Mediation - Is It an Effective Alternative to Adjudication in Resolving Prisoner Complaints?

• NCJ Number: 82966
• Journal: Judicature Volume: 65 Issue: 10 Dated: (May 1982) Pages: 481-489
• Author(s): G F Cole; R A Hanson; J E Silbert
• Date Published: 1982
• Length: 9 pages
• Grant Number(s): CH3
• Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Corrections
• Corporate Author: American Bar Assoc
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

The potential advantages of mediation as an alternative to adjudication in resolving prisoner complaints are discussed and tested in a mediation project at the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Conn.

Abstract

In the face of the high volume of inmate litigation flooding the courts since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that prisoners were entitled to the protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, mediation promises to facilitate settlement of disputes, since the informality of the process stands in contrast to the complex, cumbersome procedures of the courtroom. Other advantages of mediation are the freedom for questioning that aids the exploration of underlying issues and its effectiveness in dealing with administrative problems that require administrative solutions. Between October 1980 and June 1981, inmates at the Federal Correctional Institution at Danbury, Conn., had access to a mediator provided by the National Center for Correctional Mediation. The program sought to resolve through mediation prisoner civil rights complaints that had been filed in the Federal courts. The program emphasized that both parties had to agree to submit the cause to mediation. Actions during the baseline period which involved civil rights complaints were about equally divided among such issues as furloughs, conditions of confinement, transfer, freedom of information, medical, and mail. Although the baseline data showed that most cases were inappropriate for mediation, other indicators pointed to a possible role for the project. Mediation was attempted in only one of the 32 cases, and that case did not result in an agreement. Future considerations should focus on the nature of complaints arising in specific institutions, the incentives of the participants to mediate, the role of the mediator, and the structure for rendering the mediation services. Thirteen footnotes are listed, and tabular data are provided.