After almost a century in which the prevailing view was that prisoners' rights were nonexistent, judicial attitudes in the late 1960's began to change. While accepting the principle that prisoners' rights and civil liberties were somewhat reduced through incarceration, the courts for 10 years examined prison conditions and set limits on the government's curtailment of rights. However, beginning in the last half of the 1970's, the U.S. Supreme Court has seen as its main role the halting of the doctrinal expansion of prisoners' rights law. The decision in Rhodes v. Chapman signaled that the Federal judiciary should practice a hands-off policy unless State courts, legislatures, and executive officials took action in dire circumstances. The lack of substantive reforms in the New Mexico State Penitentiary following a 1980 riot that resulted in 33 inmate deaths illustrates the changing trend. Hardening of public attitudes, resulting in rapid growth in inmate populations, may have contributed to changed judicial attitudes. A series of decisions by the Supreme Court has both halted the trend toward protecting prisoners' rights and has cut back on protections that lower Federal courts have ordered in a number of areas. Thus, more efforts are needed to secure acceptance by all branches of government as well as the media and the pubic of the principle that all prisoners should have fundamental rights. These include the rights to personal safety, care, personal dignity, work, self-improvement, voting, and the right to a future. Three footnotes and 19 references are given.