skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

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: 66529 Find in a Library
Title: IMPLEMENTATION OF REMEDIES IN PRISON CONDITIONS SUITS
Author(s): R E PANOSH
Corporate Author: National Assoc of Attorneys General
United States of America
Date Published: 1980
Page Count: 67
Sponsoring Agency: National Assoc of Attorneys General
Washington, DC 20001
National Institute of Corrections
Washington, DC 20534
Sale Source: National Assoc of Attorneys General
444 North Capitol Street
Washington, DC 20001
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: COURTS HAVE TAKEN A RANGE OF INJUNCTIVE, REMEDIAL MEASURES TO REFORM THE PRISON SYSTEM AND HAVE FASHIONED INSTRUMENTS TO MONITOR AND INSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR DECREES.
Abstract: BASED ON THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION AGAINST EXCESSIVE FORMS OF PUNISHMENT, THE COURTS HAVE UTILIZED 42 U.S. CODE SECTION 1983 AS A TOOL FOR PRISON REFORM BECAUSE OF ITS WIDE SELECTION OF REMEDIES. MOST CASES INVOLVING IMPROPER PRISON CONDITIONS HAVE UTILIZED SECTION 1983'S PROVISION FOR EQUITABLE RELIEF TO SEEK BROAD-RANGING INJUNCTIVE ORDERS WHICH REQUIRE MASSIVE IMPROVEMENTS OR MODIFICATIONS TO PRISON FACILITIES. THE COURTS HAVE ALSO USED THEIR EQUITY POWERS TO ORDER THAT PRISONERS BE RELEASED FROM CONFINEMENT. THESE INJUNCTIVE ORDERS ISSUED IN 'CONDITIONS' CASES HAVE CREATED SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTATION FOR THE COURTS. TO FASHION A DECREE AND MONITOR COMPLIANCE IN SUCH CASES, COURTS HAVE USED VARIOUS MECHANISMS INCLUDING HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEES, EXPERT PANELS, SPECIAL MASTERS, MONITORS, OMBUDSMEN, AND RECEIVERS. THE TYPE OF MECHANISM SELECTED BY THE COURTS DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEIR PURPOSE IS TO DEVELOP A DECREE OR MONITOR COMPLIANCE. CASES ARE CITED WHICH HAVE EMPLOYED THESE MECHANISMS, AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS IS EVALUATED. CASES ALSO ILLUSTRATE THE MECHANSIM THE COURT USED TO DEAL WITH OVERCROWDING, PROBABLY THE MOST PERSUASIVE FACTOR IN A COURT'S DECISION THAT THE 'TOTALITY' OF PRISON CONDITIONS VIOLATES THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT. APPENDIXES PRESENT A SUMMARY OF THE STATUS IN 32 STATES OF PENDING PRISON LITIGATION, AND THE ORDER OF REFERENCE IN JONES V. WITTENBERG AND PALMIGIANO V. GARRAHY. FOOTNOTES AND A TABLE OF CASES ARE INCLUDED. (WJR)
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Correctional reform; Court ordered institutional reform; Court orders; Cruel and unusual punishment; Injunctions; Judicial decision compliance; Judicial decisions; Master (court-appointed)
Note: *This document is currently unavailable from NCJRS.
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=66529

*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.