C0NDITIONS IN ALABAMA'S STATE PRISON FARM AND MAXIMUM SECURITY UNIT ARE DESCRIBED AS BAD. THE STATE IS SAID TO APPROPRIATE FAR LESS MONEY THAN IS NEEDED TO RUN ITS PRISONS, USING INMATE LABOR (AT A WAGE OF LESS THAN 1 CENT AN HOUR) TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. THE PENAL SYSTEM IS SAID TO OFFER FEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION. IN JANUARY AND MARCH 1974, TWO GUARDS AND TWO INMATES DIED IN UPRISINGS INSTIGATED IN AN ATTEMPT TO BRING ATTENTION TO PRISON CONDITIONS. AMONG ALL THE INMATES INDICTED FOR MURDER AS A RESULT OF THE UPRISING, ONLY ONE, JOHNNIE HARRIS, HAD BEEN SERVING A LIFE SENTENCE. UNDER ALABAMA LAW, DEATH IS THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY FOR A FIRST-DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION AGAINST A PRISONER ALREADY SERVING A LIFE SENTENCE. A LAW CALLING AUTOMATICALLY FOR EXECUTION MIGHT CIRCUMVENT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT RULING THAT THE DEATH PENALTY, BECAUSE IT IS NOT IMPOSED UNIFORMLY, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT, OF ALL THE MURDER INDICTMENTS AGAINST INMATES, THE CASE AGAINST HARRIS WAS THE WEAKEST, THE IMPLICATION BEING THAT HARRIS' PROSECUTION REFLECTED THE EAGERNESS OF THE STATE TO EXECUTE SOMEONE AS A VENGEFUL EXAMPLE TO OTHER INMATES AND AS A POLITICAL DISPLAY FOR THE PUBLIC. BOTH THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY AND THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY IN THE HARRIS CASE WERE POLITICALLY PROMINENT. THE EVIDENCE AGAINST HARRIS WAS CIRCUMSTANTIAL, AND THE DEFENSE, RATHER THAN FOCUSING ON THE CONDITIONS SURROUNDING THE UPRISING, SIMPLY ATTEMPTED TO SHOW THAT THE CHARGES AGAINST HARRIS WERE NOT FOUNDED. HARRIS WAS FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE. SEVERAL ASPECTS OF THE TRIAL ARE SAID TO ILLUSTRATE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FAMILIAR ALLIANCE BETWEEN BLACK MILITANTS AND SOCIALLY OR GEOGRAPHICALLY DISTANT WHITES WHO, RALLYING TO LIBERAL CAUSES, KEEP 'COMMON' WHITES AT A DISTANCE, POLITICALLY AND SOCIALLY. (LKM)