of correctional officers and administrators.
  7. Correctional Medical Staff
  8. Security of the Institution.
  9. 1. Depositions
    2. Interrogatories
    3. Motions to Produce
    4. Requests for Admissions
  10. No. Deadly force cannot be used to protect personal property. Only self defense and protecting others from death or serious harm. In some cases preventing escape.
  11. 1. Civil Rights Actions
    2. Habeas Corpus Actions
    3. Tort Suits
  12. 1. Civil Rights Action
    2. Tort Suit
  13. 1. The Civil Rights Movement
    2. Poor correctional practices
  14. 1. What was the need for force?
    2. What was the amount of force used?
    3. What injuries were sustained by the inmate?
    4. What was the threat perceived by the reasonable correctional officer?
    5. What efforts to temper the use of force did the officer make?
  15. Security of the institution.
  16. Often court appointed counsel do not offer "meaningful access-to-the-courts. They are unable to provide advice or assistance outside of the criminal case. So once the inmate is sentenced they are no longer represented by that counsel.
  17. 1. Allows supervisors to evaluate the incident.
    2. Allows the court to evaluate the incident.
    3. Allows officers to review the details of the incident prior to testifying.
    4. May be able to be introduced into evidence at a trial.
  18. When the hearing officer is convinced the informant is reliable by a corrections officer that knows the identity of the informant.
    However, unless informant is an eyewitness, the information is suspect.
  19. Because Parole is seen as a form of conditional liberty. Basically, there is more at stake in a parole hearing versus a jail disciplinary hearing.
  20. An agency is likely to refuse to defend an employee sued by an inmate when the employee acts outside the scope of his or her duties, and in bad faith.
  21. 1. Maintain high level of professionalism.
    2. Respect the dignity of the inmate.
  22. 1. Failure to complete suicide screening questionnaire during intake process.
    2. Failure to monitor an inmate according to policy.
  23. The institution would lose the lawsuit, only because the statement is too vague. The institution must articulate in detail as to why the restriction is related to security.
  24. 1. Union Contracts
    2. Civil Service Laws
    3. Discrimination Laws
    4. Occupational Health and Safety Laws
    5. State and Federal Constitutional Law
  25. Without courts, rights would only belong to the strongest, and any freedoms guaranteed by laws would become futile if not enforced by a governing body.
  26. Must be reasonable suspicion that the visitor is hiding contraband on their person.
  27. No. The suit must be against a "person" and the state is not a person.
  28. 1. Personal Safety
    2. Medical Care
    3. Sanitation
    4. Food Service
    5. Shelter
    6. Clothing
  29. Crowding is important in conditions of confinement suits because crowding often results in a breakdown of a facilities ability to provide inmates with their basic human needs.
  30. 1. Hands-Off Era
    2. Hands-On Era
    3. One-Hand-On, One-Hand-Off Era
  31. The Turner Test has made it easier to justify restricting constitutional rights of inmates.
  32. If the cell was left in complete disarray after the cell search. The search was conducted in an unreasonable manner.
  33. The Supreme Court has NOT stepped back. The court re-emphasized the importance of deference in 2003. Bazzetta v. Overton