CRIMINAL LAW - EMERGING RIGHTS OF PRISONERS - RIGHT TO REFUSE REHABILITATION

• NCJ Number: 35350
• Journal: Tennessee Law Review Volume: 42 Issue: 4 Dated: (SUMMER 1975) Pages: 793-803
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: 1975
• Length: 11 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Tennessee Press
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

ANALYSIS OF A FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT RULING IN RUTHERFORD V HUTTO (1974) THAT A STATE HAS A SUFFICENT INTEREST IN ELIMINATING ILLITERACY AMONG CONVICTS TO JUSTIFY MANDATORY ATTENDANCE AT PRISON SCHOOL CLASSES.

Abstract

A TRILOGY OF RECENT COURT DECISIONS AFFECTING THE RIGHT TO REFUSE REHABILITATIVE TREATMENT - CLONCE V RICHARDSON (1974), KNECHT V GILLMAN (1973), AND KAIMOWITZ V MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH (1973) - ARE ALSO REVIEWED. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT THE IMPACT OF RUTHERFORD WILL LIE IN THE COURT'S RECOGNITION THAT EDUCATIONAL OR CAREER-ORIENTED REHABILITATION PROGRAMS ARE SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS.