THE COURT HAS HELD THAT INMATES WHO ARE THE SUBJECTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS (UNLIKE DEFENDANTS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS, PROBATIONERS AND PAROLEES IN REVOCATION HEARINGS, AND WELFARE RECIPIENTS IN WELFARE TERMINATION HEARINGS) DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRESENT FAVORABLE WITNESSES, TO HAVE COUNSEL PRESENT AT THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING, AND TOO REMAIN SILENT WITHOUT ADVERSE INFERENCES BEING DRAWN FROM THAT SILENCE. IN DELINEATING THE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF INMATES IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, THE COURT HAS USED A BALANCING TEST DEVELOPED IN A CASE CONCERNING TERMINATION OF WELFARE BENEFITS (GOLDBERG V. KELLY). THE PROBLEM IN APPLYING ANY BALANCING TEST OF COMPETING INTERESTS IS THE ASSIGNMENT OF PROPER WEIGHTS TO INDIVIDUAL AND GOVERNMENTAL INTERESTS. IN WELFARE AND REVOCATION CASES THE COURT HAS FAVORED THE INDIVIDUAL. BUT IN PRISON DISCIPLINARY CASES (WOLFF V. MCDONNEL, BAXTER V. PALMIGIANO), THE COURT HAS PLACED LESS EMPHASIS ON THE INMATE'S INTEREST IN EXERCISING DISCRETION IN MATTERS OF PRISON DISCIPLINE. THE COURT HAS FAILED TO ARTICULATE THE REASONS FOR ITS INCONSISTENCY IN APPLYING THE GOLDBERG BALANCING TEST. HOWEVER, THE OVERRIDING FACTORS IN THE COURT'S RESTRICTIONS OF PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS AVAILABLE TO INMATES AT DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS APPEAR TO BE CONCERN FOR PRISON SECURITY AND THE COURT'S VIEW THAT THE TYPICAL PRISONER IS AN UNLIKELY CANDIDATE FOR REHABILITATION. THE WOLFF AND BASTER DECISIONS TAKE AWAY A NUMBER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THAT CHECK ABUSES OF DISCRETION BY PRISON OFFICIALS AND INSURE FAIRNESS IN DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS. (LKM)