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: 98089 Find in a Library
Title: Liberty Within Prison Walls as a Natural Right? Hewitt v Helms
Journal: New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement  Volume:11  Issue:1  Dated:(Winter 1985)  Pages:217-237
Author(s): M J Murphy
Date Published: 1985
Page Count: 21
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: After a review of the U.S. Supreme Court's prior treatment of the prisoners' rights issue, the Hewitt v. Helms decision is discussed.
Abstract: In the Hewitt case, the Court determined the extent of a Pennsylvania inmate's right to remain among the general prison population. The Court found due process requirements were fulfilled by an informal review of the alleged misconduct held five days after the inmate's confinement in administrative segregation. The Hewitt decision locates the inmate's liberty interest in a Pennsylvania statute governing prison policy. In a dissenting opinion, Justice that all men are endowed with liberty by their creator and protected by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, inmates should enjoy the same due process rights as free men. The courts have been quick to uphold the majority decision in subsequent cases. Under this interpretation, the inmate's rights are dependent upon the State of incarceration: liberty interests may be extensive, or they may not exist at all. A broader, stronger approach to the problem is needed to pinpoint protectable rights of inmates and to guide States in providing procedures to safeguard those rights. Stevens' dissent provides such an approach which submits that '... even an inmate retains an unalienable interest in liberty -- at the very minimum the right to be treated with dignity -- which the Constitution may never ignore.'
Index Term(s): Correctional reform; Corrections policies; Inmate discipline; Judicial decisions; Prisoner's rights; Right to Due Process; US Supreme Court decisions
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.