IX. PRISONERS’ RIGHTS / RIGHT TO REHABILITATION

Purcell v. University of Alaska Anchorage
Issue: student denied entry to degree program because of felony background
Case Number: 3AN-05-09374 CI (Alaska Superior Court)
Status: ACLU of Alaska loss
Summary: The ACLU of Alaska Foundation filed an administrative appeal on behalf of Micheal Purcell, a University of Alaska Anchorage student and former prisoner who was denied entry into the UAA Bachelor of Social Work degree program because of his past felony conviction for murder. At the time the case was filed, Mr. Purcell was a 37-year-old student who had served nearly 20 years in prison for a crime he committed when he was 16. He had attended UAA since he was released on furlough in 2002, and had good grades and served as President of the UAA Social Work Club. The ACLU of Alaska believed that the school’s denial of entry to a model student constitutes a violation of Mr. Purcell’s rights, including his right to rehabilitation under the Alaska Constitution. Because of Alaska’s unique right to rehabilitation, the ACLU of Alaska argued that UAA must take into consideration factors related to whether students like Mr. Purcell have been rehabilitated when making admission decisions. The Alaska Superior Court disagreed, and ruled that the right to rehabilitation only requires the State to provide rehabilitative programming in prison. The court also assessed attorney’s fees against Mr. Purcell. In exchange for UAA releasing its claim to fees, Purcell agreed not to appeal the decision to the Alaska Supreme Court.

State of Alaska v. Callahan, Lundy, and Chase
Issue: whether the Department of Corrections must provide sex offender treatment to prisoners
Case Number: 1JU0500149CR/ 1JU0400135CR / 1JU04992CR (Superior Court), A-09493/A-09494/A-9836 (Court of Appeals)
Status: Superior Court judge ruled that DOC must provide sex offender treatment as part of a convicted sex offender’s criminal sentence; currently on appeal to Alaska Court of Appeals
Summary: Superior Court Judge Larry Weeks ordered the Department of Corrections to provide sex offender treatment for convicted sex offenders as part of their criminal sentences. Judge Weeks’ orders were based on a unique provision of the Alaska Constitution that provides a fundamental right to rehabilitation for criminal offenders. The right is also intended to protect the public, and Judge Weeks specifically ordered DOC, which has not provided sex offender treatment within the State prison system since 2003, to provide Mr. Callahan, Mr. Lundy, and Mr. Chase with rehabilitative treatment while they are incarcerated for the protection of the public. The State challenged Judge Weeks’ orders and asked for an exemption so that DOC would not be required to provide sex offender treatment. Because the ACLU of Alaska is actively involved with protecting the rights of prisoners in Alaska as well as with ensuring the proper administration of criminal justice to protect the public, the ACLU of Alaska Prison Project filed a friend-of-the-courtbrief in support of Judge Weeks’ orders. The brief argued that Judge Weeks was well within his authority to require sex offender treatment and that the State’s requested exemption violates the principles of criminal justice administration in Alaska.

Tyler v. Department of Corrections
Issue: DOC policy prohibiting outside evidence at in-prison disciplinary hearings
Case Number: 3AN-05-7368CI (Alaska Superior Court); S-12580 (Alaska Supreme Court)
Status: case dismissed as moot
Summary: The ACLU of Alaska Foundation represented Cortez Tyler in an administrative appeal of a Department of Corrections (DOC) disciplinary board decision. Mr. Tyler’s right to due process was violated because DOC policies rendered him unable to present corroborating evidence at his hearing. After being released on a furlough to spend the last six months of his sentence in a Fairbanks halfway house, Mr. Tyler was escorted by a Wildwood Correctional Center officer to the Kenai Airport. While at the airport, Mr. Tyler was written up for disobeying a direct order from the officer and sent back to prison. Mr. Tyler claimed that he did not commit the infraction and asked that witnesses from the airport testify on his behalf at his disciplinary hearing. His request was denied because DOC does not allow outsiders to present evidence in prison disciplinary board hearings. Because he could not present relevant evidence to back up his story, Mr. Tyler was found guilty of the infraction, sentenced to time in punitive segregation, and transferred to Spring Creek Correctional Center. His furlough was also cancelled. The ACLU of Alaska represented Mr. Tyler because the implications of this policy are great - anytime a prisoner is charged with an offense that occurs outside facility walls, whether at a medical appointment, court hearing, or transfer, they will be unfairly required to counter the testimony of staff members, who often have greater credibility with the staff on the hearing committee, without the testimony of neutral, unbiased witnesses. Mr. Tyler completed his sentence and was released from prison before briefing in this case was completed. The Department of Corrections argued that with Tyler out of prison, the case was moot. The superior court agreed and dismissed the case. Mr. Tyler chose to pursue an appeal, but was then unable to participate and the appeal was dropped.

top