Inmates have long been considered one of the most politically disenfranchised groups in the United States. Not surprisingly, the well-being of the incarcerated has rarely been considered a high priority for federal policymakers. The passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA), however, reveals that reform through traditional policy making channels is attainable. The passage of PREA has provided reformers with more than optimism. It provides a roadmap for future efforts to transform prison conditions through legislative intervention. This manuscript explores the lessons learned from PREA’s success by identifying the traditional barriers to federal legislative prison reform and examining how PREA was able to navigate these obstacles and secure passage without a single “no” vote in the U.S. Congress. Special attention is given to the important role of evangelicals in the passage of this legislation.
Alexander, E. ( 2004). "Watching the watchmen" after termination of injunctive relief. Pace Law Review, 24, 793-809.
2.
Anderson, J.E. ( 2006). Public policy making (6th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.
3.
Anderson, L. ( 2000). Voices from a southern prison. Athens : University of Georgia Press.
4.
Belbot, B. ( 2004). Report on the Prison Litigation Reform Act: What have the courts decided so far? The Prison Journal, 84, 290-316.
5.
Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979).
6.
Birner, R., & Wittmer, H. ( 2003). Using social capital to create political capital: How do local communities gain political influence? A theoretical approach and empirical evidence from Thailand. In N. Dolsak & E. Ostrom (Eds.), The commons in the new millennium: Challenges and adaptations (pp. 291-334). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
Brock, S. ( 2009, September 16). Prison reform could save state cash. Retrieved October 19, 2009, from http://www.wtvr.com/wtvr-prison-reform-crime-commission090916,0,2764259.story
8.
Buckler, K.G., & Travis, L.F. ( 2003). Reanalyzing the prevalence and social context of collateral consequence statutes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 435-453.
9.
Carroll, L. ( 1998). Lawful order: A case study of correctional crisis and reform. New York: Garland.
10.
Chilton, B. ( 1991). Prisons under the gavel: The federal court takeover of Georgia prisons. Columbus: Ohio State University.
11.
Cooper v. Pate, 378 U.S. 546 (1964).
12.
Cripe, C.L. ( 1990). Courts, corrections, and the Constitution: A practitioner’s view. In J. DiIulio (Ed.), Courts, corrections, and the Constitution: The impact of judicial intervention on prisons and jails (pp. 268-286). New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
Crouch, B., & Marquart, J. ( 1989). An appeal to justice: litigated reform of Texas prisons . Austin: University of Texas Press .
14.
Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972).
15.
Daggett, D.M., Camp, S.D., Kwon, O., Rosenmerkel, S.P., & Klien-Saffran, J. (2008). Faith-based correctional programming in federal prisons: Factors affecting program completion. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 848-862.
16.
Dunn, W.N. ( 2009). Public policy analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
17.
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (1994).
18.
Feeley, M., & Rubin, E. ( 1998). Judicial policy making and the modern state: How the courts reformed America’s prisons. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Fisher, G.P. ( 1890). History of the Christian Church. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
20.
Follett, R.R. ( 2001). Evangelicalism, penal theory, and the politics of criminal law reform in England, 1808-1830. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
21.
Freedman, E.B. ( 1981). Their sisters’ keepers: Women’s prison reform in America, 1830-1890. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
22.
Garland, D. ( 2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
Harriman, L., & Straussman, J.D. (1983). Do judges determine budget decisions? Federal court decisions in prison reform and state spending in corrections. Public Administration Review, 43, 343-351.
24.
Hathaway, W., & Meyer, D.S. ( 1997). Competition & cooperation in movement: Lobbying for peace in the 1980s. In T. R. Rochon & D. S. Miller (Eds.) Coalitions & political movements: The lessons of the nuclear freeze (pp. 61-79). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
25.
Hertzke, A.D. ( 2004). Freeing God’s children: The unlikely alliance for global human rights. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
26.
Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1 (1992).
27.
Kessler, M. ( 1990). Legal mobilization for social reform: Power and the politics of agenda setting. Law & Society Review, 24, 121-143.
28.
Kingdon, J.W. ( 2003). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley Educational.
29.
Kraft, M.E., & Furlong, S.R. ( 2007). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
30.
Lehrer, E. ( 2003, April 29). The most-silent crime: Prison rape gets a hearing . National Review. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from www.nationalreview.com/comment/commentlehrer042903.asp
31.
Lindsay, M.D. ( 2007). Faith in the halls of power: How evangelicals joined the American elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
Mann, C.D., & Cronann, J.P. ( 2001). Forecasting sexual abuse in prison: The prison subculture of masculinity as a backdrop for "deliberate indifference". Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 92, 127-186.
33.
Nathan, V.N. ( 2004). Have the courts made a difference in the quality of prison conditions? What have we accomplished to date?Pace Law Review , 24, 419-426.
34.
Nelson, T.E., & Kinder, D.R. ( 1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion . Journal of Politics, 58, 1055-1078.
35.
Palmer, J.W. ( 2006). Constitutional rights of prisoners (8th ed.). Newark, NJ: LexisNexis/ Anderson.
Reich, R.B. ( 1988). The power of pubic ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
Representative Scott (VA). (2003, July 25). Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. Congressional Record, 149 (12), H7764. Retrieved March 9, 2006, from LexisNexis® Congressional
40.
Robertson, J.E. ( 2001). The jurisprudence of the PLRA: Inmates as "outsiders" and the countermajoritarian difficulty. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 92, 187-209.
41.
Rose, F. ( 2000). Coalitions across the class divide: Lessons from the labor, peace, and environmental movements. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
42.
Rosyadi, S., Birner, R., Zeller, M. ( 2005). Creating political capital to promote devolution in the forestry sector: A case study of the forest communities in the Banyumas district, Central Java, Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics, 7, 213-226.
43.
Ruiz v. Estelle, 503 F. Supp. 1265 (S.D. Tex. 1980), aff ’d 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1982).
44.
Schmalleger, F. ( 1986). A history of correction: Emerging ideologies and practices . Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall Press .
45.
Skopek, T., & Schuhmann, R. ( 2005). Wolf in sheep’s clothing? State implementation of the Gray Wolf Recovery Plan under the Endangered Species Act. Green Theory andPraxis, 1.
46.
Smith, C.E. ( 2003). The prison litigation reform litigation era: Book-length studies and lingering research issues. The Prison Journal , 83, 337-358.
47.
Smith, C.E., & Nelson, C.E. ( 2002). Perceptions of the consequences of the Prison Litigation Reform Act: A comparison of state attorneys general and federal district judges . Justice System Journal, 23, 295-316.
48.
Spangler, B. ( 2003). Coalition building. Beyond intractability. Boulder: Conflict Research Consortuim, University of Colorado. Retrieved October 9, 2009, from http://www.beyondintractability.org
Sullivan, W.F. ( 2009). Prison religion: Faith-based reform and the Constitution . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51.
Taggert, W. ( 1989). Redefining the power of the federal judiciary: The impact of court-ordered prison reform on state expenditures for corrections. Law and Society Review, 23, 241-271.
52.
Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294 (1991).
53.
Young, M.P. ( 2006). Bearing witness against sin: The evangelical birth of the American social movement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54.
Zimring, F. ( 2001). The new politics of criminal justice: of "three strikes," truth-in-sentencing, and Megan’s Laws. Perspectives on crime and justice: 1990-2000 lecture series, volume IV. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
