NCJ Number
88940
Date Published
1983
Length
14 pages
Annotation
While the Warren Court dramatically expanded the constitutional rights of the convicted and used the equity model, the Burger Court has reverted to a more traditional approach in which aggrieved prisoners may demand money as a remedy.
Abstract
This change will deemphasize lawsuits that result in court orders designed to monitor institutions until they comply with constitutional guidelines. The Warren Court's decisions emphasized the court's role as enforcers of prisoners' rights rather than leaving the protection of constitutional rights to the discretion of correctional administrators. The courts in the Warren era intended to have the most direct effect possible on the behavior of government officials by mandating specific reforms. This model's major strength is the judge's role. Its major weakness is the problem of separation of powers of government. Since the judiciary is poorly equipped to be a policymaker, the equity model relies on negotiations, political give and take, and long-term implementation. In contrast, the Burger Court has returned to the earliest common law principles, according to which judges usually ordered that money be paid to recompense the wrong that had been proven in court. This court will not expand the substantive constitutional rights of the convicted and is signaling the lower courts to discontinue the use of the activist equity model for the enforcement of existing rights. For the traditional model to protect prisoners' rights, however, the cases which have expanded the liability of municipalities and the Federal Government need to be matched by a similar decision applicable to States. Reference notes are provided.