Prisoners file large numbers of civil rights lawsuits, although their success rate is low and recent court rulings have narrowed the scope of judicial intervention. The political community model for an effective, efficient, stable, and flexible community is a valuable tool for understanding inmate litigation. This study examines classification litigation through a national survey of state attorneys. Survey results are analyzed using the political community perspective to gain new insights into why prisoners litigate so often, why they challenge certain issues, and why they continue to litigate after several decades of penal reform.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. section 12101 (1990).
2.
Austin, J. (1983). Assessing the new generation of prison classification models. Crime and Delinquency, 29, 561-576.
3.
Austin, J. (1986). Evaluating how well your classification system is operating: A practical approach. Crime and Delinquency, 32, 302-322.
4.
Austin, J. (1993). Objective prison classification systems: A review. In Classification: A tool for today's offender (pp. 108-123). Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association.
5.
Babbie, E. (1990). Survery Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
6.
Belbot, B., & del Carmen, R. V. (1993). Legal issues in classification. In Classification: A tool for managing today's offenders (pp. 17-31). Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association.
7.
Brennan, T. (1987). Classification: An overview of selected methodological issues. In D. M. Gottfredson & M. Tonry (Eds.), Prediction and classification: Criminal justice decision making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
Canterino v. Wilson, 869 F.2d 948 (6th Cir. 1989).
9.
Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (1976).
10.
Cordero v. Coughlin, 607 F. Supp. 9 (S.D. N.Y. 1984).
11.
Doumar, R. G. (1994). Prisoner cases: Feeding the monster in the judicial closet. Saint Louis University Public Law Review, 14, 21-40.
12.
Eisenberg, H. B. (1993). Rethinking prisoner civil rights cases and the provision of counsel. Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 17, 417-490.
13.
Feeley, M., & Hanson, R. A. (1990). The impact of judicial intervention on prisons and jails: A framework for analysis and a review of the literature. In J. Dilulio (Ed.), Courts, corrections, and the Constitution (pp. 12-46). New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
Fogel, D. (1985). The justice model for corrections. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
15.
Fowler, L. (1993). What classification for women? In Classification: A tool for today's offenders (pp. 135-144). Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association.
16.
Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1972).
17.
Glover v. Johnson, 478 F. Supp. 1075 (E.D. Mich. 1979).
18.
Grubbs v. Bradley, 552 F. Supp. 1052 (M.D. Tenn. 1982).
19.
Hanson, R. A., & Daley, H.W.K. (1995). Challenging the conditions of prisons and jails: A report on section 1983 litigation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
20.
Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495 (11th Cir. 1991).
21.
Helling v. McKinney, 113 S. Ct. 2475 (1993).
22.
Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983).
23.
Holt v. Sarver, 309 F. Supp. 362 (E.D. Ark. 1970).
24.
Irwin, J. (1980). Prisons in turmoil. Boston: Little, Brown.
25.
Jacobs, J. (1983). New perspectives on prisons and imprisonment. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
26.
Johnson, R. (1996). Hard time: Understanding and reforming the prison (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
27.
Kalinich, D. B., Stojkovic, S., & Klofas, J. (1988). Toward a political-community theory of prison organization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 217-230.
28.
Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 (1968).
29.
McMurry v. Phelps, 533 F. Supp. 742 (W.D. La. 1982).
30.
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976).
31.
Mitchell v. Untreiner, 421 F. Supp. 886 (N.D. Fl. 1976).
32.
Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236 (1976).
33.
Nelson v. Leeke, C.A. No. 82-876-2 (D.S.C. 1983).
34.
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983).
35.
Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. 956 (D.R.I. 1977).
36.
Pitts v. Thornburgh, 866 F.2d 1450 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
37.
Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134 (1996).
38.
Pugh v. Locke, 406 F. Supp. 318 (M.D. Ala. 1976).
39.
Robbins v. Clarke, 946 F.2d 1331 (8th Cir. 1991).
40.
Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995).
41.
Spiro, H. (1958). Comparative politics: A comprehensive approach. American Political Science Review, 56, 577-595.
42.
Stojkovic, S. (1984). Social bases of power and control mechanisms among prisoners in a prison organization. Justice Quarterly, 1(4), 511-528.
43.
Sturm, S. (1990). Resolving the remedial dilemma: Strategies of judicial intervention in prisons. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 138, 805-912.
44.
Sturm, S. (1993). Lawyers at the prison gates: Organizational structure and corrections advocacy. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 27, 1-129.
45.
Thomas, J. (1989). The “reality” of prisoner litigation: Repackaging the data. New England Journal on Crime and Civil Confinement, 15, 27-53.
46.
Thomas, J., Keeler, D., & Harris, K. (1986). Issues and misconceptions in prisoner litigation: A critical view. Criminology, 24, 775-797.
47.
Toch, H. (1994). Democratizing prisons. The Prison Journal, 73, 62-72.
48.
Toch, H. (1995). Inmate involvement in prison governance. Federal Probation, 59, 34-39.
49.
Toch, H. (1996). Prison reform in a federalist democracy. The Prison Journal, 76, 495-501.
50.
U.S. v. State of Michigan, 940 F.2d 143 (6th Cir. 1991).
51.
Vaughn, M. (1996). Prison civil liability for inmate-against-inmate assault and breakdown/organization theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 139-152.
