NCJ Number
11637
Journal
Judicature Volume: 56 Issue: 10 Dated: (MAY 1973) Pages: 413-418
Date Published
1973
Length
6 pages
Annotation
PROPONENTS OF PENAL REFORM CONSIDER THE COURT AS THE AGENT MOST LIKELY TO ENSURE THE PERSONAL RIGHTS OF PRISONERS
Abstract
THOSE CONCERNED WITH INMATES' RIGHTS ARGUE THAT ONLY THOSE RIGHTS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE SENTENCE OF THE COURT ARE LOST TO THE PRISONER AND THAT HE RETAINS ALL OTHERS. IF THE PURPOSE OF IMPRISONMENT IS REHABILITATION, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE INMATE NOT BE DEPRIVED OF HIS PERSONAL RIGHTS ANY MORE THAN NECESSARY SINCE THE PRIMARY GOAL OF REHABILITATION IS TO RESTORE A SENSE OF DIGNITY AND INTEGRITY TO ONE ALREADY DEGRADED IN THE EYES OF SOCIETY. THE AUTHORS STATE THAT OUR PRISON SYSTEM FAILS TO REFLECT THE REHABILITATIVE PHILOSOPHY OF CORRECTIONS, AND UNTIL RECENTLY NO ONE SEEMED REALLY CONCERNED. IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, SEVERAL CASES HAVE COME BEFORE THE COURTS CONCERNING SUCH RIGHTS AS PRIVACY OF MAIL, THE RIGHT TO DECENT LIVING CONDITIONS, AND THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE ONE'S RELIGION. THE AUTHORS STATE THAT THESE COURT DECISIONS ARE NECESSARY TO FORCE PRISON OFFICIALS, WHO HAVE BEEN RESISTANT TO PRISON REFORM, TO ALTER THE PRESENT CONDITIONS.