NCJ Number
84913
Date Published
1982
Length
22 pages
Annotation
This argument for judicial activism in correctional reform explores trends in the courts' attitude toward prisoners' rights and examines several cases, particularly those involving Martin Sostre -- a successful jailhouse lawyer from the New York State prison system.
Abstract
Courts traditionally have subscribed to a 'hands off' policy regarding the rights of prisoners, based on the feeling that forfeiture of rights is necessarily a part of incarceration and lack of expertise in prison management. However, some courts have also recognized the rights of prisoners to pursue legal remedies in improving prison conditions. To illustrate how courts can bow to the opinions of correctional administrators and later intervene to enhance prisoners' rights, the paper reviews major court decisions involving Martin Sostre: Sostre v. McGinnis, 1964; Sostre v. Rockefeller, 1970 -- renamed on appeal Sostre v. McGinnis; and Sostre v. Otis, 1971. These cases focused on the right of prisoners to practice their religion, to express political views, to procedural due process, and to receive literature. Although Judge Motley's ruling in Sostre v. Rockefeller was curtailed on appeal, it did redress some damages to Sostre caused by correctional officials' arbitrary actions and deterred further discretionary abuses. The paper discusses cases decided by the Supreme Court in the 1970's to show that it too has wavered between a 'hands on and hands off' approach in areas such as due process rights, the use of the mails, and eighth amendment prescriptions against cruel and unusual punishment. Recent decisions, such as Bell v. Wolfish and Rhoades v. Chapman, signal a sliding back to the 'hands off' doctrine. Reasons for judicial action in correctional reform are summarized. The article contains 26 footnotes, a list of cases cited, and 29 references. For related material, see NCJ 84908.