Introduction: Legal Issues in Corrections

• Date: 01 September 2004
• Author: Craig Hemmens
• DOI: 10.1177/0032885504268176
• Published date: 01 September 2004
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/0032885504268176THE PRISON JOURNAL / September 2004Hemmens / INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION:

LEGAL ISSUES IN CORRECTIONS

Although there are volumes of research on corrections, most of this

research focuses on correctional practices. There is relatively little attention

paid to legal issues in corrections. The purpose of this special issue is to high-

light this often neglected but vitally important aspect of corrections, in par-

ticular the role of the U.S. Supreme Court. To do this, I solicited manuscripts

from authors who have previously conducted research on legalissues in cor-

rections. The result is this special issue. Although it is but one issue, it is my

hope that the attention brought to the subject will spur further research in the

area.

I was pleased to have had the opportunity to work with the authors who

contributed to this special issue. Their skills and professionalism made my

job very easy. I would also like to acknowledge the support and assistance

provided by Rosemary Gido, the editor of The Prison Journal. She wel-

comed my proposal and facilitated the project at every stage.

The six articles in this special issue cover a variety of current legal issues

in corrections. The first article, by Barbara Belbot, “Report on the PLRA:

What Have the Courts Decided So Far?” examines the status of the Prison

Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). This law, intended by Congress to drasti-

cally alter the manner in which prison inmates pursue their appeals, has been

the subject of numerous challenges. The Supreme Court has handed down

several decisions interpreting various provisions of the law; in addition,

lower federal courts have issued a number of opinions relating to the PLRA.

Professor Belbot’s comprehensive review of these cases indicates that the

PLRA has been successful in reducing inmate litigation; indeed, it has

resulted in fewer victories for inmate plaintiffs.

The next article, by Cary Federman, “Who Has the Body? The Paths to

Habeas Corpus Reform,” also deals with recent attempts to limit inmate liti-

gation. He focuses in particular on the Antiterrorism and Effective Death

Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996 and its application in capital (death penalty)

cases. The AEDPA was intended to restrict the ability of federal courts to

grant relief to state prisoners who file multiple habeas corpus actions.

According to Professor Federman, the AEDPA was the result of a political

struggle to limit inmate rights; limiting the use of habeas corpus was both a

THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 84 No. 3, September 2004 287-289

DOI: 10.1177/0032885504268176

© 2004 Sage Publications

287