Editorial

• Published date: 01 April 1968
• Date: 01 April 1968
• DOI: 10.1177/003288556804800101
• Subject Matter: Articles

EDITORIAL

Basic

human

rights

for

the

prisoner

in

confinement,

such

as

adequate

food

and

clothing,

decent

treatment,

and

communication

with

his

attorney

must

be

taken

for

granted.

The

granting

of

rights

to

many

minority

groups

and

to

the

disad-

vantaged

individual

is

characteristic

of

our

times.

Prisoners

have

to

some

extent

come

to

be

included

in

this

movement.

Why,

it

is

asked,

have

efforts

to

permit

prisoners

in

the

United

States

to

exercise

certain

basic

fundamental

rights

had

to

await

this

century

and,

more

particularly,

this

decade,

to

be

tested

and

eventually

many

of

them

to

be

established?

Changes

have

become

possible

be-

cause

of

the

greater

willingness

of

courts

to

review

prisoners’

complaints

alleging

deprivation

of

rights.

Changes

also

are

occurring

because

of

some

prison

administration’s

will-

ingness

to

move

ahead

with

the

times

and

even

to

set

the

pace,

as

Eugene

N.

Barkin’s

article- &dquo;Impact

of

Changing

Law

Upon

Prison

Policy,&dquo;

in

this

issue,

indicates

the

Federal

Bureau

of

Prisons

is

attempting.

The

beginning

of that

article

clearly

sets

the

stage

for

changes

in

the

late

1960’s.

But

how

is

the

prisoner

to

be

heard?

Louis

M.

Nordlinger,

in

&dquo;Legal

Coun-

seling

Behind

Walls,&dquo;

presents

a

gen-

eral

discussion of

the

problems.

Free

services

to

indigent

prisoners

have

only

recently

become

available.

Examples

are:

local

defender

agen-

cies,

both

public

and

private;

the

legal

clinics

of

law

schools

which

have

made

available

legally

trained

manpower

without

a

fee;

nationally

operated

legal

services

such

as

those

obtained

through

the

legal

aid

and

defense

funds

of

the

NAACP

and

the

ACLU.

Involvement

by

a

non-

legal

service,

such

as

The

Pennsyl-

vania

Prison

Society

in

an

amicus

curiae

capacity,

adds

still

another

dimension.

A

close

look

is

taken

at

self-help

by

Professor

Morris

Cohen

in

his

article,

&dquo;Reading

Law

in

Prison.&dquo;

This

definitive

contribution

also

con-

tains

a

minimum

collection

list

for

a

state

prison

law

library.

From

a

vantage

point

of

a

Federal

law

clerk’s

position,

Richard

M.

Cherry

discusses

&dquo;A

Look

at

Prisoners’

Self

Represen-

tation.&dquo;

Several

of the

definitely

’in’

prob-

lems

of

prisoner

and

keeper

are

dis-

cussed

by

Matthew

Muraskin

in

&dquo;Censorship

of

Mail:

The

Prisoner’s

Right

to

Communicate

with

the

Out-

side

World,&dquo;

and

by

Betty

D.

Fried-

lander

in

&dquo;Wright

v.

McMann

and

Cruel

and

Unusual

Punishment.&dquo;

In

the

past,

virtually

every

prac-

tice

challenged

by

a

prisoner

in

the

court

as

being

unduly

restrictive

or

cruel

and

unusual

punishment

has

been

justified

by

the

warden

as

es-

sential

to

maintain

security.

That

view

is

now

receding.

How

far

this

movement

will

go

is

still

to

be

de-

termined.

Also

in

this

issue-in

other

veins-

Myrl

E.

Alexander

portrays

potentials

of

community-based

correctional

programs.

Marvin

E.

Wolfgang

departs

from

his

usual

rigorous

scientific

stance

to

report

to

Journal

readers

his

thoughts-in

verse.