Prisoners’ rights have evolved thanks to the courts’ intervention in correctional administration, but initially the courts were reluctant to intervene in correctional administration. Prisoners’ rights are divided into procedural and substantive rights, and seek non-judicial remedies for violations. While various rights movements have had a positive impact on corrections, conflicts and tensions have arisen along the way.

Foundations and nature of prisoners’ rights

The evolution of prisoners’ rights

While the current state of prisoners’ rights is due in large part to judicial involvement in corrections, courts were initially reluctant to intervene in the administration of corrections. This is known as the policy of judicial non-interference in corrections. There are several reasons for this policy of non-intervention. First, correctional administration was so closed that even the courts did not know much about it; second, the courts did not intervene because it was a field that required specialized expertise; third, common sense and public perception did not justify the courts’ concern for prisoners, even those who were criminals; and fourth, it was thought that judicial interference in correctional administration violated the separation of powers.
However, with the rise of civil rights and the progress of democratization, inmates began to file lawsuits regarding their rights and interests; the overall increase in education level raised the consciousness and knowledge level of the common criminal; and the growing acceptance of intellectuals or leadership figures opened the eyes of inmates to their rights and interests. Due to these changes, the courts slowly began to intervene in the administration of corrections, which is referred to as the policy of interference.

The nature of prisoners’ rights

Historically, prisoners have not been able to fully enjoy their basic human rights because the loss of certain rights was perceived as an important element of their punishment. In addition, correctional facilities have a low priority in the distribution of state finances, which makes it difficult to secure sufficient funding for prisoners. Their detention has a compulsory nature, and the strict discipline that must be maintained in correctional facilities exposes prisoners to various forms of deprivation, degradation, and isolation from the outside world. In these circumstances, inmates begin to question the legality of their imprisonment – whether their imprisonment is justified or legitimate.
One of the main issues for prisoners is to regain their status or status as a person. While these demands for rights are severely limited, most scholars support the protection of prisoners’ rights, emphasizing equity in retribution.

Highlights of prisoner rights

Procedural rights

Procedural rights are literally rights to due process, the rules that limit and guide the state’s behavior toward individuals. Because the excessive discretion and vague discipline given to prison guards poses serious problems, there is a growing interest in when prisoners can enforce their procedural rights. This interest in due process provides an essential foundation for consistent rule of law in correctional facilities. While these procedural rights are not necessarily the best protection for inmates, they are at least seen as a direct challenge to staff discretion, which has long been considered an inviolable sanctuary in corrections.

Substantive rights

Substantive rights for inmates include the right to censorship of correspondence, freedom of religion, cruel and unusual punishment, and the right to treatment and the right to refuse treatment. As for censorship of correspondence, the right to communicate with the outside world can be a form of freedom of speech and expression, but it is limited because it can pose security concerns for the prison. Courts have recognized the need to censor correspondence for inmates, but disagree on how much restriction is reasonable.
Before recognizing freedom of religion, the first question is what to recognize as religion. There is also the question of the extent to which correctional authorities may restrict the exercise of religious beliefs for religions they recognize. On the issue of religion, courts have ordered a very strict standard requiring the existence of a compelling state interest and the least restrictive alternative.
As for cruel and unusual punishment, it is distinguished between cases where it threatens human dignity, violates the principle of proportionality, or requires discipline and chastisement as a means of achieving an executorial goal. Finally, the right to treatment and the right to refuse treatment are not legally enforceable because they are conflicting concepts.

Protection of prisoners’ rights and remedies for violations

When a prisoner’s rights are violated, the difficulties of litigation make it necessary to seek non-judicial remedies as an effective and equitable means of redress. Informal mechanisms have the advantage of being more responsive to prisoners’ complaints and grievances, requiring administrative handling of administrative matters, taking less time than judicial means, and being more meaningful to prisoners because of the parties’ agreement.
Informal mechanisms include ombudsman systems, inmate grievance committees, and mediation. Ombudsmen can provide an alternative to the institution in question, so their success depends on their non-partisanship and ability to persuade. Conditions for success include making it easy for inmates to file a complaint, full empowerment of the ombudsman, and an attitude of respect for the solutions proposed by the ombudsman.
The Inmate Complaints Committee requires that both parties to a dispute make a good faith effort to resolve it informally before it is brought to the Ombudsman. Importantly, it does not qualify as a grievance committee unless inmates are involved as decision makers on specific issues or as advisors on overall operations.
Finally, mediation is a dispute resolution method utilized at many levels of the criminal justice system. In order to be mediated, both parties to a conflict must agree to bring the dispute to a mediator and to accept the outcome of the mediator’s decision. It is a consensual and voluntary process in which a neutral third party, the mediator, helps the parties resolve their differences.

Evaluating prisoners’ rights movements

The various forms of prisoners’ rights movements have had a profound impact on corrections in that they have resulted in more than just judicial involvement in corrections. However, the outcomes of various efforts to promote prisoners’ rights are not necessarily positive. The environment or atmosphere in correctional facilities is often most turbulent during or shortly after major litigation, and the length of time required for litigation can create tension and conflict between inmates and staff. Other issues include riots that can occur if the outcome of a rights remedy does not meet the initial expectations of inmates.
Sometimes, however, correctional facilities or correctional authorities cooperate very positively with inmate advocacy. This is because it can be used as pressure on legislatures or budgetary authorities, and it can be used as an opportunity to get the resources needed to improve the facility or corrections.