The U.S Supreme Court pronounced the balancing test in the Turner v. Safley case. The balancing test means that the courts must balance the rights of inmates against the penological concerns of security and order.
In this case, the U.S Supreme Court upheld broad restriction on inmate-to-inmate correspondence and, in the process, reaffirmed its commitment to a deferential standard in prisoner speech cases.
In Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Turner v. Safley, he identified four factors to consider when applying this standard:
- Whether or not there is a valid, rational link between the regulation and the governmental interest advanced to justify it;
- Whether inmates are left with alternative means of exercising the right that the regulation restricts;
- Whether accommodating the asserted right would have a significant ripple effect on fellow inmates or prison staff;
- And whether there is a ready alternative to the regulation that fully accommodates the asserted right at a minimal cost to valid penological interests.
To know more about penology here-
brainly.com/question/28043931
#SPJ4
Influxes of Asian and African americans
The correct answer is what you had for dinner.
According to Craik and Lockhart's l<span>evels of processing model, we are more likely to remember information that is meaningful, and deeply or thoroughly processed and encoded. In this instance, the food you had with your parents is more likely to be remembered compared to whether you encountered a traffic light and stopped. This is because dinner with loved ones is more meaningful and engages more senses such as visual (how the food looked), olfactory (how it smelled), taste of the food, and touch (the texture of the food). On the other hand, being stopped at a traffic light is not as deeply processed or encoded since it is not very meaningful and does not engage as many senses.</span>
