OVERCROWDING IN OKLAHOMA'S PRISONS

• NCJ Number: 55317
• Journal: Tulsa Law Journal Volume: 13 Issue: 3 Dated: (1978) Pages: 525-551
• Author(s): J W TILLY
• Date Published: 1978
• Length: 27 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Tulsa
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION IN BATTLE VERSUS ANDERSON (1977) DECLARING OVERCROWDING AT OKLAHOMA STATE PENITENTIARY TO BE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT AND THE CAUSES OF PRISON OVERCROWDING ARE CONSIDERED.

Abstract

IN 1972, BOBBY BATTLE, AN INMATE AT THE PRISON, FILED A COMPLAINT IN FEDERAL COURT, ALLEGING DEPRIVATIONS OF RIGHTS SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING THE RIGHTS OF DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS, FREE SPEECH, PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, ACCESS TO THE COURTS, AND FREEDOM FROM CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. COURTS HAVE APPROACHED CONDITIONS OF PRISON CONFINEMENT IN THREE WAYS: (1) PRISON CONDITIONS IN GENERAL HAVE BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; (2) CONDITIONS AS EXACERBATED BY OVERCROWDING HAVE BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; AND (3) OVERCROWDING ITSELF HAS BEEN FOUND UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IN RULING IN BATTLE, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT ALL THREE OF THESE SITUATIONS EXISTED AND, IN A CONTROVERSIAL MOVE, ORDERED THE STATE TO MAKE IMMEDIATE REDUCTIONS IN THE POPULATION LEVEL AT BOTH THE STATE PENITENTIARY AND THE STATE REFORMATORY. ON APPEAL, THE STATE CONTENDED THAT THE COURT'S FINDINGS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND THAT THE ORDER TO REDUCE PRISON POPULATION WAS AN IMPROPER REMEDIAL ORDER. HOWEVER, THE 10TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL, CONCLUDING THAT OCCUPANCY AT A RATE OF 191 PERCENT OF CAPACITY DID AMOUNT TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, REFUSED TO STAY THE DISTRICT COURT ORDER DIRECTING INMATE REDUCTIONS. ALTHOUGH THE STATE LOST ON APPEAL, ITS ARGUMENT RAISED A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. THE CAUSES OF PRISON OVERCROWDING (I.E., DECREASES IN SPENDING ON CORRECTIONS COUPLED WITH NEW LAWS MANDATING STIFFER CRIMINAL PENALTIES) ARE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE INSTITUTION ITSELF, AND EVEN OF THE COURT SYSTEM. THE FUNDS AND LAWS WHICH MUST PRECEDE PRISON REFORM MUST COME FROM THE LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR WHOSE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE TO THE ELECTORATE, NOT THE COURTS. REFERENCES ARE FOOTNOTED. (KBL)