NCJ Number
15931
Journal
Oregon Law Review Volume: 53 Issue: 1 Dated: (FALL 1973) Pages: 29-55
Date Published
1973
Length
27 pages
Annotation
EXAMINATION OF THE PREMISE THAT COURTS HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ROLE TO PLAY IN PRISON REFORM AND A SPECIAL OBLIGATION TO DEFINE SHAPE, AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PRISON INMATES.
Abstract
THE THESIS OF THIS ARTICLE IS THAT THE COURTS NOT ONLY SHOULD PROVIDE A FORUM FOR THE RESOLUTION OF INMATE COMPLAINTS RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS BUT ALSO SHOULD REQUIRE STATE OFFICIALS AND PRISON ADMINISTRATORS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE OR, IN SOME INSTANCES, STRICT JUSTIFICATION FOR LAWS, POLICIES, AND PRACTICES WHICH ABRIDGE THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF INMATES. THE VARYING DEGREES OF LIBERTY WHICH INMATES RETAIN AFTER CONFINEMENT ARE EXAMINES. VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE CITED TO DOCUMENT THE RATIONALE, HISTORY, AND REFUTATION OF THE COURT'S 'HANDS-OFF' DOCTRINE IN RELATION TO PRISONER RIGHTS CASES. ALSO DISCUSSED ARE THE SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS RETAINED BY INMATES. THESE INCLUDE THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION, ASSOCIATION, AND RELIGION; THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO HAVE THE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO UNIMPEDED ACCESS TO THE COURTS; THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT'S PROSCRIPTION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT; AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)