skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 136144 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Litigating Prison Conditions in Philadelphia: Part II
Journal: Prison Journal  Volume:70  Issue:2  Dated:(Fall-Winter 1990)  Pages:74-85
Author(s): W G Babcock
Date Published: 1990
Page Count: 12
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice/
Rockville, MD 20849
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
NCJRS paper reproduction
Box 6000, Dept F
Rockville, MD 20849
United States of America

NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Type: Legislation/Policy Description
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: In 1982, inmates in Philadelphia's Holmesburg Prison initiated a lawsuit alleging unconstitutional conditions in that institution.
Abstract: The inmates chose to file their suit in Federal court as a class action suit on behalf of all inmates housed at Holmesburg. The suit alleged violation of inmates' eighth and fourteenth amendment rights. Initial negotiations on settlement of the case centered around the establishment of time limits for the incarceration of pretrial detainees prior to the disposition of charges. If the time limits were not met, detainees would be released from custody, but would still be subject to the outstanding charges. State courts and the District Attorney's Office opposed this proposal. The parties then agreed to a settlement that established a phased-in "maximum allowable population" (MAP) for the prison system and for each institution. The city of Philadelphia was not able to implement the MAP approach on schedule, and deadlines for reaching a MAP were postponed several times. The BailCARE program continued to serve as a the primary back-door release mechanism for the city, but it was restricted to the release of those being held for nonviolent offenses on bail of $5,000 or less. The implementation of a house arrest program was ordered, including electronic monitoring, for sentenced inmates on prerelease status. New prison construction was proposed as well to help reach the MAP and reduce prison overcrowding. 3 references and 9 footnotes
Main Term(s): Inmate lawsuits; Prison conditions
Index Term(s): Alternatives to institutionalization; Pennsylvania; Prison overcrowding; Prisoner's rights
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.