Unbalanced Approach to Prisoners' Procedural Due Process Rights: Misapplying the Balancing Test in Mahers v. Halford, An
Loading...
Authors
McCool, Amy E.
Issue Date
1997
Volume
30
Issue
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
INTRODUCTION|Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee that a person will not be deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law." The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that people cannot be deprived of property without adequate procedural due process. In Mathews v. Eldridge, the Supreme Court announced a three-part balancing test to determine "what process is due" under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Since Mathews, courts have had to balance the private interest, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the Government's interest to determine what process is due. In Mahers v. Halford, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered whether procedural due process had been satisfied by an Iowa prison policy that automatically deducted twenty percent of prisoners' money from outside sources to pay court ordered restitution. The Eighth Circuit recognized that prisoners have a property interest in their money and that due process is required before deprivation of that property can occur. The Eighth Circuit then applied the Mathews balancing test and determined that the Iowa policy satisfied the prisoner's due process rights. Specifically, the Court found that the deprivation of the prisoner's interest was limited, that due process had already been satisfied in the hearing setting the restitution plan, and that the Government's high interest invictim restitution and prison administration outweighed these limited prisoner rights...
Description
Citation
30 Creighton L. Rev. 949 (1996-1997)
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law