COURTS FACED WITH PRISON EXCAPEES ASSERTING THE DEFENSE OF INTOLERABLE CONDITIONS HAVE CONFRONTED THE CONFLICTING IMPERATIVES OF SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN SECURE PRISON ADMINISTRATION AND CONSIDERING INDIVIDUAL CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY MAKE PUNISHMENT OF THE ESCAPEE UNJUST. NEITHER THE TRADITIONAL RULE PROHIBITING THE DEFENSE OF INTOLERABLE CONDITIONS, NOR THE 'LOVERCAMP' RULE CONDITIONING SUCH A DEFENSE ON SATISFACTION OF RIGID PREREQUISITES CREATES AN ACCEPTABLE BALANCE OF THESE COMPETING INTERESTS. BOTH DOCTRINES SACRIFICE THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL INMATE TO THE PERCEIVED OVERRIDING PUBLIC INTEREST IN PREVENTING ESCAPES. THE PROPOSAL THAT LIBERALIZATION OF THE INTOLERABLE-CONDITIONS DEFENSE CAN BEST BE ACHIEVED BY TREATING THE DEFENSE AS NEGATING THE PARTICULAR-INTENT REQUIRED AS AN ELEMENT OF ESCAPE IS BOTH CONCEPTUALLY INCOHERENT AND INCAPABLE OF PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE CONDITIONS THAT SHOULD EXCULPATE AN ESCAPEE. THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE IS TO PERMIT AN ESCAPEE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF INTOLERABLE CONDITIONS UNDER A NECESSITY THEORY, WITH THE 'LOVERCAMP' CRITERIA REGARDED AS TESTS OF THE WEIGHT OF THIS EVIDENCE RATHER THAN AS CONDITIONS FOR ITS ADMISSIBILITY. LIBERALIZING THE DEFENSE OF INTOLERABLE CONDITIONS SHOULD DO MORE THAN PROMOTE A MORE JUST DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUAL CASES. BY MAKING IT EASIER FOR THOSE PRISONERS SUBJECTED TO MENACING, UNHEALTHFUL, OR INHUMANE CONDITIONS TO JUSTIFY ESCAPE, A STIMULUS IS PROVIDED FOR LONG OVERDUE UPGRADING AND REFORM OF THE NATION'S PRISONS AND JAILS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED--RCB)