THE QUESTION OF THE IMPACT OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON CORRECTIONS IS CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF SENTENCING, THE RIGHTS OF PRISONERS, AND THE RIGHTS OF PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE COURTS ARE IMPEDING THE CORRECTIONAL PROCESS, BUT NOT BY INTERFERING WITH THE DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF PRISON ADMINISTRATORS. COURT DECISIONS THAT ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THE CORRECTIONAL PROCESS ARE NOT THE FEW THAT FAVOR PERSONS WHO ARE SENTENCED AND IMPRISONED (E.G., REQUIREMENT OF DEFENSE COUNSEL AT PAROLE, DISCIPLINARY, AND VIOLATION HEARINGS), BUT RATHER THE MANY THAT FAVOR CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, WARDENS, AND PAROLE BOARDS. MOST COURTS MAINTAIN A HANDS-OFF POLICY THAT ALLOWS ABUSES TO CONTINUE TO THE DETRIMENT OF PRISONERS, PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES, AND TO THE CORRECTIONAL SYSTEM. MOST DECISIONS UPHOLDING RIGHTS OF INMATES, PAROLEES, AND PROBATIONERS, ARE RESISTED BY ADMINISTRATORS AND HAVE LITTLE RESTRAINING EFFECT ON ADMINISTRATIVE DISCRETION. CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS ARE REMINDED THAT THEIR POWER IS GREAT AND, IF EXERCISED WITH SYMPATHY TO GRIEVANCES, COULD IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CORRECTIONS. AS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT POWER, AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER THAT DRASTICALLY REDUCED THE JUVENILE TRAINING SCHOOL POPULATION IN MASSACHUSETTS IS CITED. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--LKM)