BEGINNING IN THE 1960'S FEDERAL COURTS ABANDONED THEIR TRADITIONAL 'HANDS OFF' POLICY CONCERNING CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND BEGAN TO RENDER DECISIONS PROTECTING FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF INMATES. HOWEVER, THIS PIECEMEAL APPROACH DID NOT ATTACK THE PROBLEM OF FILTHY, UNSANITARY, GROSSLY OVERCROWDED INSTITUTIONS. WITH HOLT VS. SARVER (1970), FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS BEGAN TO USE THE 'TOTALITY OF CONDITIONS' TEST TO DETERMINE IF INCARCERATION IN A PARTICULAR INSTITUTION WAS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. THIS PARTICULAR CASE LED TO COMPLETE REFORM OF THE ARKANSAS PRISON SYSTEM. THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR SUCH DECISIONS ARE EXAMINED, INCLUDING THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT, THE POWER TO GRANT AFFIRMATIVE REMEDIES, AND THE SPECIAL CASE OF PRISONERS. CRITICS OF JUDICIAL INTERVENTION POINT OUT THAT CORRECTIONAL AGENCIES OFTEN CANNOT ACHIEVE COURT-ORDERED REFORM WITHOUT FINANCIAL AID FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND COOPERATION FROM OTHER STATE AGENCIES. THESE CRITICS ALSO ARGUE THAT COURT INVOLVEMENT MAY INTERFERE WITH LEGITIMATE PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES. THE SUGGESTED SOLUTION IS A 'PURPOSIVE INQUIRY' ORDER, WHICH WOULD MANDATE A STUDY BY THE LEGISLATURE AND ALL INVOLVED AGENCIES. THE OBJECTIVE OF THE INQUIRY WOULD BE TO CLARIFY THE GOALS OF INCARCERATION AND INITIATE SELF-REFORM. SUCH AN ORDER, COMBINED WITH INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, IS SEEN AS A DESIRABLE LONG-RANGE SOLUTION TO PRISON PROBLEMS. THE ARTICLE IS EXTENSIVELY FOOTNOTED WITH CASE CITATIONS, REFERENCES, AND FURTHER ARGUMENTS. (GLR)