NCJ Number
46807
Journal
University of Pennsylvania Law Review Volume: 126 Issue: 4 Dated: (APRIL 1978) Pages: 715-794
Date Published
1978
Length
80 pages
Annotation
DURING THE PAST DECADE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HAVE TRIED TO REMEDY CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS BY MANDATING INCREASED GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES. THE LIMITS WHICH SHOULD BE PLACED ON THIS POWER ARE DISCUSSED.
Abstract
AS THE RESULT OF LOWER FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS, PRISONS HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO IMPROVE PHYSICAL FACILITIES AND LEVELS OF SERVICES. IN ADDITION, SPENDING FOR PROGRAMS FOR MENTALLY RETARDED PERSONS HAS INCREASED AND OTHER PUBLIC MONEY HAS BEEN COMMITTED NOT BY LEGISLATIVE CHOICE, BUT BY JUDICIAL DECISION. THE SUPREME COURT HAS EMPHASIZED THE VALUE OF LIMITED JUDICIAL INTERVENTION IN SUCH MATTERS AND IN SEVERAL CASES HAVE ATTEMPTED TO LIMIT LOWER COURT INTERVENTION IN LEGISLATIVE MATTERS. IN THE DESEGREGATION CASES, THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED VARIOUS FORMS OF SEGREGATION UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BUT HAS ATTEMPTED TO LIMIT LOWER COURT ATTEMPTS TO BE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN SCHOOL BOARD ADMINISTRATION. IN TWO CASES INVOLVING MENTAL INSTITUTIONS, IN WHICH PATIENTS SUED BECAUSE THEY FELT TREATMENT WAS INADEQUATE, THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT THE PERSONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED BUT DID NOT MANDATE EXTRA MONEY FOR INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT. IN ESTELLE V. GAMBLE THE SUPREME COURT DECIDED A CASE CONCERNING PRISON CONDITIONS AS NARROWLY AS IN PREVIOUS MENTAL INSTITUTION CASES. THE INADEQUATE MEDICAL TREATMENT ESTELLE EXPERIENCED IN PRISON MIGHT HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THE TEXAS PRISON SYSTEM HAS HAD AT VARIOUS TIMES ONLY 1 TO 3 DOCTORS TO CARE FOR 17,000 PRISONERS, HOWEVER, THE COURT DID NOT SUGGEST ANY MINIMUM LEVEL OF PRISON MEDICAL CARE. INSTEAD, IT HELD THAT INADEQUATE MEDICAL TREATMENT WOULD CONSTITUTE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT ONLY IF THERE HAD BEEN 'DELIBERATE INDIFFERENCE TO SERIOUS MEDICAL NEEDS OF PRISONERS.' SUCH TREATMENT MIGHT BE CAUSE FOR MALPRACTICE UNDER TORT LAW, BUT WAS NOT CONSIDERED A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE BY THE COURT. ONLY ONE JUSTICE DISSENTED. MANY PARTIES HAVE BROUGHT SUIT UNSUCCESSFULLY IN THE FEDERAL COURTS TO STIMULATE IMPROVEMENTS IN EDUCATIONAL OR CORRECTIONAL CONDITIONS. AS A DISSENTING JUDGE IN AN INSTITUTIONAL CASE SAID, 'A FEDERAL JUDGE REARRANGING A STATE'S PENAL OR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IS LIKE A MAN FEEDING CANDY TO HIS GRANDCHILD. HE DERIVES A GREAT DEAL OF PERSONAL SATISFACTION FROM IT AND HAS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE RESULTS.' REFORMERS ARE ADVISED TO SEEK CHANGE AT THE LEGISLATIVE AS WELL AS THE JUDICIAL LEVEL BECAUSE LEGISLATURES HAVE THE POWER OF THE PURSE.