The Hands-Off Doctrine: Examining Judicial Non-Interference in Prisons

This essay examines the historical "hands-off doctrine" in US courts, which historically prevented judges from intervening in prison administration and decisions regarding prisoner rights. The doctrine, prevalent from the mid-19th to mid-20th century, essentially allowed prison officials to manage prisons without judicial oversight, even concerning Eighth Amendment rights. The essay discusses the standards set by the Supreme Court for determining if prisoner rights were violated, such as the "deliberate indifference" and "identifiable human needs" standards. It also explores the rationale behind the doctrine, including the belief that prison officials are best suited to manage prisoners and that prisoners forfeit some rights due to their crimes. The essay concludes that while the hands-off doctrine aimed to give prison administrators autonomy, courts could intervene if constitutional rights were infringed.

RUNNING HEAD: Hands- off doctrine 0 | P a g e
Hands- off doctrine

Hands- off doctrine 1 | P a g e
With the economic changes, the hands- off doctrine precluded judges from the point
of view of rights survived incarceration. The Hands-off doctrine refers to the historical trend
and the given facts of the US courts to not to interfere with the rights survived incarceration
people. This policy came into force from the mid-19th to mid-20th century. The hands- off
doctrine is an equitable defense in which defendant states that plaintiff is not entitled to
obtain an equitable remedy because he has already acted in bad faith.
In the hands- off doctrine precluded judges denied prisoners even their eighty
amendment rights. It is evaluated that prisoners have some rights and they are entitled to
enjoy their rights.
The hands- off doctrine put emphasis upon the unwritten judicial policy that favours
non-interference by the court in the administration of prisons and jail. All the prisons will be
managed and developed by the authorised authority without taking any single guidance and
direction from the courts. The hands- off doctrine assume that care of prisoners should be at
the discretion of the prison officers who will take all the necessary decisions to manage the
prison for the prisoners.
Nonetheless, the supreme court issued main two standards to be used by the court in
determining whether prisoner eight amendment protection rules and regulations should be
followed to safe the prisoners against all the cruel and unusual punishments. It is used to
establish the proper protection program for the prisoners for any kind of undue nature and
cruel acts in prisoners.
It is observed that if prisoners wants to raise case against the prisoner handling
officers then under the deliberate indifference" standard, each and every prisoners need to
show that prison official were deliverability indulged in harmful conditions at the facility and
prisons and failed to give proper remedy on that. In addition to this, under Identifiable
human needs" standard, prisoners could also reach to court. However, they need to show
whether they were denied from their basic needs such as food water and, exercise.
After reading the various judicial and case laws, it is inferred that there are several
factors which result to establishment of hands off doctrine. The prisoner care should be left in
the hand of prison officials as they better know how to treat prisoners in better way.Judges

Hands- off doctrine 2 | P a g e
believes that prisoners have no right because they fortified their rights as results of their
crimes and the acts they committed (Miller, 2001).
In Ruffin v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. 790, 796 (Va. 1872), court held that all the prisoners
who committed heinous offences are the slaves of the state undergoing punishment (Haas,
1977).
After evaluating all the details and case studies on the hands- off doctrine, it could be inferred
that prisoners will not be given any right and they will be taken care by the prison officer as
per their set guidelines. Nonetheless, in case if there is found infringement of constitutional
right then in that case, court could interfere in the administrating activities of the prison
officers. This hand- off doctrine law was notified by the court by considering the acts of
prisoners and prisoner’s constitutional right (Garnett, 2008).
The main purpose of setting the hands- off doctrine was based on the argument that court has
lack of understanding on the prison management. However, in one of the notification, it was
inferred that even if the decision of the court changes, court does not have to engage in the
management of prisoners and prison administrators will implement their policies as per their
understanding. They will be free to manage the prisoner as per their ways and management
style (Cimini, 2014).
Now in the end, it could be inferred that hands- off doctrine was issued in the interest of the
prison administrators to handle the prisoners as per their set guidelines. They will be at their
free will to manage prisoners and will treat as per their management policies, irrespective of
the court decisions. However, in case of infringement of the prisoner’s constitutional right,
court could interfere and cross the formulated veil.

Hands- off doctrine 3 | P a g e
References
Cimini, C. N. (2014). Hands Off Our Fingerprints: State, Local, and Individual Defiance of
Federal Immigration Enforcement. Conn. L. Rev., 47, 101.
Garnett, R. W. (2008). A Hands-off Approach to Religious Doctrine: What are We Talking
About. Notre Dame L. Rev., 84, 837.
Haas, K. C. (1977). Judicial Politics and Correctional Reform: An Analysis of the Decline of
the Hands-Off Doctrine. Det. CL Rev., 795.
Miller, T. A. (2001). Keeping the Government's Hands Off Our Bodies: Mapping a Feminist
Legal Theory Approach to Privacy in Cross-Gender Prison Searches. Buffalo Criminal Law
Review, 4(2), 861-889.