<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Prisons and Jails</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/prisons-and-jails/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 15:19:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Prisons &amp; Jails &#8211; Wrongful Death – Constitutional – Eighth &amp; Fourteenth Amendments – Violence &amp; Medical Needs&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/19/prisons-jails-wrongful-death-constitutional-eighth-fourteenth-amendments-violence-medical-needs/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/19/prisons-jails-wrongful-death-constitutional-eighth-fourteenth-amendments-violence-medical-needs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:44:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons and Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Middle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourteenth Amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=72397</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>English v. Murphy </em> Although there had been some violence between plaintiff’s decedent and fellow inmate Murphy, the two had also peacefully co-existed in the same cell for some time. In addition, there is no indication that the defendant-jailers believed plaintiff’s abnormal behavior was the result of a medical condition.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/04/19/prisons-jails-wrongful-death-constitutional-eighth-fourteenth-amendments-violence-medical-needs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prisons &amp; Jails &#8211; Criminal Practice – Sentencing – Constitutional – Life Sentence – Prior Statute – Earned Time Credits&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/15/prisons-jails-criminal-practice-sentencing-constitutional-life-sentence-prior-statute-earned-time-credits/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/15/prisons-jails-criminal-practice-sentencing-constitutional-life-sentence-prior-statute-earned-time-credits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2013 20:05:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons and Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life Sentence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=71329</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Lovette v. North Carolina Department of Correction</em> In his dissent, Judge Ervin reasoned that the analysis in Jones v. Keller, 364 N.C. 249, 698 S.E.2d 49 (2010), applied to life sentences imposed under former G.S. 14-2 for crimes other than murder; despite the former statutory definition of a life term as 80 years’ imprisonment, a lifer’s earned time credits do not apply to reduce the time to be served on his sentence. Given that the DOC has interpreted its regulations as permitting the award of different types of time for certain purposes and has, in fact, awarded those credits to petitioners for those purposes, petitioners have received the awards to which they are entitled for the purposes for which they are entitled, and have not, under the logic of Jones, been deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty interest.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/03/15/prisons-jails-criminal-practice-sentencing-constitutional-life-sentence-prior-statute-earned-time-credits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prisons &amp; Jails &#8211;  Constitutional – Life Sentences – 80 Years – Lesser Offenses&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/22/prisons-jails-constitutional-life-sentences-80-years-lesser-offenses/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/22/prisons-jails-constitutional-life-sentences-80-years-lesser-offenses/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:12:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons and Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[80 Years]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lesser Offenses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life Sentences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons & Jails]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=65249</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Lovette v. North Carolina Department of Correction</em> When petitioners were sentenced to life imprisonment, life imprisonment was defined as 80 years. Although the petitioners in Jones v. Keller, 364 N.C. 249, 698 S.E.2d 49 (2010), were also sentenced to life imprisonment when that sentence was defined as 80 years, the Jones court limited its decision – refusing to apply earned credits to shorten the Jones petitioners’ sentences – to prisoners convicted of first-degree murder. Since petitioners in this case were convicted of lesser offenses (second-degree murder and second-degree burglary), Jones does not prevent the application of earned credits to their 80-year sentences.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/22/prisons-jails-constitutional-life-sentences-80-years-lesser-offenses/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prisons &amp; Jails &#8211; Civil Commitment – Sexually Dangerous Person – Treatment Program – Deafness&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/03/prisons-jails-civil-commitment-sexually-dangerous-person-treatment-program-deafness/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/03/prisons-jails-civil-commitment-sexually-dangerous-person-treatment-program-deafness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons and Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Eastern]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Commitment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deafness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons & Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sexually Dangerous Person]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Treatment Program]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=64684</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>United States v. Heyer </em> The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act mandates that the Attorney General assume responsibility for the “custody, care and treatment” of sexually dangerous persons. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/03/prisons-jails-civil-commitment-sexually-dangerous-person-treatment-program-deafness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prisons &amp; Jails &#8211; Civil Rights – Tort/Negligence – Denial of Medical Care – Battery&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/02/prisons-jails-civil-rights-tortnegligence-denial-of-medical-care-battery/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/02/prisons-jails-civil-rights-tortnegligence-denial-of-medical-care-battery/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:06:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons and Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. D.C. Western]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[battery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Denial of Medical Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons & Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort/Negligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=64573</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Eller v. Kaufman</em> Since plaintiff was a pretrial detainee when he was allegedly denied medical care and otherwise mistreated, the Eighth Amendment does not apply to him. Instead, plaintiff’s claims are governed by the Due Process Clause.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/08/02/prisons-jails-civil-rights-tortnegligence-denial-of-medical-care-battery/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prisons &amp; Jails &#8211; Constitutional – Due Process &amp; Ex Post Facto Clauses – Parole Denial Policy – Violent Offenders&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/07/12/prisons-jails-constitutional-due-process-ex-post-facto-clauses-parole-denial-policy-violent-offenders/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/07/12/prisons-jails-constitutional-due-process-ex-post-facto-clauses-parole-denial-policy-violent-offenders/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:41:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons and Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Due Process & Ex Post Facto Clauses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parole Denial Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons & Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Violent Offenders]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=63999</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Burnette v. Fahey</em> Plaintiff Virginia inmates have not stated due process and ex post facto claims against defendant members of the Virginia Parole Board in their official capacities for an alleged policy of denying parole to parole-eligible inmates convicted of violent offenses; the 4th Circuit affirms dismissal of the inmates’ complaint.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/07/12/prisons-jails-constitutional-due-process-ex-post-facto-clauses-parole-denial-policy-violent-offenders/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prisons &amp; Jails &#8211; Tort/Negligence – STCA – Tight Handcuffs&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/21/prisons-jails-tortnegligence-stca-tight-handcuffs/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/21/prisons-jails-tortnegligence-stca-tight-handcuffs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 20:36:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons and Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons & Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[STCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tight Handcuffs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort/Negligence]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=62640</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Robinson v. North Carolina Department of Correction</em> Where plaintiff testified that, all the way around his wrist, there were “teeth marks” from too-tight handcuffs and that his wrist was bruised and swollen, but where a drawing plaintiff made to document his injuries indicated that only his left finger and thumb were swollen with no indication of bruising, discoloration, a cut or “teeth marks” laterally around his wrist, the evidence supports the Industrial Commission’s finding that plaintiff’s drawing was inconsistent with his testimony regarding his injuries.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/21/prisons-jails-tortnegligence-stca-tight-handcuffs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prisons &amp; Jails &#8211; Civil Rights &#8211; Religion &#8211; Beard Policy &#8211; Health &amp; Security Concerns&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/14/prisons-jails-civil-rights-religion-beard-policy-health-security-concerns/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/14/prisons-jails-civil-rights-religion-beard-policy-health-security-concerns/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 19:19:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons and Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beard Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health & Security Concerns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons & Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=62465</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Couch v. Jabe</em> Virginia prison officials failed to show how allowing a Sunni Muslim inmate to wear a one-eighth-inch beard would implicate prison health or security concerns, and the 4th Circuit vacates summary judgment for defendant officials in the inmate’s suit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/14/prisons-jails-civil-rights-religion-beard-policy-health-security-concerns/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prisons &amp; Jails &#8211; Sentence Length – ‘Month’ – Statutory Definitions&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/28/prisons-jails-sentence-length-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%98month%e2%80%99-%e2%80%93-statutory-definitions-2/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/28/prisons-jails-sentence-length-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%98month%e2%80%99-%e2%80%93-statutory-definitions-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:19:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons and Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons & Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sentence Length]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statutory Definitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[‘Month’]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=61326</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>McDonald v. North Carolina Department of Correction</em> Although G.S. § 12-3(12) defines “imprisonment for one month” to mean imprisonment for 30 days, G.S. § 12-3(3) defines “month” as a calendar month unless otherwise expressed. Where plaintiffs’ sentences are for more than one month, they are not entitled to have each month of their sentences construed as 30 days.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/28/prisons-jails-sentence-length-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%98month%e2%80%99-%e2%80%93-statutory-definitions-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Prisons &amp; Jails &#8211; Sentence Length – ‘Month’ – Statutory Definitions&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/26/prisons-jails-sentence-length-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%98month%e2%80%99-%e2%80%93-statutory-definitions/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/26/prisons-jails-sentence-length-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%98month%e2%80%99-%e2%80%93-statutory-definitions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:33:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals Unpublished]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons and Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prisons & Jails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sentence Length]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statutory Definitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[‘Month’]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=61258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>McDonald v. North Carolina Department of Correction</em> Although G.S. § 12-3(12) defines “imprisonment for one month” to mean imprisonment for 30 days, G.S. § 12-3(3) defines “month” as a calendar month unless otherwise expressed. Where plaintiffs’ sentences are for more than one month, they are not entitled to have each month of their sentences construed as 30 days.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/03/26/prisons-jails-sentence-length-%e2%80%93-%e2%80%98month%e2%80%99-%e2%80%93-statutory-definitions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
