prisoner's legal rights

Prisoners' Legal Rights

In order to explain the legal rights of the prisoners,firstly we define the “PRISON” and “PRISONER”.

PRISON: (definition)

                  A public building used to house covicted criminals and accused persons             remanded in custody and awaiting trial.

                  Any place of confinement or seeming confinment

                  Jail, penitentiary, reformatory etc

PRISONER: (definition)

            A person held in custody, captivity, or a condition of forcible restraint, especially while on trial or serving a prison sentence.

The movement for prisoners' legal rights is based on the principle that prisoners, even though they are deprived of liberty, are still entitled to basic human rights. Advocates for prisoners' rights argue that they are often deprived of very basic human rights, with the cooperation of the prison authorities. Alleged violations often include:

• Prison authorities turning a blind eye to assault or rape of prisoners, failing to take sufficient steps to protect prisoners from assault or rape, or even allegedly arranging for prisoners to be assaulted or raped by other inmates as a form of punishment.
• Providing insufficient treatment for serious medical conditions
• Refusing freedom of expression, to read materials, and communicate (particularly in cases of foreign languages in prisons)
• Punishing prisoners who raise complaints about bad conditions
• Taking away prisoners' rights to sue prison officials or governments for maltreatment, or to receive compensation for injuries caused by the negligence of prison authorities.
• Depriving inmates of freedom of religion.
• Blockading inmates rights to legal materials and access to the courts.
• Not properly feeding and clothing the prisoner.
• Disenfranchising prisoners.

As a corollary of the above, the following list represents a part of a prisoner's legal rights:

• Right to be protected by authorities in the case of assault or rape
• Right to Medical Treatment
• Right to freedom of expression, reading materials, and communication
• Right to express concern with the prison's standard of living
• Right to a court of law with regards to prison authorities
• Right to freedom of religion
• Right to access to a court of law (mentioned above)
• Right to drink safe water
• Right to food and clothing
• Right to equal and fair treatment

Prisoners and Detainees

A prisoner is anyone who is deprived of personal liberty against his or her will following conviction of a crime. Although not afforded all the privileges of a free citizen, a prisoner is assured certain minimal rights by the U.S. Constitution and the moral standards of the community.

Detainees are individuals who are kept in jail even though they have not yet been convicted of a crime. A majority of detainees are individuals who are unable to obtain sufficient funds to post bail and therefore cannot be released from jail pending a trial on the criminal charges.

Historical Background

Until the 1960s, courts refused to set standards for the treatment of prisoners, claiming they lacked the authority and the expertise to do so. Courts deferred to experienced prison administrators to avoid interfering with their ability to respond to the varied, complex issues involved in a penal system, such as custody, security, rehabilitation, discipline, punishment, and limited resources.

By the late 1960s, however, prison conditions in many states were clearly intolerable. Courts began to review the claims of prisoners and to intervene regularly on their behalf. Finding that even prisoners are entitled to minimum rights, federal courts in particular exhibited renewed interest in the right of access to the courts, freedom of expression and religion, the constitutional Prohibition against Cruel and Unusual Punishment, and the right to Due Process of Law.

Rights of Detainees

A great number of persons are jailed before their trials. These persons, known as pretrial detainees, are ordinarily held because they are unable to satisfy the financial requirements for a bail bond.

Important law concerning the rights of pretrial detainees emerged in the 1970s. In Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447 (1979), the Supreme Court rejected the theory that pretrial detainees cannot be deprived of any right except the right to come and go as they choose. The Court criticized lower federal courts that had given detailed orders to prison administrators regarding how they should do their jobs. Although prisons cannot employ methods designed only to punish detainees before conviction, they can use suitable procedures for purposes of security and discipline.

Rights of Citizenship

Convicted offenders are deprived of many of their Civil Rights, both during and after their period of incarceration. A majority of states deprive citizens of the right to vote in all state and federal elections upon conviction of a felony. Even in jurisdictions where offenders can vote after release, they ordinarily cannot obtain an absentee ballot and vote while in prison.

Conviction and incarceration for serious crimes can also lead to the total or partial loss of the right to start a lawsuit not related to imprisonment or to enter into a contract. Correction officials argue that permitting a prisoner the right to carry on business as usual creates an impossible security burden. Most states, however, permit a prisoner to be sued.

The right of a prisoner to inherit property or receive a Pension can be affected by various state laws. Most of the legal disabilities to which prisoners are subject are upheld because they do not interfere with fundamental Human Rights.

Personal Property

Prisoners have certain rights regarding Personal Property in their possession. Court decisions have established the right of a prisoner to own some personal items, such as cigarettes, stationery, a watch, cosmetics, or snack foods. In certain cases, prison officials have been found to be justified in forbidding certain items because they fear that permitting inmates to accumulate some form of wealth encourages gambling, theft, and buying favors from guards. Judges have sometimes refused to support prisoner demands for the right to own such items as radios, televisions, or personal typewriters.

Privacy

Prisoners do not have the right to expect privacy in a prison setting. Court decisions have established that prison officials can properly monitor and record prisoners' conversations, provided that the prisoner and the visitor are warned that this will be done. Prison officials cannot intrude upon conversations that are legally afforded confidentiality, such as those between the prisoner and the prisoner's attorney or spouse.

In Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 104 S. Ct. 3194, 82 L. Ed. 2d 393 (1984), the Supreme Court declared that prisoners do not have a Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures of their property because the Fourth Amendment is inapplicable to them.

Mail

Throughout U.S. history, prison officials have severely restricted the mail of prisoners. For example, officials have opened incoming mail to catch plans and instruments of escape, weapons, Pornography, drugs, and other contraband. The threat of revoking mail privileges has also been used to enforce discipline. Courts have mandated, however, that prison officials offer good reasons for banning publications they consider inflammatory, obscene, or racist. A vague allegation that a book or magazine is likely to stir up trouble has been held inadequate to justify broad Censorship.

Prison administrators cannot unreasonably restrict or censor a prisoner's outgoing mail. In 1974, the Supreme Court, in Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S. Ct. 1800, 40 L. Ed. 2d 224, ruled that the California Department of Corrections could not censor the direct personal correspondence of prisoners unless such censorship was necessary to further important interests of the government in security, order, and rehabilitation. The Court also held that a procedure must be established to determine that censorship, when appropriate, is neither Arbitrary nor unduly burdensome.

Free Speech

Prisoners do not have a First Amendment right to speak freely. Prison officials may discipline inmates who distribute circulars calling for a mass protest against mistreatment. Administrators have traditionally limited prison newspapers to issues that promote good morale.

The restrictions against First Amendment rights to prisoners have extended to so-called "inmate law clerks." In many prisons, a certain inmate is often declared the inmate law clerk by prison authorities to consult fellow inmates about legal problems and to assist them with filling out paper work. The use of inmate clerks provides inmates with inexpensive and accessible counseling. However, prison authorities often maintain control over the clerks by preventing them from consulting with inmates without prior approval.

An inmate in a Montana prison who had violated the rules restricting unauthorized communication in his role as the inmate law clerk with another inmate brought suit claiming that the restriction violated his First Amendment rights. Although the Ninth Circuit declared that inmates have a constitutional right to assist other inmates with their legal claims, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed. In Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 121 S. Ct. 1475, 149 L. Ed. 2d 420 (2001), the Court, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, noted that a prior ruling on prisoner-to-prisoner communications required that restrictions must be "reasonably related to legitimate and neutral government objectives." Therefore, the sole question was whether legal correspondence merited a blanket exception to this rule. Thomas made comparisons to other First Amendment restrictions of prisoners, including prohibitions against giving media interviews, organizing private labor unions, and uncensored correspondence among inmates. The restrictions on legal correspondence were no different, according to the Court, and were not entitled to First Amendment protection.

Visitors

The law has long recognized the importance of Visitation Rights, because such rights aid the prisoner's eventual transition back into the community by keeping the individual in touch with society.

Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to enjoy contact visits, as opposed to arrangements in which prisoners are only permitted to talk to visitors over a telephone (Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 104 S. Ct. 3227, 82 L. Ed. 2d 438 [1984]). Courts have held that restrictions on visitation must be reasonable and related only to security needs and good order. Prisoners do not have a right to engage in sexual relations with a visitor.

The issue of the right of a prisoner to communicate and see visitors becomes more significant when the proposed visitor is a news reporter. Federal courts have held that a genuine need for security must be given greater weight than access to the media. Although inmates have a First Amendment right to communicate with the media, this right can be satisfied through the mail.

Before an individual interview with a reporter is approved, prison officials can require the prisoner or reporter to complete an application that discloses the names of the persons involved and the nature of the intended discussions. Officials can also limit reporters to random interviews conducted during a tour of the prison, as opposed to prearranged interviews with specific prisoners. In addition, face-to-face interviews can be banned for any prisoner who has been placed in maximum security.

Access to the Courts

States cannot interfere with the right of a prisoner to petition a court for relief. Neither a state nor a prison official can refuse, for any reason, to review a prisoner's applications and submit them to federal court. In addition, a state is not permitted to prohibit prisoners from having law books or legal papers in their cells on the basis that such materials tempt other prisoners to steal or create a fire hazard. If a prisoner is indigent, the state cannot require him to pay even a small fee to file legal papers with the court. However, a prisoner association cannot have filing fees waived. The right to proceed as an indigent party is allowed only for individual prisoners.

Prisoners have a fundamental right to legal counsel that requires special consideration. Prison officials must allow reasonable times and places for prisoners to communicate confidentially with their attorneys. Prisoners who cannot afford an attorney generally turn to fellow inmates who are experienced in arguing their own cases. Assistance from these jailhouse lawyers was forbidden in most prisons until 1969, when the Supreme Court, in Johnson v. Avery, 393 U.S. 483, 89 S. Ct. 747, 21 L. Ed. 2d 718, held that prisons cannot completely forbid inmate assistance unless there is an alternative for prisoners.

Prisoners must be provided with writing materials and law books. Additionally, prisoners must be able to have their legal papers notarized.

Work

Prisoners ordinarily receive token wages for work performed in prison. Courts have rejected prisoner lawsuits demanding fair wages for prisoner labor, concluding that prisoners do not have to be paid at all. Prisoners have no right to their own labor, or the benefits of it, while incarcerated.

Prisoners cannot refuse to work or choose the work they will do. Prison officials can punish prisoners for refusing to do work assigned to them.

Food

Every prisoner is entitled to food in amounts adequate to sustain an average person. Various groups of prisoners have protested the failure of prisons to furnish them with special diets, and prisoners with special medical needs are generally accommodated. Dietary accommodations have been made for Orthodox Jews and for Muslim prisoners, though prison officials may balance the needs for prison security and economy with the religious beliefs of the inmates.

Religion

Prisoners must be allowed to practice their religion, obtain and keep written religious materials, see or communicate with a religious leader, and obey the rules of their religion that do not endanger order and security in the prison. In addition, wherever possible, formal religious observances for groups of inmates must be allowed on a regular basis. Prisoners can have access to religious programs broadcast on radio and television. Different religions within a particular prison must be given equal treatment.

Until 1997, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned portions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb-1 [1993]), prisoners who had been denied permission to exercise their religious beliefs sought to obtain relief under this federal law. Under the law, a restriction that imposed a substantial burden on religious exercise had to further a compelling state interest in the least restrictive way to be constitutional. However, as of 2003, prisoners had not been successful in overturning restrictions under this law because courts generally agreed with prison officials that compelling state interests were at stake.

Medical Care

Prisoners are entitled to adequate medical treatment. A prison official's refusal to provide medical care to a seriously ill inmate violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 [1976]). In cases where the treatment is neither cruelly withheld nor intentionally mismanaged but is inept, prisoners can sue physicians in state courts for Medical Malpractice.

Appearance

Prisons traditionally have strictly regulated the appearance of prisoners. In situations where prisoners have complained that they were denied opportunities to shower or shave, courts have insisted on minimum standards of human decency and personal hygiene. When necessary, courts have allowed prisons to force inmates to

keep themselves clean for purposes of maintaining the health of the general prison population.

Discipline and Punishment

The rules regarding conduct must be clearly defined and explained to inmates, and each prisoner must be provided with a written list of the rules when entering a correctional facility. Disciplinary rules must relate to the needs of security, good order, and good housekeeping.

A prisoner accused of breaking rules does not have all the rights of an accused at trial because a prison disciplinary proceeding is not the same as a criminal prosecution. Inmates are not entitled to an attorney at disciplinary hearings, nor are they entitled to confront or cross examine the witnesses against them.

Prisoners must be given notice of the charges against them, the particular rules they are charged with violating, and the penalties for such infractions. A hearing can be informal for small infractions. The ordinary procedure is for the fact finder to write a statement that explains the evidence relied on and the reason for any disciplinary action taken. The punishment must reasonably relate to the seriousness of the infraction.

Prison personnel can use force in Self-Defense, stopping fights between inmates, compelling obedience to lawful orders where milder measures fail, and defending state property. Where guards use force without justification, a prisoner does not necessarily have the right to resist. The use of tear gas and chemical mace is justified only when an immediate danger of riot or serious disorder exists.

Prison officials may punish prisoners by withdrawing certain privileges, such as seeing visitors, buying items from the commissary, or earning wages. Prisoners cannot be denied fundamental human necessities.

Segregation is the most common type of punishment used in prisons for rule breaking. Prisoners can be categorized into groups and segregated from the general inmate population for a number of other reasons as well. Each prison has its own system and titles for different degrees of segregation. Separate areas may be set aside for young prisoners, repeat offenders, or prisoners who have been sentenced to death. Homosexuals and other prisoners who have or may be subjected to Sexual Abuse can be segregated. Segregation cannot be used, however, to separate prisoners according to race.

A number of prisons have more than one level of segregation, the most serious of which is solitary confinement. Punitive isolation is not unconstitutional in and of itself. Conditions in some prisons, however, have been found to be so strict that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment. A person in solitary confinement can be punished by the restriction of ordinary privileges, but a prisoner cannot be denied basic food, light, ventilation, or sanitation.

Unconstitutional Prisons

Many federal courts have found that mere confinement in some prisons amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The intervention of federal courts in prison reform began in the early 1970s and continued into the early 2000s. In 1996, eight jurisdictions (Alaska, Mississippi, New Mexico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) were under court order or a Consent Decree to improve prison conditions. At the same time, major prison facilities in 32 jurisdictions were under court supervision. Typically, federal courts intervene when a facility has serious overcrowding or does not meet minimum standards.

Federal court intervention has forced states to improve prisons through the expenditure of money for new facilities, more staff, and improvements at existing prisons. However, many states have objected to what they perceive as unwarranted federal interference. Congress responded by passing the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) in 1995, which imposed substantive and procedural limitations on the ability of federal courts to issue injunctions mandating prison reform. The act also restricted the courts' ability to employ special masters to assist in prison condition cases. (A Special Master is a person appointed by the district court to handle the day-to-day details and oversight of a case.) The law has been challenged on many fronts by those seeking reforms in prison conditions.

Lower federal courts have confronted issues posed by the PLRA by finding that the statute restricts their ability to establish minimum prison conditions. In Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Rouse, 129 F.3d 649 (1st Cir. 1997), the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the PLRA required a district court to vacate a 1979 consent decree that set conditions for confinement of pretrial detainees in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. In its decision, the court rejected the inmates' contention that the PLRA was unconstitutional because it violated the Separation of Powers principle and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The PLRA contains a section that entitles a state or local government entity to the immediate termination of "any prospective relief" previously ordered by a court. Under the act, prospective relief includes all relief other than Compensatory Damages. This definition meant that provisions of the consent decree dealing with the housing of prisoners could be terminated. The First Circuit found that the statute was constitutional and held that the law mandated the termination of the consent decree unless the district court made specific findings that the decree was narrowly drawn to correct a violation of federal law.

Remedies Available to Prisoners

Prisoners who seek to protect a constitutional or civil right are entitled to complain, but they are required to pursue whatever procedures exist within the prison before taking the case to court.

The most popular vehicle for prisoner lawsuits has been a federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (1871; recodified 1979). A "Section 1983 action" permits a prisoner to sue in federal court for an alleged deprivation of a federally protected or constitutional right by a person acting under the authority of state law. A prisoner may sue the warden or supervisor, a guard, or the local government that owns and runs the prison.

In the early 1980s, as many as 15,000 section 1983 actions were filed each year, many of them frivolous. The Supreme Court responded by requiring many prisoners to use state tort claims acts rather than the federal statute and the federal courts. The Court also established difficult standards of proof for prisoners to meet.

In 1995, Congress sought to restrict prisoner lawsuits by devoting numerous provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act to this subject. The statute requires prisoners to exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a lawsuit, expands the federal courts' ability to dismiss lawsuits filed by prisoners, imposes numerous restrictions on the fees that can be awarded to a prisoner's attorney, and forbids a prisoner from filing an action for mental or emotional injury without a prior showing of physical injury. In addition, the act imposes restrictions on the ability of prisoners to proceed without paying filing fees. Another provision requires courts to prescreen lawsuits filed by prisoners and expands the grounds for dismissal of such suits. Finally, the act grants federal courts the power to revoke the good time credits of prisoners who file frivolous or harassing lawsuits or present false testimony or evidence to the court.

A prisoner's ability to file a habeas corpus action in the federal courts challenging prison conditions was also diminished. A writ of habeas corpus is a legal document ordering anyone who is officially holding the petitioner to bring him into court to determine whether the detention is unlawful. A federal court can hear an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a state prisoner who is being held in custody, allegedly in violation of the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

Traditionally a writ of habeas corpus was granted only for the purpose of ordering an immediate release of a prisoner from all restraints. A court would have to find that the imprisonment itself was illegal, for example, if the petitioner was convicted but his constitutional rights were violated during the trial. The scope of federal habeas corpus expanded in the 1970s and early 1980s, entitling prisoners to the writ even if they were legally in custody but the conditions of the confinement violated their constitutional rights. The writ is rarely used in these circumstances, however, because federal courts prefer to improve prison conditions rather than set a convicted felon free.

Provisions of the Antiterrorism and Death Penalty Act of 1996 further limited the power of federal courts to review cases through habeas corpus review. The act lowered the applicable Statute of Limitations to one year after the judgment convicting the defendant becomes final, which is generally the date of a final appeal or the final date when an appeal would be available. The act also provides several restrictions on the ability of a federal court in a habeas corpus review from reconsidering the factual and legal bases for the defendant's incarceration.

Prisoners’ legal rights situation in Pakistan

A prison is a place in which criminals are physically confined and usually deprived of a range of personal freedoms. Prisons are also known as conventional community centre which should play an important role in lessening crime in any society reform through reformation. The institution of a prison should bring amongst the individuals, behavioral changes so that they can serve their nation in a better way. Prisons should not be just taken as places to detain criminals but something constructive shall be done so that it can make them a better person, a better citizen in the society.

Unfortunately, Pakistan has a jail system where prisoners only become non functional organs for our society. The conditions over there triggers violence rather than curing them mentally. This can be proved by the poor facilities present there.

In the low class cells, prisoners face extreme pathetic, worse living conditions. Health and cleaning facilities are not sufficient and leave a lot to be desired. Infectious and contagious diseases like tuberculosis and hepatitis are widespread with dirty toilets also located within the prison cells. Proper sanitation services are not provided resulting in rampant skin diseases amongst the inmates. 

The delayed and time-consuming trial system also makes a troublesome experience for the prisoners. Some of under-trial prisoners awaiting the trial process for several years. Most of the criminals spend more time in prison than the actual duration of the imprisonment that could be awarded against the committed crime. About 70% of the inmates in prisons of Pakistan are under-trial.

Furthermore, prisoners are not provided employment facilities by the government after their detention term which is another factor that prevents them to serve their country in a positive way in the future. No proper education or training is given to the illiterate. There is no capacity building prospectus for the inmates at all. Feelings of disconnection with friends and family originate due to this.

The administrative aspect of the issue, corruption does not seem immune to the prisons as well. Whether it’s provision of food, meeting with visitors or the extension of basic facilities, bribery is common everywhere. The human resource available in the form of staff is far less than required; there is a scarcity of staff workers.

Criminals should be punished, although it is more advisable to rehabilitate them rather than just putting them behind bars and forgetting them. In a nutshell, prisoners in Pakistan are not treated fairly and a thorough reformation process shall be considered.

Violations of the prisoners ‘rights in Pakistan

(SAARC HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT 2006)

According to a report by the Central Jail Staff Training Institute, in August 2005, there were 86,194 prisoners in 81jails of Pakistan against the authorized capacity of 36,825. In December 2005; Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao stated that Pakistan had three times more prisoners than the authorized capacity. By December 2005, there were 53,000 prisoners in 30 jails of Punjab against sanctioned capacity of 17,637. In19 jails of Sindh, there were 19,700 against sanctioned capacity of 8,000 prisoners. In10 jails of Balochistan, 26,000 prisoners were detained against sanctioned capacity of 1800 prisoners.

An estimated 49,375 of the 86,194 or over 55%prisoners were under-trial prisoners. Punjab had the highest number of under-trial prisoners with 27,182 male and 585 female prisoners, followed by Sindh with 14,868 male and 205 female prisoners, Northwest Frontier Province with5, 310 male and 212 female under-trial prisoners, and Balochistan having 992 male and 21 female under-trial prisoners.

 On 3 February 2005, Senate Functional Committee on Human Rights decided to pay surprise visits to prisons with special reference to human rights violation in prisons. The Senators reportedly visited many jails in all the provinces and submitted their final recommendations. But these had little impact. On 26 October 2005, Supreme Court ordered Inspector General of Punjab Prisons to submit a detailed report within two weeks Pakistan on allegations made by an under-trial prisoner of corruption, misuse of power, providing drugs to prisoners and sodomising of the juvenile prisoners.

Earlier in July 2005, the Supreme Court of Pakistan formed a judicial committee consisting of the attorney general and all the four provincial advocate generals to formulate recommendations for improving the condition of jails and prisoners and submit its report to the court. The Court directed to submit the complete data and statistics about prisoners and the facilities given to them in their respective provincial jails.

 A delegation of the Federal Law, Justice and Human Rights Ministry and some local reporters during a visit in September 2005 found that a majority of prisoners in Kotlakpat Central jail in Lahore were suffering from scabies and other skin diseases, caused by overcrowding. Majority of the female inmates were suffering from Hepatitis. Tuberculosis was spreading at an alarming rate in the jail.

 Prisoners resorted to strikes to protest against the denial of basic facilities. On 12May 2005, hundreds of prisoners in Central Jail-I and II, Sukkur protested against Ashiq Bozdar, Jail Superintendent and Jailer Pirzada and other officials for looting cash amounting to Rs 15million from the prisoners during search operation in the first week of May 2005, not providing them food, water and electricity. The prisoners took 10 jail staff as hostages. One prisoner Taj Mohammad Pathan was killed and 25 others were injured in firing and tear gas shelling by security forces and police. About 170 prisoners of the Mach jail in Balochistan province reportedly started hunger strike on 30 June 2005 to protest against violations of the jail manual by the jail authorities.

 In the Sargodha District Jail, security forces resorted to teargas shelling and firing on 2 September 2005 following tortured to death of an under- trial prisoner, Ashraf Ali. Prisoners reportedly took his body in their possession and demanded suspension and arrest of the entire jail staff. While police tried to take possession of the body, protesting inmates broke open the locks of some barracks. The prisoners held three jail-staffers hostage at the jail mosque. Five constables and about a dozen inmates were injured in police firing.

The prison authorities sought to hide torture perpetrated on the prisoners. The Supreme Court ordered exhumation of the body of prisoner Sardar Ali, who was detained illegally in New Central Jail, Multan and allegedly died of torture. Postmortem by a medical board found the death as unnatural.

On 20 October 2005, Justice Sheikh Abdur Rashid of the Lahore High Court ordered prosecution of three personnel of the Central Jail, Faisalabad, including the superintendent and deputy-superintendent for severely torturing a prisoner Mohammad Ghufran making him almost disabled.

The conditions of female prisoners remained more despicable. No lady doctor has been appointed for the women’s section of the Peshawar central prison since2003. District and Session judge Shahjehan Akhunzada during her visit to the jail in June 2005 expressed concern about the lack of a lady doctor and prepared a detailed report on the plight of prisoners. Most of the female convicts and under-trial prisoners have small kids and suckling babies with them who needed special attention.

References

1.      Wikipedia

2.      United States Prison and Correction Department.

3.      Word Web & Black Dictionary

4.      SAARC Human Rights Report 2006

5.      United Nations Reports on Crime & Criminals 2005-2007

6.      Human Right Commission Report 2004