STANDARDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR CONDITIONS OF PRETRIAL DETENTION

• NCJ Number: 59060
• Journal: Minnesota Law Review Volume: 63 Issue: 3 Dated: (MARCH 1979) Pages: 457-486
• Author(s): ANON
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 30 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Minnesota Law School
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

THIS LAW NOTE ANALYZES DETAINEE LITIGATION AND PROPOSES THAT, WHEN CONDITIONS CHALLENGED BY DETAINEES WARRANT ONLY RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW, A RATIONAL JAIL STANDARD SHOULD BE ONE THAT SHOWS NO PUNITIVE INTENT.

Abstract

PRETRIAL DETAINEES ARE UNCONVICTED PERSONS WHO ARE CONFINED UNTIL TRIAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF NONBAILABLE OFFENSES OR ARE UNABLE TO POST BAIL. COURTS TRADITIONALLY FOLLOWED A HANDS-OFF POLICY WITH REGARD TO CHALLENGES OF PRISON CONDITIONS BY INMATES, DEFERRING TO THE DISCRETION OF PRISON ADMINISTRATORS. IN THE CAE OF DETAINEES, WHOSE PRESENCE IN JAIL IS NOT PREDICATED ON PENAL CONSIDERATIONS, COURTS HAVE BEEN GENEROUS IN FASHIONING BROAD REMEDIAL RELIEF. THE HANDS-OFF DOCTRINE HAS BEEN REPUDIATED TO THE EXTENT THAT CONVICTED PRISONERS ARE ENTITLED TO RIGHTS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THEIR STATUS AS PRISONERS WITHIN LEGITIMATE PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES OF THE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM. COURTS HAVE NOT YET DELINEATED THE LEGAL STATUS OF PRETRIAL DETAINEES, BUT IT IS LOGICAL THAT DETAINEES SHOULD HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN CONVICTS SINCE PENOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES DO NOT APPLY TO PERSONS PRESUMED INNOCENT. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CONCEPTS HAVE ALMOST IDENTICAL RAMIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF DETAINEE SUITS. THE APPLICATION OF THESE CONCEPTS TO PRETRIAL DETAINEES, IN A REVIEW OF DETAINEE LITIGATION, SHOWS THAT U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS HAVE CREATED CONSIDERABLE CONFUSION REGARDING THE STANDARD OF JUDICIAL REVIEW APPROPRIATE WHEN PRETRIAL DETAINEES CHALLENGE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS OF THEIR JAILERS. THE BEST STANDARD IS THAT DECISIONS OF JAIL ADMINISTRATORS NEED BE ONLY RATIONALLY RELATED TO THE STATE'S INTEREST IN ASSURING THE PRESENCE OF DETAINEES AT TRIAL, UNLESS SUCH DECISIONS SIGNIFICANTLY INTERFERE WITH FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES. IF INTERFERENCE IS PRESENT, DECISIONS MUST BE SCRUNTINIZED BY THE COURTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN A LAW OR A REGULATION BURDENS A SUSPECT CLASS OR INTERFERES WITH FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES. A RATIONALITY STANDARD OFFERS DETAINEES GREATER PROTECTION WHILE GUARDING AGAINST DANGERS OF OVERREACHING STRICT SCRUTINY. CASE LAW IS CITED, AND EXTENSIVE FOOTNOTES ACCOMPANY THE TEXT. (DEP)