FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1479901323> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1479901323 startingPage "1035" @default.
• W1479901323 abstract "INTRODUCTION States seeking to cut costs in their budgets frequently turn to privatization as a more economical alternative to directly executing governmental objectives.1 The underlying theory is that corporations are often able to provide services more efficiently than the government.2 One particular area where states are relying increasingly on public/private cooperation is correctional services.3 Part of this increase in dependence on prison firms may be the result of an explosion in prison populations, and the resultant overcrowding of state prison facilities.4 There has been a particularly sharp rise in the degree to which states contract prison management to companies over the past decade and a half.5 As a result, prison management has become a formidable industry.6 One reason states may choose privatization of correctional facilities over other available alternatives is that private corrections concerns offer states an attractive cost savings of ten to twenty percent over state-run prisons.7 Regardless of why states are investing substantially more money in prison privatization, this trend in increased control over correctional functions has caused the emergence of two important legal questions: 1) will parties involved in the provision of correctional services be subject to liability for deprivations of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,8 and if so, 2) what defenses will be available to prison official defendants as compared to their governmental counterparts? The first of these questions has been answered clearly in the affirmative.9 The second question, however, has yet to be fully resolved. In Richardson v. McKnight,10 the Supreme Court held that prison officials are not entitled to the protection of qualified immunity when faced with the potential for § 1983 liability despite the fact that public prison officials would be entitled to this immunity.11 The holding in Richardson, however, left open the possibility that prison officials may be able to assert a defense.12 It is this denial of qualified immunity to prison officials in § 1983 actions that makes the question of a good faith defense for those officials working in the sector such an important issue. If the trend of prison privatization continues, it is essential that the position of prison officials within the scheme of § 1983 litigation be clearly defined. This Note explores the need for and implications of formal recognition by the Supreme Court of the existence of a good faith defense for prison official defendants in § 1983 actions. This Note also explores the possible contours of such a defense and provides a comparison between this defense and the qualified immunity from suit enjoyed by public prison officials. This Note concludes with recommendations for how the Court might define a good faith defense, and thus clarify a significant question in modern § 1983 jurisprudence. Before addressing the possibilities for a good faith defense, this Note presents a description and analysis of § 1983 jurisprudence, particularly with respect to prison privatization, from both a historical and modern perspective. This discussion frames the proper context for an evaluation of the possibilities the concept of a good faith defense presents. After establishing a foundation in the prison privatization trend as it relates to § 1983 jurisprudence, an exploration of the need for, implications of, and possible contours of a good faith defense follows. I. SECTION 1983 JURISPRUDENCE LEADING TO THE NEED FOR A GOOD FAITH DEFENSE Before discussing the affirmative defenses available to public and prison official defendants, it is necessary to discuss the development of the liability such defenses are designed to circumvent. In 1871, Congress enacted what would ultimately be codified as 42 U. …" @default.
• W1479901323 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1479901323 creator A5045622499 @default.
• W1479901323 date "2005-02-01" @default.
• W1479901323 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W1479901323 title "Prison Privatization and the Development of a Good Faith Defense for Private-Party Defendents to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Actions" @default.
• W1479901323 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
• W1479901323 type Work @default.
• W1479901323 sameAs 1479901323 @default.
• W1479901323 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1479901323 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1479901323 hasAuthorship W1479901323A5045622499 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConcept C2780656516 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConcept C3116431 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConceptScore W1479901323C11413529 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConceptScore W1479901323C138885662 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConceptScore W1479901323C144133560 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConceptScore W1479901323C162324750 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConceptScore W1479901323C17744445 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConceptScore W1479901323C199539241 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConceptScore W1479901323C2778137410 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConceptScore W1479901323C2780656516 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConceptScore W1479901323C3116431 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConceptScore W1479901323C41008148 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConceptScore W1479901323C41895202 @default.
• W1479901323 hasConceptScore W1479901323C48103436 @default.
• W1479901323 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W1479901323 hasLocation W14799013231 @default.
• W1479901323 hasOpenAccess W1479901323 @default.
• W1479901323 hasPrimaryLocation W14799013231 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W1484806470 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W1499240514 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W1545926919 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W1554575873 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W1567715995 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W1979813434 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W2033430298 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W2322936422 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W267609850 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W2785690852 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W2935913588 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W3016027139 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W3021185222 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W3123695992 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W3124505091 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W3125594419 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W3126071297 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W3135506264 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W3184583417 @default.
• W1479901323 hasRelatedWork W2185079325 @default.
• W1479901323 hasVolume "13" @default.
• W1479901323 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1479901323 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1479901323 magId "1479901323" @default.
• W1479901323 workType "article" @default.