McKune v. Lile
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that Kansas' (SATP) served a vital penological purpose and determined that allowing minimal incentives to take part in the SATP does not equal compelled self-incrimination as prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. There were three main points to the case that were used to determine the SATPs were constitutional as summarized by the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA). These included the distinct findings that, “[t]he SATP in Kansas is supported by the legitimate penological objective of rehabilitation”, that, “the fact that Kansas does not offer immunity or privilege in response to statements made by participants does not render the SATP invalid under the [fifth] amendment”, and
Wikipage disambiguates
Wikipage redirect
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
primaryTopic
McKune v. Lile
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that Kansas' (SATP) served a vital penological purpose and determined that allowing minimal incentives to take part in the SATP does not equal compelled self-incrimination as prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. There were three main points to the case that were used to determine the SATPs were constitutional as summarized by the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA). These included the distinct findings that, “[t]he SATP in Kansas is supported by the legitimate penological objective of rehabilitation”, that, “the fact that Kansas does not offer immunity or privilege in response to statements made by participants does not render the SATP invalid under the [fifth] amendment”, and
has abstract
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2 ...... cision was held as a majority.
@en
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
35,302,179
page length (characters) of wiki page
Wikipage revision ID
948,114,945
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
case
McKune v. Lile,
@en
Concurrence
O'Connor
@en
cornell
courtlistener
DecideDate
DecideYear
Dissent
Stevens
@en
fullname
McKune, Warden, et al. v. Robert G. Lile
@en
googlescholar
Holding
The state's consequences for n ...... dent's Fifth Amendment rights.
@en
JoinDissent
Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
@en
JoinPlurality
Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
@en
justia
Litigants
McKune v. Lile
@en
oyez
ParallelCitations
Plurality
Kennedy
@en
Prior
wikiPageUsesTemplate
subject
comment
McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2 ...... r the [fifth] amendment”, and
@en
label
McKune v. Lile
@en
wasDerivedFrom
isPrimaryTopicOf
name
@en
McKune, Warden, et al. v. Robert G. Lile
@en