BEFORE THE 1960'S IT WAS GENERALLY ASSUMED THAT CONVICTED PERSONS LEFT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT THE PRISON DOOR. BECAUSE AMERICAN PRISONS CONFINE LARGE NUMBER OF INMATES IN A TENSION-FILLED SETTING WITH FEW GUARDS, ADMINISTRATORS ARE CONCERNED MAINLY WITH SECURITY. ANYTHING THAT SMACKS OF SPONTANEITY OR INDEPENDENCE IS TO BE SQUELCHED EMPHATICALLY. COURTS TRADITIONALLY WENT ALONG WITH WHATEVER ADMINISTRATORS FELT WAS NECESSARY, ADOPTING A POLICY OF NONINTERFERENCE. THE FEW EXCEPTIONS WERE A SERIES OF CASES EXTENDING THE CONCEPT OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT BEYOND THE BARBAROUS TORTURES OF ENGLAND AND COLONIAL AMERICA. THESE EARLY DECISIONS SET THE STAGE FOR THE 1970'S, WHICH SAW A SERIES OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS DECLARE A VARIETY OF SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS IN VIOLATION OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT. TENSIONS IN THE PRISON SYSTEM MULTIPLIED WITH THE START OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT BECAUSE SO MANY INMATES BELONGED TO MINORITY GROUPS. PRISONERS' RIGHTS LAWYERS WERE GENERALLY CIVIL RIGHTS LAWYERS. THEY WON NUMEROUS COURT CASES EXTENDING CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES OF PRIVACY, SECURITY, AND ACCESS TO THE COURTS TO INMATES. HOWEVER, MAIL IS STILL CENSORED, VISITS FROM FAMILY AND ATTORNEYS ARE STILL MONITORED, AND MEDICAL CARE, REHABILITATION, AND PHYSICAL SECURITY ARE NOT ENSURED. JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE ONLY A BEGINNING; IMPLEMENTATION IS THE CHALLENGE. AN APPENDED TABLE GIVES CITATIONS FOR CASES MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE. (GLR)