NCJ Number
59266
Journal
Boston University Law Review Volume: 59 Issue: 2 Dated: (MARCH 1979) Pages: 334-371
Date Published
1979
Length
38 pages
Annotation
CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES EXIST WHICH JUSTIFY AN INMATE'S ESCAPE FROM A PRISON WHEN THE CONDITIONS CONSTITUTE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT, AND WHEN NO OTHER REMEDY IS AVAILABLE OR EFFECTIVE.
Abstract
ONLY IN CASES INVOLVING PRISONERS FACED WITH A SPECIFIC, IMMINENT THREAT OF DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY HAVE THE COURTS HELD THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT NECESSITY TO JUSTIFY AN ESCAPE. TRADITIONALLY, INTOLERABLE OR INHUMANE PRISON CONDITIONS ARE USUALLY CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS OFFENSE, EVEN IF THOSE CONDITIONS DO NOT VIOLATE THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT'S PROHIBITION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. THE COURTS MAY, HOWEVER, BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE EXCUSE OF NECESSITY CAUSED BY CONDITIONS SUCH AS REPEATED ASSAULTS AND SOLITARY CONFINEMENT, WHEN NO OTHER RECOURSE BUT ESCAPE IS AVAILABLE. IN UNITED STATES V. BAILEY (1978), THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT DECIDED THAT THE TRIAL JURY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO CONSIDER PRISON CONDITIONS AS A FACTOR IN FINDING CRIMINAL LIABILITY FOR A PRISON ESCAPE. IF A PRISONER OFFERS EVIDENCE THAT HIS ESCAPE WAS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO LEAVE CONFINEMENT, BUT ONLY TO LEAVE CONDITIONS WHICH ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY IMPERMISSIBLE, THEN THE INTENT ELEMENT OF THE CRIME OF ATTEMPTED ESCAPE MIGHT NOT BE SATISFIED. THE BAILEY DOCTRINE WOULD NOT REQUIRE CONDITIONS TO BE IMMEDIATELY THREATENING AS COMMON LAW NECESSITY REQUIRES, BUT WOULD EXCUSE ESCAPE ON THE GROUNDS OF CONSTITUTIONAL NECESSITY. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)