Prison discipline received considerable attention from both the courts and professional organizations during the decade of the 1970s. It was widely assumed that the due process requirements which resulted from judicial review coupled with the promulgation of model discipline standards and procedures would limit the broad discretionary authority found in the traditional prison disciplinary process. A case study of the activities of one Prison Discipline Committee suggests that these external pressures may have less impact on decision making than such internal pressures as overcrowding. Due process requirements have not greatly inhibited the exercise of discretion in the prison discipline process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Correctional Association
. (1966). Manual of correctional stan dards. Rockville, MD: author.
2.
American Correctional Association
. (1977). Directory. College Park, MD: author.
3.
American Friends Service Committee
. (1972). Struggle for justice. New York: Hill and Wang.
4.
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 96 S.Ct. 1551 (1976).
5.
Brakel, S.J.
(1983). Ruling on prisoners grievances. American Bar Founda tion Research Journal. 1983(2), 393-425.
6.
Clear, T.R.
, Hewitt, J.. & Regoli, R.M. (1978). Discretion and the indeter minate sentence. Crime and Delinquency, 24(4), 428-445.
7.
Clutchette v. Procunier, 328 F.Supp. 761 (N.D. Cal. 1971).
8.
Commission on Accreditation for Corrections
. (1977). Manual of standards for adult correctional institutions. Rockville, MD: American Correctional Association.
9.
Dauber, E.
& Shichor, D. (1980). A comparative exploration of prison disci pline. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7(1), 21-36.
10.
Flanagan, T.A.
(1982). Discretion in the prison justice system. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2(2), 216-237.
11.
Fogel, D.
(1975). We are the living proof. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.
12.
Fox, V.
(1958). Analysis of prison discipline problems. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 49(4), 321-326.
13.
Harvard Center for Criminal Justice
. (1972). Judicial intervention in prison discipline. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 62(3), 200-228.
14.
Indiana Department of Corrections
. (1980). Prison discipline procedures. In dianapolis: author.
15.
Jackson v. Bishop, 404 F.2d 571 (8th Cir. 1968).
16.
Krantz, S.
, Bell, R.A., Brant, J., & Magruder, M. (1973). Model rules and regulations on prisoners rights and responsibilities. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
17.
Megargee, E.I.
(1977). The association of population density, reduced space, and uncomfortable temperatures with misconduct in a prison community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 5, 289-298.
18.
Morris v. Travisono, 310 F.Supp. 857 (D.R.I. 1970).
19.
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972).
20.
National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals
. (1973). Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
21.
Poole, E.O.
& Regoli, R.M. (1980). Role stress, custody orientation and dis ciplinary action: A study of prison guards. Criminology, 18, 215-226.
22.
President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice
. (1967). Task Force Report: Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Govern ment Printing Office.
23.
Talley v. Stephens, 247 F.Supp. 683 (E.D. Ark. 1965).
24.
Sostre v. Rockefeller, 312 F.Supp. 863 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).
