PRISONER CORRESPONDENCE - AN APPRAISAL OF THE JUDICIAL REFUSAL TO ABOLISH BANISHMENT AS A FORM OF PUNISHMENT

• NCJ Number: 5392
• Journal: JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW, CRIMINOLOGY AND POLICE SCIENCE Volume: 62 Issue: 1 Dated: (MARCH 1971) Pages: 40-55
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: 1971
• Length: 16 pages
• Corporate Author: Williams and Wilkins Co
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

CURRENT CASE LAW INVOLVING INMATE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND A DISCUSSION OF THE PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH THE DECISIONS ARE BASED.

Abstract

TO JUSTIFY THEIR DECISION, THE COURTS EMPLOY FOUR PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES. FIRST, COURTS FREQUENTLY STATE THAT THEY LACK POWER TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE PRISON SYSTEM. SECOND, THERE IS IN MANY DECISIONS THE NOTION THAT THE WITHDRAWAL OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IS NECESSITATED BY THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PENAL SYSTEM. THIRD, MANY COURTS HOLD THAT THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT PROSCRIPTION OF CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS PREEMPTS JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO THE ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THE FOURTH DOCTRINE, SELDOM ARTICULATED, HOLDS THAT THE PRISON INMATE, HAVING BEEN DULY CONVICTED OF A CRIME, HAS FORFEITED ALL OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND IS IN FACT THE SLAVE OF THE STATE.