NCJ Number
100575
Date Published
1985
Length
84 pages
Annotation
After outlining the current operation of inmate welfare funds, this article examines the constitutional, correctional, and economic considerations relevant to inmate financial assessments for confinement costs generally and to inmate welfare funds in particular.
Abstract
Constitutional provisions that preclude excessive fines but authorize involuntary servitude in prison do not resolve problems posed by inmate assessments, and cases invoking the cruel and unusual punishment limitation on incarceration conditions do not directly address the assessment issue. Rulings in such cases apparently assume that the state, when it chooses to incarcerate, must pay to maintain minimal conditions required by the eighth amendment. This assumption is correct. Particularly relevant are equal protection cases that prohibit extensive confinement for persons unable to pay fines. Also, inmates' property rights significantly limit the inmate assessment methods that can be used. Prevailing correctional and economic theories do not support inmate assessment programs. No accepted justification for punishment encompasses assessments, and concepts of user fees assume the consumer's freedom to choose the services. The San Quentin statement of inmate welfare fund operations for 1980 and 1981 is appended. 294 notes.