Free Essays on Shaw Versus Murphy

Robert Shaw, et al., Petitioners v. Kevin Murphy, Respondent 532U.S.C. 223 (2001). Kevin Murphy (Montana State Prisoner) appeals, United States Supreme Court. While incarcerated at a Montana State Prison, Kevin Murphy learned of a fellow inmate (Pat Tracy) that was being charged with assaulting a Correctional Officer. Tracy had requested that Murphy be assigned to his case. Murphy sent a letter to Tracy. Upon receiving the letter, Robert Shaw, a guard at the Maximum Security prison intercepted the letter. Upon reviewing the letter prison officials sanctioned Murphy for violating prison rules, prohibiting insolence, and interfering with due process hearings. Murphy sought declaratory and injunction relief alleging that the disciplinary action violated his First Amendment rights including the right to provide legal assistance to other inmates. The Supreme Court had to decide on weighing between the First Amendment Constitutional Rights of Inmates, including the right to provide legal assistance to other inmates, 42U.S.C.1983 or the precedent for the case Turnerv, Safle, 482U.S.C.78, which ruled that prison regulation that impinged if inmates constitutional rights is valid â€Å"if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interest.† The court found a â€Å"valid, reasonable connection the prison inmate correspondence policy and the objectives of the prison order, security, and inmate rehabilitation.† The court found that inmates† constitutional rights are more limited to the scope than the rights of individuals held in society at large. Moreover it stated that prison officials are to remain the primary arbiters of the problems that arise in prison management.... Free Essays on Shaw Versus Murphy Free Essays on Shaw Versus Murphy Robert Shaw, et al., Petitioners v. Kevin Murphy, Respondent 532U.S.C. 223 (2001). Kevin Murphy (Montana State Prisoner) appeals, United States Supreme Court. While incarcerated at a Montana State Prison, Kevin Murphy learned of a fellow inmate (Pat Tracy) that was being charged with assaulting a Correctional Officer. Tracy had requested that Murphy be assigned to his case. Murphy sent a letter to Tracy. Upon receiving the letter, Robert Shaw, a guard at the Maximum Security prison intercepted the letter. Upon reviewing the letter prison officials sanctioned Murphy for violating prison rules, prohibiting insolence, and interfering with due process hearings. Murphy sought declaratory and injunction relief alleging that the disciplinary action violated his First Amendment rights including the right to provide legal assistance to other inmates. The Supreme Court had to decide on weighing between the First Amendment Constitutional Rights of Inmates, including the right to provide legal assistance to other inmates, 42U.S.C.1983 or the precedent for the case Turnerv, Safle, 482U.S.C.78, which ruled that prison regulation that impinged if inmates constitutional rights is valid â€Å"if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interest.† The court found a â€Å"valid, reasonable connection the prison inmate correspondence policy and the objectives of the prison order, security, and inmate rehabilitation.† The court found that inmates† constitutional rights are more limited to the scope than the rights of individuals held in society at large. Moreover it stated that prison officials are to remain the primary arbiters of the problems that arise in prison management....