Vol. 2, No. 11 (November, 1992) pp. 179-180

PRISONS UNDER THE GAVEL: THE FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF GEORGIA PRISONS by Bradley Stewart Chilton. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1991. 156 pp. Cloth $32.50.

Reviewed by Richard J. Richardson, Department of Political Science, The University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

In this study we are reminded that courts in the United States have increasingly undertaken the reform of public institutions, including schools, mental facilities, public housing, and prisons. Although such reforms are triggered by cases of individual civil rights violations, they often result in major structural changes in the institutions through remedial decrees that reallocate budgetary resources.

Prisons have received the special attention of federal judges. Early lawsuits began in the South and moved from Arkansas, Mississippi, and Alabama to encompass thirty-eight states. Broad and sweeping injunctions came from courts ordering changes in prison sanitation, food, temperature, fire control and ventilation. They have also changed security, discipline, racial discrimination, over-crowding, libraries, religious freedom and segregation.

Unlike most conventional adjudication, reform litigation is far more complex, protracted and controversial. The present study illustrates that remedial decrees require extensive negotiation and active participation by the judge with the assistance of special masters, monitors and experts. These teams are often treated as hated federal adversaries by state officials. The struggle to fix liability, craft remedies and measure compliance is often done in the white heat of political wars, journalistic commentary, and political careers laid on the line. The long battles take on a life of their own, are seemingly interminable and are full of drama. Draconian measures often follow showdowns as when Judge Frank Johnson removed control of the Alabama prisons from the corrections system and placed them under direct receivership of the Governor.

PRISONS UNDER THE GAVEL: THE FEDERAL TAKEOVER OF GEORGIA PRISONS by Bradley Stewart Chilton uses a detailed case study to explore the nature of court-induced prison reform. In 1972, a lawsuit by seven black inmates protesting living conditions at Georgia State prison became the basis of Guthrie v. Evans. Over the course of thirteen years, District Judge Anthony Alaimo ordered extensive changes in all aspects of the prison's operations. From a simple forma pauperis petition to a class action that found cruel and unusual punishment, Guthrie had impact far beyond Georgia borders in correctional practices and constitutional law.

Professor Chilton seeks to answer four interesting questions in his study: (1) who were the key decision-makers in the Guthrie case and how did they perceive the case and underlying issues; (2) how did the budget for the Georgia State Prison change in the course of litigation and what were the important factors in that process; (3) what were the major remedies undertaken and how did settlement patterns change in the course of litigation; (4) finally, what rights undergirded the Guthrie litigation and what does this tell us about institutional reform litigation (p. 9).

Two major sources supply the data for the study -- the extensive court records, legal communications, monitors' report and other archival materials supplemented by journalistic accounts from the period and secondly, focused interviews with a number of the primary participants in the case.

The book is organized with half (chapters 2-5) of the study a chronological history of the Guthrie case. The second half (chapters 6-7) looks to answering the questions noted above by exploring perspectives of key decision-makers, budget policies, remedial decrees and the nature of prisoners' constitutional rights. The study concludes (chapter 8) with a critique of the institutionalization of prisoner rights and a comparison of the Guthrie case with other prison reform cases.

Chilton organizes his chronology along the lines of Phillip Cooper's 1988 "internal dynamic case study" approach which focuses "on the perspectives (internal) of key decision-makers as they interact over time (dynamic) in the formulation and implementation of remedial decrees." Using Cooper's theoretical decree litigation model, Chilton divides his chronology into four phases: trigger, liability, remedy and post-decree. Although Cooper's model is a convenient organizing scheme for the presentation of the Guthrie history, it does not provide a strong theoretical basis for the study. Indeed, the study's greatest weakness is its paucity of theory. The narrative struggles in the first three chapters to get up to the tree line and through the complex tangle of legal underbrush. Frankly, the effort does not succeed. The author is an accomplished legal observer, knowledgeable of the issues of law, court terminology, jurisdiction, special monitors and court decrees. One also assumes he is a sensitive student of court politics, but his legal skills overcome his political analysis in the first half of the study. Unless one has a very keen interest in this case, the reader will find the case detail overwhelming and boring.

In the second half of the study, a more enlightened and interesting analysis emerges. Thirty-six key decision-makers were identified in the Guthrie case and Professor Chilton conducted interviews with thirty-four of them. Although respondents are not identified, their comments are illuminating, helping us to understand the political and professional power struggles that make up Guthrie. The personal and antagonistic comments are intense and blunt and the case takes on vitality and meaning when the participants reflect upon the battleground.

The author concludes with a useful analysis of the Guthrie case in the context of other prison litigation. He observes that this lawsuit, unlike many others, achieved desired change because the judge followed a strategy of hard-bargained consent with judicial pressure, but not judicial fiat.

This work has many of the limitations of single case studies, but one feels certain that this young scholar has mastered this case and has presented an objective and comprehensive narrative for the record. With a growing body of judicial literature on remedial decrees, we will soon be in a position to develop more broadly based theory to guide future research.