NCJ Number
102083
Journal
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Volume: 478 Dated: (March 1985) Pages: 100-112
Date Published
1985
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This article reviews and analyzes the history of prison crowding and jail crowding litigation in the Federal courts since the 1960's.
Abstract
Although inmates and pretrial detainees have won many court victories, the doctrinal basis for a constitutional right to uncrowded incarceration facilities is unclear and still evolving. The 'Wolfish' and 'Rhodes' U.S. Supreme Court decisions ruled that double-bunking and the exceeding of design capacity are not in themselves unconstitutional. Federal courts, however, uniformly support the principles that the totality of prison conditions, including crowding, must not amount to cruel and unusual punishment and that jail crowding cannot impose privations over an extended time. Courts have taken several approaches to reduce prison and jail overcrowding. They include a limit on the time an inmate may be subjected to specified crowding conditions, restrictions on certain forms of overcrowded housing, prison and jail population caps, and the closing of facilities. In some cases, courts have appointed monitors to oversee the compliance process or prohibited facilities from accepting new inmates until the population is reduced through attrition. The constitutional norms set by courts for prisons and jails ameliorate only the most deplorable conditions. It remains for public officials and the citizenry to go beyond these minimal standards to create humane prisons. 63 footnotes.