NCJ Number
26379
Journal
American Journal of Criminal Law Volume: 3 Issue: 2 Dated: (FALL 1974) Pages: 117-164
Date Published
1974
Length
48 pages
Annotation
ANALYSIS OF THE AUTHORITY UNDER WHICH INTER-INSTITUTION TRANSFERS ARE CONSUMMATED, THE USE OF THE TRANSFER AS A DISCIPLINARY MEASURE, AND THE NATURE OF THE DUE PROCESS WHICH MUST BE ACCORDED PRISONERS.
Abstract
THIS ARTICLE ALSO ATTEMPTS TO INTEGRATE CONCLUSIONS FROM ACADEMIC RESEARCH WITH EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS OF THE FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT SEAGOVILLE, TEXAS, A MINIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION FOR OFFENDERS WITHIN TWO YEARS OF A PROBABLE RELEASE DATE. A DISCUSSION OF THE LAW OF TRANSFERS IS FOLLOWED BY A REVIEW OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON THE SUBJECT. JUDICIAL ATTITUDES ARE TRACED FROM A 'HANDS-OFF' POSTURE TO THE 1974 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN WOLFF V. MCDONNELL, THAT PRISONERS ARE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS SAFEGUARDS AT PRISON DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS. THE DUE PROCESS PROCEDURES REQUIRED BY THE COURT WERE WRITTEN NOTICE OF CLAIM VIOLATIONS 24 HOURS PRIOR TO ADJUSTMENT HEARINGS AND A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON IN JUSTIFICATION OF THE FINDING. THE AUTHOR MAINTAINS THAT SINCE NON-CONSENSUAL, DEMOTIONAL TRANSFER REPRESENT SIGNIFICANT INMATE DEPRIVATIONS (SUCH AS LOSS OF PERSONAL FREEDOM, LOSS OF EDUCATIONAL AND REHABILITATIVE OPPORTUNITIES, INJURY TO PAROLE OPPORTUNITIES), THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS SET DOWN IN WOLFF (A CASE INVOLVING FORFEITURE OF GOOD TIME) SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO TRANSFER SITUATIONS.