In 1962, petitioner-appellant, Paul Andrew Mahaffey, filed his first application for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleged that his constitutional rights were being violаted in that he was being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment by the officials and guards of the Idaho State Penitentiary. This petition was denied by order of the trial cоurt on December 5, 1962.
In 1963, petitioner again applied for a writ of habeas corpus. Although he was considerably more specific and detailed in his allegations, they were substantially the saíne as were contained in his previous petition. This petition was denied by order of the trial court on September 13, 1963. Petitiоner takes his appeal from both denials.
Petitioner was convicted in the Eleventh Judicial District Court of the State of Idaho, Minidoka County, on two charges of robbery and one charge of escape from jail on September 22, 1953. For the robbery convictions, petitioner was sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment. For the conviction of escape from jail, the petitioner was sentenced to a five year term to commence at the exрiration of the sentences for robbery.
Since his convictions, petitioner has been confined by or under the direction of the Warden of the Idaho State Penitentiary.
The state denies petitioner’s allegations. It intimates, however, that petitioner has been an unusually hostile prisoner and that certain disciplinary measures have been taken to insure prison harmony.
At this time, we are not much concerned with the truth or falsity of petitioner’s allegations. As we pointed out in Johnson v. State,
It should be noted as a type of tribute to the men who manage our penitentiaries that cases involving alleged prison brutality are exceedingly rare. As a matter of fact, this marks the first time that this court has dealt with an application for a writ of habeas corpus on grounds of cruel and unusual punishment by prison authorities.
In the past, this court, in criminal cases, has tended to restrict its inquiry upon habеas corpus solely to the jurisdiction of the convicting court. Ex Parte Olsen,
In many jurisdictions, the courts state that they are limited in habeas corрus pro ceedings, either by statute or by precedent to a simple remand or discharge of the prisoner. It is understandable that these courts might hesitate to grant full release to a petitioner whose guilt is beyond doubt.
A different rule prevails in Idaho. The writ of habeas corpus is recognized by the Declaration оf Rights in the Idaho Constitution. Article 1, § 5. Although the legislature has made and provided reasonable regulation for its use (I.C. §§ 19-4201 through 19-4236), the writ is not a statutory remedy, but rather a remedy rеcognized and protected by the Idaho Constitution. While the legislature (absent certain contingencies) is without power to abridge this remedy secured by the Cоnstitution, it may add to the efficacy of the writ. Statutes are usually enacted for this purpose and should be construed so as to promote the effectiveness of the proceeding. 39 C.J.S. Habeas Corpus § 3 (1944).
By virtue of both precedent and statutory authority, our courts are not limited to a simple remand or dischargе of the prisoner, but may “dispose of such party as the justice of the case may require.” I.C. § 19-4212. Matter of McLeod,
Moreover, in Johnson v. State, supra,
“ * * * the limitations upon the remedy afforded by habeas corpus should be flexible and readily available to prevent manifest injustice, for, as Mr. Justice Black has expressed it, the principlеs judicially established for the delimitation of habeas corpus action ‘must be construed and applied so as to preserve&emdash;not destroy&emdash;constitutional sаfeguards of human life and liberty.’ * * *»
The state contends that this is strictly a matter of prison discipline and that it is not within the province of the courts tо supervise the treatment of prisoners in the penitentiary.
We are in general agreement with the state’s position on this matter. The supervision and maintenаnce of prisons is a function of the executive branch of our government. The State Board of Corrections is the body which has been expressly granted the control, direction and management of the penitentiary of the State of Idaho. Idaho Const, art. 10, § 5; I.C. § 20-209. While courts have inherent power to control and prevent abuse of their orders and processes, Pond v. Babcock,
However, petitioner has alleged facts which go beyond mere “prison discipline.” It is admitted in the respondent’s brief that if these facts are truе, some are “inexcusable and shocking.” There can be little doubt but what petitioner has alleged a prima facie case of cruel and unusual punishment. Most jurisdictions seem to adhere to the rule that while ordinarily courts will not interfere in prison affairs, an exception will be made in cases involving a prisonеr’s constitutional right to be secure, from cruel and unusual punishment. Hughes v. Turner,
Becausе of the fact that we may not, on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, dispute the veracity of the allegations contained in the рetition, it is foreseeable that any number of fabrications could be employed in order that the writ might issue. If such tactics are used, this court will not hesitate to deal harshly, through either its power of contempt or by reference to the proper authorities for prosecution on the charge of perjury, аgainst those who would employ fraud and deceit to win a minor legal victory. Any individual who attempts to make a mockery out of procedures designed to benefit the wronged is tampering with the very foundation of our judicial process and risks having additional punishment imposed.
The orders of the trial courts in denying the petitions for writs of habeas corpus are reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings by the trial court.