Week 5b Readings
[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Week 1a Readings ] [ Week 1b Readings ] [ Week 2a Readings ] [ Week 2b Readings ] [ Week 3a Readings ] [ Week 3b Readings ] [ Week 4a Readings ] [ Week 4b Readings ] [ Week 5a Readings ] [ Week 5b Readings ] [ Week 6a Readings ]

 

Week 5b: Inmate Legal Rights

Reading:

  • Blomberg and Lucken, Chapter 10
  • Latessa et al., Chapters 17, 18, 19, and 20
  • Blomberg and Cohen, Chapter 17

The prison as means of reform has been criticized since its inception as a penal policy during the Period of Transition (see Week 1:  The History of Penology).  Although practices of various prison reform efforts have been examined and questioned since the early study of penology, these practices were never challenged on legal grounds.  Until the 1960s, the public, policy makers, and, to a large degree, penologists believed in the state and its goals involving penal regimes.  However, the social unrest of the 1960s (i.e., civil rights movement and the women’s movement) paved the way for a questioning of the penal system, not only by penologists, but by inmates as well.

The penal reform efforts of the 1960s can be understood by examining two penological changes that occurred during this time:  (1) the prisoner rights movement, and (2) the decentralization of corrections/growth of community correctional practices.  This week’s reading focuses on the inmate legal rights that have evolved since the 1960s, and next week’s reading emphasizes the development of community corrections and the goals of such programs. 

Blomberg and Lucken provide an excellent overview of the prisoner rights movement in Chapter 10 of American Penology.  The following are some guiding questions to keep in mind while reviewing their discussion:

  • What stages comprise the prisoner rights movement?
  • What prison/prisoner reforms took place during the1960s and 1970s?
  • What are some key court cases that have influenced correctional policy in the last 50 years?

 

The Three Stages of the Prisoner Rights Movement

Blomberg and Lucken describe three stages of the prisoner rights movement.  Descriptions of these stages are also presented by Jacobs (Chapter 17 in Latessa et al.) and Wallace (Chapter 18 in Latessa et al.).  The first stage began in the mid-1950s, when inmates of all backgrounds rioted against the conditions of incarceration.  Inmates were demonstrating, in violent ways, their dissatisfaction with prison housing conditions as well as inadequate food and health care.  In turn, tensions escalated when administrators responded with more restrictive conditions as well as methods of corporal punishment.

The organization of the Nation of Islam in the 1960s has been denoted as the second stage of the prisoner rights movement.  During this time, African American inmates that followed the Muslim faith sought to teach other African American inmates both spiritually and politically.  Unlike the first stage, this movement was not violent; however, administrators responded similarly by withholding privileges and administering corporal punishment.

Blomberg and Lucken denote the third stage of the prisoner rights movement as a revolution.  During this time, inmates and citizens from all demographic groups united to support change for inmates behind bars.  Within prison walls, inmates of all races united, placing more salience in the inmate code (see Week 9:  The Inmate Subculture).  Several key events took place to signify this revolution:  the Folsom prison work stoppage, the San Quentin prison race riot, and the Attica Liberation front.  These events signaled that inmates had united to protest their maltreatment while incarcerated as well as what they perceived as inadequate and dismal living and working conditions.

In response to the increased visibility of a correctional system in need of reform, as well as ambivalent administrators and line staff, the American Bar Association (ABA) developed the Commission on Correctional Facilities and Services in the early 1970s.  This commission operated the Resource Center for Correctional Law and Legal Services.  The main goal and function of this center was to reform American prisons.  By 1974, 24 state bar associations operated programs similar to the resource center established by the ABA.

The 1960s-1970s:  Judicial Activism

During the 1960s, courts throughout the country as well as the United States Supreme Court experienced much activity related to inmate procedural and substantive rights.  Procedural rights are the rules guiding or limiting governmental actions against individuals.  The four basic procedural inmate rights are:

  1. The right to be heard by a court
  2. The right to due process
  3. The right to equal protection of the laws
  4. The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (which governs the use of force and conditions of confinement

Substantive rights pertain to the freedoms inmates have to carry out particular behaviors while in prison.  Because of the key court decisions of the 1960s and 1970s, there was a call for penal institutions to develop specific written policies concerning all aspects of facilities (i.e., procedures to be followed during disturbances).

In summary, the areas related to inmate rights questioned during the 1960s and 1970s included:

  • Religious practices
  • Communication and access to the courts
  • Disciplinary practices
  • Conditions of confinement
  • Use of force
  • Racial and gender equity
  • Death penalty

Key Court Cases of the Prisoner Rights Movement (1960s-1970s)

The following table summarizes the key court cases that address several of the issues contained in the bullets above.  Many of these cases are discussed throughout the readings for this section of the course.  Although the Warren Court has been credited for much of the decision-making regarding inmate rights, many of these cases were decided in the lower courts (see Jacobs, Chapter 17 in Blomberg and Lucken).

CASE (YEAR)

SUMMARY

Bailleaux v. Holmes (1961)

Prison officials could not restrict the study of law when it could be shown that such a practice impeded one’s right of access to the courts

Cooper v. Pate (1964)

Inmates successfully sued and won the right to use the Koran as well as the right to a place of, and opportunity to, worship

Furman v. Georgia (1972)

The death penalty was applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, which violated the 8th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution

Wolff v. McDonald (1974)

Due process must be afforded to inmates in the practice of disciplinary cell confinement; procedures for placement must be fair, written notice of charges as well as a written statement of the facts relating to the charges must be presented to the inmate, and the inmate could call witnesses and present evidence in his/her defense

Jackson v. Allen (1974)

Force by officials is allowed, but the reasonableness of the force must be decided on a case-by-case basis

Estelle v. Gamble (1976)

To constitute cruel and unusual punishment, officials must act with deliberate indifference to an inmates medical needs

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

The death penalty is constitutional, but only if aggravating and mitigating circumstances are provided; furthermore, automatic appellate review and a bifurcated trial were also required for the death penalty to be constitutional

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Programs for female inmates need not be identical to those for males; however, programs that facilitated economic viability upon release must be provided in women’s prisons

Judicial Activism of Inmates:  Past and Present

The 1960s and 1970s were marked by a tremendous amount of litigiousness among inmates incarcerated in prison facilities in the United States.  Advocates for inmate rights have noted that this movement expanded inmate access to the courts, as well as provided a voice to what has been viewed from a critical perspective as a powerless sector of society.  Many feel that the activism of the 1960s and 1970s led to needed improvements in prison conditions and inmate treatment.  However, critics feel that the legal activities of this era led to a breakdown of power within the legislative and executive branches of government, as well as a breakdown in institutional administrative control.  In turn, many prison facilities experienced high levels of staff turnover and higher prison operating costs.  As Blomberg and Lucken note in the conclusion of Chapter 10 of American Penology, many court decisions of the past 50 years have done very little to reduce prisoner abuses and adverse conditions of confinement.  As Jacobs notes in the conclusion of his selection, much research is needed to understand how prison reform efforts were, and continue to be, implemented.  Perhaps examining historical and contemporary data through the lens of the bureaucratic framework will bring increased understanding to the failure of many of the reform efforts brought about by inmate litigation.