NCJ Number
101892
Journal
New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement Volume: 12 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1986) Pages: 71-97
Date Published
1986
Length
26 pages
Annotation
This article reviews judicial decisions on interstate inmate transfers, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Olim v. Wakinekona, and proposes administrative reforms to protect prisoners' rights.
Abstract
In 1983, The Supreme Court held that an interstate prison transfer does not deprive the inmate of any liberty interest protected by the due process clause and that Hawaii's regulations, which provided an administrative hearing prior to transfer, did not create such an interest. In effect, the Court granted wide discretion to those making transfer decisions: prisoners may be transferred anywhere, at any time, for virtually any reason without procedural protections. Such wide discretion holds the potential for institutional abuses, particularly in the area of retaliatory transfers. It is suggested that to prevent such abuses, prisons should adopt administrative transfer procedures that do not limit discretion but ensure that it is appropriately exercised and adequately informed. Prisons could modify their disciplinary rules to accommodate transfer cases by requiring a written summary of the inmate's history, litigation activities, grievances, and resources; facilities available to the prison system; public interest considerations; and other factors relevant to the transfer. Such a policy would reduce abuses while providing a record for administrative and judicial evaluation of an inmate's claims that he was transferred for improper motives. 127 notes.