Introduction

• Jurisdiction: United States

Introduction

Prior to the 1960s, U.S. courts generally practiced a "hands-off" approach to matters related to the corrections system. During this time, inmate complaints went unheard by the courts. Judicial officials believed that decisions on issues related to corrections were better left to penal administrators since they were familiar with prisoners and inmates (Dilulio, 1987). This belief was best captured in 1958 by Justice Felix Frankfurter in Gore v. United States (357 U.S. 386, 1958), when he stated, "in effect, we are asked to enter the domain of penology ... [T]his Court has no such powers." The philosophy of nonintervention from the judiciary meant that correctional administrators decided every facet of life within prisons, because there was no judicial oversight that would challenge the legality of their practices and policies.

Penologists and historians reported that nearly every penal institution in the country subjected inmates to insufferable conditions. Physical abuse such as corporal punishment by guards and elite cons, such as "building tenders" and "floorwalkers," was common. In addition, inmate lease systems allowed prison officials to lease prisoners to outside contractors, who often failed to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, which resulted in the deaths of many prisoners (see Walker, 1988). Moreover, the prison experience for many inmates, especially those in southern and western states, was tantamount to slavery, since forced labor was the norm in correctional institutions that were reported to be self-sufficient (Dilulio, 1987). In some prisons, rapes, suicides, and murders were common. Yet the courts did not intervene holding that prisoners were not entitled to any rights or redress because they were merely "slaves of the State" (see Ruffin v. Commonwealth, 62 Va. 790, 1871 and Stroud v. Swope, 187 F.2d 850, 9th Circuit, 1951).

However, during the 1960s, America experienced a number of social and political changes that challenged institutions and traditional ways of thinking. Many of the proponents for change questioned the existing social order. Minority groups and other oppressed people started to demand inclusion in all areas of mainstream society. Young Americans protested U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and fought for equality and access to public education, housing, voting rights, employment opportunities, and the full protection of the U.S. Constitution for all citizens. Those arrested and imprisoned for engaging in antigovernment demonstrations and other crimes took with them into the nation's jails and prisons the philosophy of penal reform and human dignity, and fought to rid themselves and others of institutional oppression that ran counter to rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Though there were several riots that resulted from prisoners' struggles for equal rights and justice, the 1971 riot that occurred in upstate New York at Attica, which resulted in the deaths of forty-three people, dramatized the inhumanity that was widespread in the corrections system and galvanized the prison rights movement of the 1970s. The Attica riot was televised for four days into the homes of Americans. The aftermath of the riot revealed that the inhumane conditions the inmates were protesting had reached a boiling point with no remedy in place for negotiation or mediation. Adler, Mueller, and Laufer (2006) report that the tragic events at Attica occurred because inmates were denied basic human rights and constitutional guarantees, such as religious freedom, adequate nutrition, procedures to resolve complaints, recreation, medical treatment, humane discipline, and contact with the outside world. Prison riots and other violent incidents exposed the problems within the correctional system, and forced prison officials and the justice system to address the issue of prisoners' rights.

The shift from a "hands-off" to "hands-on" philosophy in the courts can be traced to one particular case, Cooper v. Pate (378 U.S. 546, 1964). In Cooper, the petitioner brought an action under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, alleging that Illinois prison officials denied him the right to purchase certain religious publications so that he could worship in a manner consistent with his religion. He argued that this right was afforded to other inmates. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the District Court and agreed with the prisoner. Cooper signaled that a prisoner could sue a warden for a violation of his or her civil rights. Prisoners now had rights guaranteed by the Constitution and could therefore seek assistance from the courts to challenge the conditions of their confinement. As such, Cooper opened the door to other issues that inmates faced as consequences of their incarceration. These issues include the rights to freedom of communication; correspond with counsel; access the courts; political expression; freedom of religion, right to marry, reasonable expectation to privacy, right to be free from strip searches, right to have access to law libraries, right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, right to due process in prison disciplinary hearings, and right to recourse when property is damaged. Despite being a prisoner, one does not surrender the constitutional protections guaranteed to citizens.

As a result of Cooper, prisoners are protected by the Constitution, but not to the same extent as citizens in free society. Prisoners' rights are limited because the conditions and circumstances of confinement require correctional officials to conduct a balancing act between ensuring the safety and security of employees and prisoners and preserving prisoners' constitutional rights. Issues where rights and security and/or safety must be balanced include denial of contact visits; cell searches; the right to engage in non-Christian worship; access to court; equal treatment for homosexual inmates; disciplinary hearings for prison rule infractions; the right of unmarried inmates to participate in Family Reunion Programs; freedom from inmate violence; and denial of medical care. Some other issues may include denial of Family Reunion Programs because of AIDS status; mandatory blood tests for AIDS; freedom from corporal punishment committed by correctional guards; freedom from sexual harassment by prison guards; freedom from the infliction of the death penalty; journalists interviewing prisoners; the right to possess nude photos of a spouse; access to clergy; mandatory body cavity searches; wrongful death in suicides; administrative segregation without a hearing; denial of special diets; conversations between inmate and visitors electronically recorded; denial of law libraries; prison...