Prisoner Representative Organizations, Prison Reform, and Jones V. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 70 Article 3 Issue 1 Spring Spring 1979 Prisoner Representative Organizations, Prison Reform, and Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union: An Argument for Increased Court Intervention in Prison Administration Bradley B. Falkof Northwestern University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Bradley B. Falkof, Prisoner Representative Organizations, Prison Reform, and Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union: An Argument for Increased Court Intervention in Prison Administration, 70 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 42 (1979) This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 9901-4169/79/7001-0042S02.00/00 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 70, No. I Copyright © 1979 by Northwestern University School of Law Pinted in U.S.A. COMMENTS PRISONER REPRESENTATIVE ORGANIZATIONS, PRISON REFORM, AND JONES V. NORTH CAROLINA PRISONERS' LABOR UNION: AN ARGUMENT FOR INCREASED COURT INTERVENTION IN PRISON ADMINISTRATION INTRODUCTION pie grounds for rejecting the establishment of such A movement to reform prisons is under way organizations in their own institutions. Only in the which is challenging the current methods of prison past few years have realistic evaluations been made with respect to the reasons for past failures, the management. The battle is being waged between prisoners and the administrators with the courts as limitations ofgrievance organizations within prison mediators. The prison reform movement is riding walls and the requirements for the effective and a wave of popular support on a collision course continuous operation of mechanisms for handling with the traditional custodial concerns of security- inmate complaints.' conscious prison administrators. On the one hand, Most recently, administrators reluctant to afford criminologists have begun to understand better the inmates a greater voice in the day-to-day opera- debilitating effects that a custodial environment tions of the correctional institution received sup- has on rehabilitation prognosis.' The relationship port from a source that has the power to bring the prison reform movement to a standstill. In Jones v. between collective violence and inadequate com- 6 munication mechanisms has been well docu- North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, the United mented.2 Penologists are urging that prison inmates States Supreme Court assured the continued pres- ence 7 be afforded a greater role in the operation and of the high custody prison when it ruled that administration of the institution that contains neither the first amendment nor the fourteenth them.3 More and moie commentators are recogniz- amendment is violated by state prison regulations ing the benefits, both to the rehabilitative process that forbid inmates from soliciting membership in and the maintenance of internal prison security, a prisoner labor union or from conducting union meetings.' In applying the rational relation test of offered by such prisoner grievance organizations4 as prisoner unions and inmate advisory councils. due process, the Court found that such regulations are reasonably related to legitimate prison security On the other hand, the legitimization of prisoner 9 grievance organizations promises to be resisted, if concerns. And, as a basis for its decision, the Court not outrightly rejected, by prison administrators. made clear that the judiciary must give appropri- Admittedly, past failures in the development and ate deference to the decisions of prison administra- operation of prisoner grievance organizations have 5 See note 91 infra. See also Comment, Labor Unions for provided reluctant prison administrators with am- Prison Inmates: An Analysis of a Recent Proposalfor the Orga- nization BUFFALO 'See text accompanying notes 77-80 infra. of Inmate Labor, 21 L. REV. 963, 966 n.13 (1972); Huff, Unionization Behind the Walls, 12 CRIMINOL- 2 See text accompanying notes 81-93 infra. OGY 175, 186, 189 (1974). But see Butler v. Preiser, 380 F. As J. E. Baker, in THE RIGHT To PARTICIPATE, sum- Supp. 612, 621 n.1 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1974). marized the recommendations of many penologists: 433 U.S. 119 (1977). Whether or not the formalized structure of com- 'The term "high custody prison" refers to an organi- munication is an advisory council or some other zational structure found in most American prisons, in method is really not important. What is important which coercion is the major means of control over inmates is that correctional administrators recognize and and high alienation characterizes the orientation of most believe that communication with their charges is of the prisoners to the system. Geneally speaking, the vital to the proper functioning of the correctional tasks of the prison organization, i.e. keeping inmates in process. Just as the advisory council was an out- and maintaining discipline, are accomplished through growth of self-government, there is much evidence the potential or actual use of force. A. ETzIoNi, A CoM- of the evolvement of other forms of organizations in PARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS (1961) which the inmate is being recognized as performing reprinted in R. LEGER & J. STRATTON, THE SOCIOLOGY OF an essential role in the correctional system. CORRECTIONS 9-10 (1977). See also text accompanying J. E. BAKER, THE RIGHT To PARTICIPATE: INMATE IN- notes 66-76 infta. VOLVEMENT IN PRISON ADMINISTRATION 250-51 (1974). 8433 U.S. at 121. 4 See text accompanying notes 94-98 infra. 9 Id. at 129. 1979] PRISON REFORM tors when issues concerning inmate custody and This comment will discuss the changing position care are before the court. The Court noted that: which the court has assumed with regard to judicial intrusion into the corrections system. Additionally, courts are ill equipped to deal with the increasingly it will demonstrate that the Court's increased de- urgent problems of prison administration and re- ference to the security concerns of prison adminis- form.... ThE necessary and correct result of our trators suggests an unfortunate and possibly dan- deference to the informed discretion of prison ad- gerous departure from its recent active role in the ministrators permits them, and not the courts, to management of custodial institutions. At a time make the difficult judgments concerning 0institu- tional operations in situations such as this.' when more and more correctional specialists are recognizing the inmate's need to speak out on prison conditions and take a more active role in the Prior to Jones, the Court had balanced the ad- development and construction of his prison envi- ministration's security interests against the consti- ronment, the Court's deferential attitude promises tutional rights of prison inmates in determining to delay the process by which inmates can acquire the legality of prison reforms. But, through the greater control over their lives within the prison. Jones mandate, the Court critically disabled recent trends in prison reform, for it is contended that so In spite of humanitarian changes in methods of treating long as courts blindly defer to the judgment of criminal offenders, prisons have failed to achieve the prison administrators, whose success is judged not utilitarian goals of reformation and deterrence. The rea- in terms of the number of inmates treated or sons for this failure do not lend themselves to easy cata- loguing, but one cause that commentators are becoming rehabilitated, but rather in terms of the number of increasingly concerned about is that "prisons as formal inmates securely contained in the institution, organizations have really not changed significantly. Ini- prison administrators will not risk adopting reforms tially established to provide custodial control over those that could upset the order and regimen of the assigned to them, their basic structure has undergone relatively custodial institution. Furthermore, it is this au- little change even though the goals they purport to seek have changed quite extensively." C. THOMAS & thor's position that the Court's deferential attitude D. PETERSON, PRISON ORGANIZATION AND INMATE SUBCUL- toward the custodialconcerns of prison administra- TURFS 20-21 (1977). tors is a dangerous departure from its past history It is generally recognized that the structure and daily of active judicial review of regulatory actions by operation of most prisons in this country reflect the state officials. By relegating a prison reform such continuing dominance of custodial concerns. See notes 66-76 and accompanying text infra. But only recently as inmate unions to the absolute control of security- have commentators realized that there is a strong corre- minded prison officials, the Court has sacrificed a lation between inmate resistance to rehabilitative efforts prisoner's fundamental rights of free speech and and the administration's emphasis on custodial concerns. association to the mere allegation of a custodial Researchers are increasingly convinced that: To the extent.that an oppositional inmate subcul- concern for order and discipline. And finally, the ture has emerged within prison organizations, and Jones decision portends