U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

CRIMINAL DETAINERS

NCJ Number
59260
Author(s)
L W ABRAMSON
Date Published
1979
Length
216 pages
Annotation
THIS TEXT APPRAISES THE PROCESS BY WHICH ADDITIONAL CHARGES OR REVOCATION CHARGES ARE BROUGHT AGAINST INMATES; IT ALSO TAKES A LOOK AT INMATE RIGHT AND OTHER LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE PROCESS.
Abstract
THE EXISTENCE OF UNRESOLVED CHARGES AGAINST INMATES CREATES PROBLEMS FOR INMATES, CORRECTIONAL SYSTEMS, AND THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. PROSECUTORS HAVE EXCESSIVE DISCRETION IN THE TIMING OF THEIR DECISION TO BRING EXTRA CHARGES AGAINST AN INMATE AND TO FILE THE CHARGE AT THE INSTITUTION WHERE THE INMATE IS SERVING SENTENCE. BECAUSE THESE DECISIONS ARE OFTEN MADE WITHOUT ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INMATE'S CURRENT SENTENCE OR CORRECTIONAL PROGRAM, INMATES DIRECTLY SUFFER WHEN THE PROSECUTOR NOTIFIES THE INSTITUTION THAT THE INMATES ARE BEING CHARGED WITH ADDITIONAL OFFENSE. WHENEVER SUCH CHARGES ARE MADE, INMATES ARE USUALLY GIVEN A HIGHER SECURITY CLASSIFICATION, BECOME INELIGIBLE FOR MININUM SECURITY PROGRAMS, AND PAROLE BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT TO OBTAIN. HOWEVER, WITH NOTIFICATION, INMATES ACQUIRE THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIALS, WHICH ARE IN THEIR INTEREST. ALTHOUGH LEGISLATURES HAVE SOUGHT TO DEAL WITH THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE PROCESS, THEY HAVE NOT FOCUSED ON THE REVOCATION PROCESS. JUDICIAL RESPONSES TO INMATES' CLAIMS THAT SUCH PROCESSES VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY NORMS HAVE NOT BEEN HELPFUL. FOR EXAMPLE, THE SUPREME COURT RECENTLY HELD THAT INMATES WITH REVOCATION CHARGES HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A PROMPT REVOCATION HEARING. DELAYS IN THE PROCESS CREATE ANXIETY FOR INMATES AND PREVENT THE INSTITUTIONS FROM DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE PREPAROLE PLANS. A LACK OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE INVOLVED AGENCIES, JUDICIAL EMPHASIS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DETAINER AS OPPOSED TO THE CHARGE, AND LEGISLATIVE ADHERENCE TO ADMINISTRATIVE RULES THAT FAIL TO EVALUATE THE PROCESS'S PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH PROBLEMS. RESOLUTION OF SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS COULD BE FACILITATED BY NEW LEGISLATION IMPOSING TIME RESTRICTIONS AT THE CHARGING AND FILING STAGES OF THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE AND REVOCATION PROCESSES. THE UNIFORM MANDATORY DISPOSITION OF DETAINERS ACT, THE INTERSTATE AGREEMENT ON DETAINERS AND PROPOSED REVISIONS, AND A PROPOSED UNIFORM PAROLE AND PROBATION REVOCATION ACT ARE APPENDED. A TABLE OF CASES, AN INDEX, AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (KCP)

Downloads

No download available

Availability