Inmates’ Rights Movement
Review
Discussion of Cases/Rights
The “Hands Off” Doctrine

Prior to 1964
• Prisoner as “Slave of State” and “civilly dead”
• Even if they may have some limited rights…
• Judges reluctant to interfere with executive branch
• Federal judges versus state prisoners (states
rights)
• Judges not penologists (safety of prisons)
• Fear flood of frivolous inmate law suits
Inmate Rights Period (1964-1978)

Why during this time?
• Inmates, like others, become more
•
•
•
•
militant/aggressive
Public interest law (ACLU, NAACP)
Judges more interested in “politically
disadvantaged groups”
Interpretation of the Civil Rights Statute allows
inmates to file Section 1983 suits
Horrible conditions of confinement in cases
• Incarceration rates soar without new prisons
Two type of suits

Habeas Corpus
• Long history, challenge legality of
confinement

Section 1983
• Allege violation of constitutional rights by
person “under color of state law”
• Sue for damages ($) or remedial relief (change in
policy/conditions)

By late 1980s, inmates are filing twice as
many Section 1983 suits as Habeas suits
Major Areas of Section 1983
Litigation


Access to Courts
Individual Rights
• Medical treatment, freedom of religion, mail
(get/receive)…

Due Process

Cruel and Unusual Punishment
• Revocation of good time, prison transfers…
• Individual guard-inmate interactions, “totality
of conditions” cases
Access to Courts

Cooper v. Pate (1964)
• Inmates may bring suit via Section 1983 to
challenge state actions

Johnson v. Avery (1969)
• Prison officials cannot bar “jailhouse lawyers”
unless they provide a reasonable alternative

Nutshell = provide adequate law library
& assistance from other inmates
• Or access to lawyers
Individual Rights


General:
•
Turner v. Safely (1986)
•
Prison regulations that impinge upon inmates’
constitutional rights are valid if they are related to
a reasonable penological interest
• Prisons may ban inmate to inmate correspondence
• Prison officials may not regulate inmate marriage
• No Reasonable expectation of privacy in cells
• Body cavity search after contact visit is OK
• No right to observe “shakedown” of cell
In a nutshell The nod goes to prisons
Individual Rights II


Medical
Growing area of concern (AIDS, elderly inmates)
•
Current Standard from Estelle v. Gamble (1977):
• “Deliberate Indifference to serious medical needs”
•
Estelle: Inmate with back injury from work. Failure to take
X-rays not malpractice (inmate seen 17 times by Rx)
• Examples of DI:
•
•
•
Doctor chooses easier but less effective treatment (throw
away ear and stitch stump)
Injection of penicillin with knowledge that prisoner was
allergic and refusal to treat reaction
Prison doctor refuses to administer prescribed painkiller
for surgery
8th Amendment

When do prison conditions rise to the
level of “cruel and unusual” punishment?
• Correctional Officer Use of Force
• Must prove that officials acted maliciously and
sadistically with intent to cause harm
• BUT, harm does not have to be permanent (Hudson
v. McMillian, 1992).
• Other Conditions of Confinement
• Food, cell size, double bunking, crowding, noise,
second hand smoke…
8th Amendment Cont.

Landmark Conditions of Confinement Case =
Ruiz v. Estelle (1980)
•
Judge (federal district) William Wayne Justice
• Confinement in Texas prisons constituted cruel and
•

unusual punishment (brutality by guards, overcrowding,
understaffing, use of building tenders, poor medical
care, and uncontrolled physical abuse among inmates)
Consent Decree, Special Masters
By 1995
•
Almost a third of all correctional institutions across the
nation were under state or federal court orders to limit
prison populations or improve the conditions of
confinement
8th Amendment cont.

In 1980s, 1990s
• “Totality of Conditions” not enough must
show that prison officials acted with deliberate
indifference to some basic need of the
inmates
• Cannot use “totality of conditions”
• Not enough to show the conditions persisted over a
long period of time (deliberate indifference)
Due Process

Wolff v. McDonnell (1974)
• Inmates are entitled do due process in prison
•
•
disciplinary proceedings that can result in loss of good
time or in punitive segregation
Advanced written notice, written statement of
wrongdoing and action taken, can call witnesses and
present evidence…
•
NO: cross examine (inmate confront CO), legal counsel
Due process also for transfer to mental hospital but
NOT for:
• Transfer to different prison, removal to solitary
confinement, denial of visitor…
Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA)
of 1997
•
•
•
•
•
•
Limits remedies available to federal courts (only what
is justified by constitutional violation)
Inmates must pay partial installments filing fees out of
their inmate accounts (based on % of money in
account)
3 strikes ban on “frequent fliers”
If a prisoner receives $, must first pay any outstanding
restitution orders/fines/fees (other limits)
Must exhaust both prison grievance system and state
court system
Courts may not enter into consent degrees with
prisons (no special masters)
Backtracking

PLRA + Supreme Court Decisions
• Inmate Section 1983 suits have declined,
•
•
even as prison populations have increased
1990 = 40,000 claims
2000 = 24,000 claims
• Habeas corpus has climbed back ahead of Section
1983 suits now about same prevalence
• 2002: 24,0000 Habeas to only 23,000 1983 Suits
What has been the outcome of the
Inmates’ Rights movement?

Practical Legal Rights/Better Conditions?
• Few cases (less than 2% succeed) and the legal
“victories” are fairly basic
• Improvements in living space, medical care, working
conditions, procedural protections, better inmate
grievance systems….

Larger context?
• Fear of lawsuits Greater bureaucratization
• But, breakdown of stability/order? SEE TEXAS
• Inmate expectations/CO morale?
The Stanford Prison Experiment

Basic Experimental Design

Findings?
• Participants?
• Methods?
• “Guards”
• “Prisoners”
• Implications for Prisons
A Critique of the Stanford
Experiment

Did the participants really undergo a
“transformation?”
•
•

Really think they were “prisoners” or “guards?”
• Nyon cap instead of shaved head, Zimbardo as
superintendent
Really think they had been “arrested?”
Alternative explanation
•
•
•
Acting on cultural stereotypes--esp. for guards
Effect of “living up to agreement” of scientific study
• Milgram experiment
• Otherscan’t design an experiment where people
would quit
Know research hypothesis a priori?
Abu Ghraib

Explanations similar to that for
correctional officer brutality
1. Bad COs (Rural Virginia “hillbillies”)
2. Prisons as bad institutions (Stanford Experiment)
3. Poor Organization/Governance