Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:12:00.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Beard v. Banks: Deprivation as Rehabilitation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Megan Sweeney
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Letters from Librarians
Information
PMLA , Volume 122 , Issue 3 , May 2007 , pp. 779 - 783
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by The Modern Language Association of America

References

Works Cited

Breyer, Stephen. Majority opinion. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Banks. No. 04–1739. Supreme Ct. of the US. 28 June 2006.Google Scholar
Davis, Angela. Are Prisons Obsolete? New York: Seven Stories, 2003.Google Scholar
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. Dissenting opinion. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Banks. No. 04–1739. Supreme Ct. of the US. 28 June 2006.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Steven R., et al. Brief of the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Legal Aid Society, People for the American Way Foundation, American Friends Service Committee, and California Prison Focus as Amici Curiae in Support of the Respondents. American Civil Liberties Union. 17 Feb. 2006. 18 Aug. 2006 <http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2005/24193lgl20060217.html>..>Google Scholar
Stevens, John Paul. Dissenting opinion. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Banks. No. 04–1739. Supreme Ct. of the US. 28 June 2006.Google Scholar
Thomas, Clarence. Concurring opinion. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Banks. No. 04–1739. Supreme Ct. of the US. 28 June 2006.Google Scholar