U. S. Courts in recent years have been rejecting the "hands off doctrine" and getting involved in civil suits and writs filed by prison inmates. As a result more and more inmates are becoming legally active and increasingly knowledgeable of Substantive and procedural law.
This study is an effort to see what the reaction of U. S. prison acdministrators is to inmate legal activism.
A survey of 329 state prison adlmiinistrators addressed such issues as: institutional comlpliance wdith significant court decisions regarding inmate legal services and materials, sources of legal counselor administrators, line staffand inmates and the effects of the above e variables on the numbers of inmate suits filed and judgments entered in favor of inmates.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Bar Association
. Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice. Standards relating to post-conviction remedies. Washington. D.C.: American Bar Association, 1968.
2.
American Bar Association
. Resource Center on Correctional Law and Legal Services and Prison Law Reporter. Prisoners' legal rights: A hibliography of cases and articles, (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association, 1974.
3.
American Bar Association
. How to implement criminal justice standards for corrections. Standards for Criminal justitie. Washington,D.C.: American Bar Association, 1975.
4.
American Bar Association
. Commission on Correctional Facilities and Services. Bar As sociation support to improve correctional services (basics) official legal services, (rev. ed.). Washington, D.C.American Bar Association. 1976.
5.
American Bar Association
. Joint Committee on the Legal Status of Prisoners. Standards relating to the legal status of prisoners. Washington. D.C.: American Bar Association, Part 2. 3, 1976.
6.
American Bar Association/ American Correctional Association
. Legal responsibility and authority of correctional officers: A hard look at courts, judicial decisions and constitutional requirements. Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association/ American Correctional Association, 1974.
7.
American Correctional Association
. Guidelines for legal reference services in correctional institutions: A tool for uorrectional administrators, (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Correctional Association, 1975.
8.
American Correctional Association
. Commission on Accreditation for Corrections. Manual of standards for adult (orrectional instituoions. Washington, D.C.: American Correctional Association, 1977.
9.
Bounds v. Soith. 97 S. Ct. 1491 (1977).
10.
Burns v. Ohio, 360 U.S. 252 (1959).
11.
Cardarelli A.
& Finkelstein, M.Correctional administrators assess the adequacy of prison legal services programs in the United States. Journal of Criniinal law and Crinoinologi. 1974, 65, 91-102.
12.
Crane. R.
& Roberts, G.Legal representation and financial indemnification Jor state employees. A studi% American Correctional Association. Correctional Law Project. Washington, D.C.: American Correctional Association, 1977.
13.
Cruz v. Betr, 405 U.S. 319 (1972).
14.
Cruz v. Hauk, 404 U.S. 59 (1971).
15.
Es Parte Hull, 312. U.S. 546 (1941).
16.
Fogel. D.Ue are the living proof The 'ustite model for corrections. Cincinnati: W. K. Anderson, 1975.
17.
Giltore v. IYth, 319 F. Supp. 105 (1970).
18.
Griffin v. 1llinoiks. 351 U.S. 12 (1956).
19.
Hatfield v. Bailleaux, 290 F. 2nd 632 (1961).
20.
Holt So. Sarter, 309 F. Supp. 362 (1970).
21.
Hooks v. omainwright, 352 F. Supp. 163 (1975).
22.
Johnson i. As err, 393 U.S. 483 (1969).
23.
Knell v. Ben.singer 489 F. 2nd 1014 (1973).
24.
Lathanv.Osualdld 359 F. Supp. 85 (1973).
25.
Lee v. Taha.sh, 352 F. 2nd 970 (l965).
26.
McDonnell v Wollfe, 342 F. Supp. 616 (1972).
27.
Miller v. Carson, 401 F. Supp, 835 (1975).
28.
National Sheriffs' Association
. lnniate.s' legal rights. Washington, D.C.: National Sheriffs' Association, 1974.
29.
Nebraska State Bar Association
. Committee on Correctional Law and Practices. Jail standards. Lincoln. Nebraska: Nebraska State Bar Association. 1977.
30.
Noorlander v. Cicione, 489 F. 2nd 642 (1973).
31.
32.
Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396 (1974).
33.
Ross v. vloffitt, 417 LI.S. 600 (1974).
34.
Turner W. BFstablishing the rule of law in prisons: A manual for prisoners' rights litigation
. Stanford lawt Reriew, 1971. 23473-518.
35.
U. S. v. (collouit, 426. S. 317 (1976).
36.
U. .S. I .StiM/)A17, 436 F. 2nd 162 (1970).
37.
United States Commission on CiviI Rights, Nebraska Adsisory Committee
. Inniate rig/its and institutional re.s)oti0s1e. The NsA aslate prison si-stem.United States Commission on Civil Rights, 1974.
38.
Werner, J.O.The present legal status and conditions of prison law libraries
. Law lihrari Journal, 1973. 66, 259-271.
39.
Wexler. D.B.Ca.se.s otaa7C1utei 0ta/s loni-s.on im7nniaselegalassisltane. Grant No. NI 70-053. U.S. Department of Justice, L EAA, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. LEAA, 1973.
40.
Wise. O.
& Smith, J.M.Planning a legal rfelemrne library for coleretional institution. Champagne. Ill.: National Clearing House for Criminal Justice and Architecture, 1976.
