Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act
Introduction
The Civil Rights of institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) was enacted in 1980 by the United States Congress department. Its main goal was to protect the rights of the people in the state and local institutions such as mental health facilities, juvenile justice facilities, jails and prisons, nursing homes and institutions of people with developmental and intellectual disabilities. The congress passed this law to authorized the department of justice (DOJ) to use legal action to protect the rights of people who reside in these local institutions. Therefore, the Department of justice is not authorized to represent individuals but to bring cases in the practice of violations.
History Background
The CRIPA was enacted in 1980 by the United States Congress to empower the Department of Justice (DOJ) to protect the rights of the people in the institutionalized facilities. Since the passing of the CRIPA law, the court has had a significant impact on the rights of people in these facilities. For instance, the development of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (ADA) in 1995 and the decision of the supreme court on Olmsted v. L.C of 1999. The ADA was passed by the congress to enrich the rights of the people with disabilities as per section 504 of the rehabilitation reform Act formed in 1973. The main aim of the rehabilitation act is to protect the disability individuals that receive federal funds from disabilities,
On the other hand, the Olmsted v. L.C of 1999 was to empower the DOJ to examine the conditions present in the institution facilities and also to investigate whether it is right for those residents to be housed in the institutions or the communities. Additionally, the Prison Reform Litigation Act of 1995 was aimed to limit the ability of prisons to justify their rights and also to put a boundary of attorneys that brought the prisoner successful lawsuit rights.
Therefore, the civil rights of institutionalized persons Act apply in five institutions. They include; jails and prisons, state or local nursing homes, state or local mental health facilities, juvenile correctional facilities, state or local disability development and mental retardation facilities. The CRIPA main goal policies are; protect women from sexual victimization in prisons, to ensure adequate educational facilities that serve children and adolescents, Also, to unmet the mental health of prisoners and pre-trial detainees needs. Additionally, the law checks on the abuse and abandonment in juvenile and nursing home facilities. Lastly, it aims to achieve the rights of disabled persons in institutions to receive rehabilitation and treatment.
Several litigations have been brought by the CRIPA and one of them is Kennedy V. Herschel. This case was brought in by plaintiff-appellant Johnston under the United States Congress Section 42 in 1983. The case claimed that of monetary damages of the defendants Herschel who was the Governor and Mendicino who was the attorney general of the Wyoming states. Plaintiff claimed a wrong discharge that violated his rights under fifth and amendments to the United States Constitution. He was denied the freedom of protection against self-incrimination. Thereafter, Plaintiff was discharged under the fifth Amendment law of the United States that is meant to protect against incrimination. This erroneous case was dismissed for failure to observe all the administrative remedies. Finally, the case was affirmed under the Civil Rights Institutionalized Persons Act.
Another litigation is of Patsy V. Board of Regents of the State of Florida. Under this case, the petition filed the action in federal court under section 42 of the United States Congress. The petition claimed for damages relief on the assertions that the respondent’s employer had denied her employment opportunities based on race and sex factors. The court dismissed the case under the respondent’s motion because the petition had not held reliable administrative remedies. The court dismissed the case that according to the plaintiff, exhaustion of the state directorial remedies is not a requirement to an action under section 42 of the United States Congress of 1983.
Additionally, CRIPA helped in litigating the Owen V. Kimmel case. The plaintiff Richard Owen, a prisoner of the Indiana state prison, filed a section 1983, he claimed that his piece of furniture was confiscated during prison shakedown. According to prison, an inmate is supposed to have a specific number of furniture and therefore, during prison shakedown the officials found additional furniture and that is why they destroyed. After a clear examination, the court informed the parties that it had decided the oral arguments were unnecessary. This meant that either party could file for an oral argument. Eventually, the complainant filed for an oral argument. Therefore, the court dismissed the motion by granting the defendant moved for summary and dismissed the plaintiff under the claim section 1983. To sum up, the action was taken under the Prison reform litigation Act of CRIPA that is meant to put a boundary on the prisoners in protecting their rights.
From the Litigations above, it is obvious that section 1997 requires proper exhaustion of the administrative remedies before filing for section 1983 action. Section 1997 was modified as a reaction to the increase of section 1983 claims by prisoners in the federal courts. The man goal of the congress in passing this act was to give permission the Attorney General to act only when necessary, in protecting the rights of the prisoners. Also, to minimize federal actions that require prior exhaustion. The senate of CRIPA stated that actions taken against alleged violation of the prisoners right will require prior exhaustion before the Attorney General is involved. Therefore, this is the reason why all the three examined cases in this paper were dismissed. It is because they lacked the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
CRIPA and juvenile Correctional institutions
The juvenile correctional facilities are subject to federal protections that regulate the treatment of the youths and also are easier to bring investigations against the violation of their rights when the DOJ is promptly notified. For instance, in 1995, the federal state of Kentucky to an agreement verdict between the DOJ and state official to provide a serious defence against the 13 juvenile facilities in Kentucky. This agreement required the state to offer the protection of the juvenile against mistreatment, injury and abuse. Also to ensure proper medical care and mental health facilities, provide satisfactory education, rehabilitation and professional services. To sum up, the juveniles are guaranteed protection against violent and mistreatment from members and also they are provided with sanitary living conditions. The law does not allow them to excessively isolated or unreasonably restrained.
Additionally, another CRIPA agreement ordered the federal court in Puerto Rico to offer protection to 8 juveniles detentions and correctional facilities. This decree was meant to protect the juvenile against suicidal attempts, protection from infections caused by unsanitized conditions and also to deal with faulty plumbing that caused juveniles to drink dirty water from their toilet bowls. Therefore, CRIPA has enhanced protection for the juvenile correctional facilities. The statute was designed to control the unauthorized and illegal in public establishments specifically, the juvenile facilities.
In addition to the CRIPA Act, the attorney general has the power to implement parts of the violent crime control and Law Enforcement Act that was implemented in 1994. This law allows the Attorney General to file a lawsuit against the administrative justice system that violates the rights of the enslaved juveniles. For instance, in 1994, a 17-year boy was picked on a robbery warrant and removed from the hospital where he was getting his treatment. Therefore, on this matter, an attorney general was picked to represent the boy. Later on, the attorney general found out that he was not guilty since the boy was under the state care at the onset of crime. The case was dismissed and the boy was to be returned to the hospital to continue with treatment. Therefore, from this case, it is obvious that CRIPA is determined to protect the juvenile from illegal unconstitutional claims.
Also, the CRIPA under Civil Rights Division must protect the rights of the juvenile’s public institutions and also other institutions as nursing homes, prison and jails, mental retardation facilities and psychiatric facilities. The Civil Rights Division is responsible for distributing it is limited resources to all the public resources throughout the United States and its territories. The main interest of the Civil Rights Division is to pursue cases of violation and right abuse in the juvenile facilities. To provide help in these public institutions, the Civil Rights Division relies on the received information from DOJ and other government agencies. Some of these agencies include; Education department, department of health, Civil Rights instructions and other exterior sources. Consequently, it is the right of parents and advocates to find out about the importance and role of the Civil Right Division to bring them information concerning violation of the youths in custody.
Democratic and Justice System of CRIPA
The Civil Rights institutionalized persons Act observes the democracy and justice system in delivering its services. This is it offers protection against every institutionalized person provided the case meets the conditions of administrative remedies. The 1997 act, which requires serious exhaustion of the case before attorney general is involved, the section 1997d prohibits against retaliation. This is to mean that any person reported to conditions under violations shall be endangered to retaliation in any manner if reported. This is efficient because individuals every individual are subjected to their actions and responsibilities.
Additionally, section e of the 1997 Act offers suit by prisoners. Therefore, for these to occur the case have to observe the following rules; it has to apply to the administrative remedies that are, has to meet conditions under section 1983, the federal-state must adhere to the administrative complaints as in section 1997a and 1997c. Additionally, the dismissal rule has to have adhered whereby the court has the right to dismiss the claims brought to it concerning the prisoner’s conditions under section 1983. Also, a suite will be offered to a prisoner, only if the attorney’s fees are proportional to the court-ordered relief for the violation. Also, section e of the 1997 Act offers a limitation to recovery in the sense that any federal action brought by a prisoner in jail or any correctional facilities for injury or mental damage should be accompanied with physical proof of the physical injury. The CRIPA offers a fair and justice service to all the individuals in the correctional facilities.
Additionally, the hearings of federal actions brought to court for the prisoners is conducted through telephones, video conferencing and wire technology without removing the prisoners from their confinement facilities. Additionally, the defendant may waive any action brought to them by a prisoner in jail. Therefore, any federal action brought to court by a prisoner must follow the protocol rules. There is no unbiased as all the prisoners are treated fairly.
Unintended Consequences of the CRIPA
The Civil Rights institutionalized persons Act has incurred some unintended consequences in recent past years. Among them include failure to comprehend the sustainability of improvements that are aimed at improving the civil rights of the confined persons. This has resulted in long-term consent agreement upon the correctional facilities to enhance the protection of the institutionalized person. According to Melanie Taylor, the secure methods for reforms are; implementations of the excellent assurance process, renovation of the investigation and inspection agencies, considering the perspectives of the external sources and lastly, reformation of the ADJC culture. The department of CRIPA has been committed to making these reforms to avoid accidental consequences. However, the increase in disciplinary preventive policies used to reform the policies may have a negative implementation of the CRIPA culture.
Strengths and Limitations of CRIPA
Olmstead v. L. C is a criminal justice law under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). The law was passed in 1999 to protect the right of people living with disabilities in the communities. In this case, the supreme court decided that it was unfair to isolate individuals with disabilities through institutionalization. The court constituted it as discrimination based on disability and a violation of Title II of the Americans with Disability (ADA). Therefore, it is evident that Olmstead v. L. C law opposes the CRIPA Act. This is because the CRIPA law act supports that individuals should be institutionalized even though it still offers them support based on court hearings.
Strengths and Limitations of CRIPA
The strengths of CRIPA can be summarized as; it managed to reduce the number of claims that were made under section 1983. This was achieved by making rules under which federal actions taken to court were to follow. Secondly, it managed to protect the rights of people in the nursing homes, juvenile correctional facilities, prison and jails. CRIPA act was able to achieve this under the Civil Rights Division which is a body that receives information from the institutional facilities and government agencies. From there it can forward information to the Department of justice, which facilitates the distribution of resources to these institutions. The third strength is its ability to aloe equitable relief as a remedy to any violations. It offers equal protection services to every prisoner based on the administrative remedies.
On the other hand, CRIPA’s limitation is that it does not offer protection in education institutions. It has only focused on correctional facilities. Schools are also supposed to be offered protection and supplied with resources from the Civil Rights Division. Another limitation is that it has not created any rights or implement reformations. Creating and forming new rights will comprehend the sustainability of improvements that are aimed at improving the civil rights of the confined persons
Conclusion
The United States Congress passed the CRIPA law to give the Department of Justice authority to intercede in lawsuits that protect the rights of people in institutions. The CRIPA has achieved in settling the increasing number of case that are private and are not enforceable with courts. Additionally, the law enactment has succeeded in offering protection to the individual in institutionalized facilities. For instance, youths imprisoned in correctional facilities have rights that protect them from poor conditions in the confinement facilities. The CRIPA ensures that laws for protecting the youths are not violated. The law has been consistent since the rules enacted are still applicable in contemporary society.
Works Cited
Center, Juvenile Law. “American Bar Association Juvenile Justice Center.” (2003).
Hayden, Mary F. “Civil rights litigation for institutionalized persons with mental retardation: A summary.” Mental retardation 36.1 (1998): 75.
Holt, Karen E. When Officials Clash: Implementation of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998.
Mellow, Jeff, Bryce E. Peterson, and Mijin Kim. “An Analysis of CRIPA Findings Letters Issued to Jails for Constitutional Violations by the Department of Justice.” American journal of criminal justice 42.1 (2017): 69-85.
Taylor, Melanie Ann. A case study of the civil rights of institutionalized persons acts: Reforming the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections. Arizona State University, 2013.
The United States Department of Justice. PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. Washington DC: Pennsylvania Avenue, 2020. Print. https://www.justice.gov/ag/presidential-commission-law-enforcement-and-administration-justice
Young, Jonathan M. “Equality of Opportunity: The Making of the Americans With Disabilities Act.” National Council on Disability (2010).