75-5201.
Purpose and construction.
The legislative purpose in enacting this act shall be deemed to be establishment of a policy of treatment of persons convicted of felonies in this state by placing maximum emphasis on rehabilitation of each such person while in the custody of the state or under the jurisdiction of the courts of the state, consistent with the interests and safety of the public, so that a maximum of persons so convicted may be returned to private life in the communities of the state with improved work habits, education, mental and physical health and attitudes necessary to become and remain useful and self-reliant citizens. It is the intent of the legislature that judges, the secretary of corrections, his or her agents, subordinates and employees and the Kansas adult authority, its agents, subordinates and employees will construe and apply this act and acts of which it is amendatory or supplemental liberally to rehabilitate, train, treat, educate and prepare persons convicted of felony in this state for entry or reentry into the social and economic system of the community upon leaving the custody of these state agencies and officers.
History:
L. 1973, ch. 339, § 1; July 1, 1974.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases, 1984–2020 · leading case:
Heath v. Norwood, 325 F. Supp. 3d 1183 (D. Kan. 2018).
Heath v. Norwood, 325 F. Supp. 3d 1183 (D. Kan. 2018).
· cites it 17× “Second, it contends that petitioner has a contractual right to parole under Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 75-5201 , et seq. and 22-3717(g)(2) and (h).”
State v. Harris, 467 P.3d 504 (Kan. 2020).
· cites it 4× “The panel determined parole officers and the KDOC were legally authorized to interpret the statute, and Olave's statement and the handbook were official interpretations.”
Vinson v. McKune, 960 P.2d 222 (Kan. 1998).
· cites it 3× “To this end, the department may, as it has done in this case, provide for security, privileges, and incentives to accomplish such an end consistent with the policy of the legislature expressed in K.S.A. 75-5201. IMPP 11-101 seeks to accomplish such results.”
Cansler v. State, 675 P.2d 57 (Kan. 1984).
“These include K.S.A. 75-5201 et seq., creating the Department of Corrections; K.”
Sammons v. Simmons, 976 P.2d 505 (Kan. 1999).
“To this end, the department may, as it has done in this case, provide for security, privileges, and incentives to accomplish such an end consistent with the policy of the legislature expressed in K.S.A. 75-5201. IMPP 11-101 seeks to accomplish such results.”
Lynn v. Simmons, 95 P.3d 99 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
“He claims he has a protected due process interest under K.S.A. 75-5201 and K.A.R. 44-15-104(a). According to Lynn, that protected right was violated by the KDOC when it transferred him to the ODOC in retaliation for exercising his First Amendment rights and his constitutional…”
State v. Fowler, 710 P.2d 1268 (Kan. 1985).
“The powers of the Secretary of Corrections are set forth generally in K.S.A. 75-5201 et seq. K.S.A. 75-5206 provides that the secretary shall have authority to order the housing and confinement of any person sentenced to his or her custody to any institution or facility *335…”
State v. Ponce, 907 P.2d 876 (Kan. 1995).
“In Chapter 75 of the Kansas statutes, specifically K.S.A. 75-5201 et seq., the legislature provides standards for administration of correctional facilities.”
Weinlood v. Simmons, 936 P.2d 238 (Kan. 1997).
“K.S.A. 75-5201 charges the Department of Corrections, inter alia, to return inmates “to private life in the communities of the state with improved work habits, education, mental and physical health and attitudes necessary to become and remain useful and self-reliant citizens .”
Roark v. Graves, 936 P.2d 245 (Kan. 1997).
“” K.S.A. 75-5201. In testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 18, 1994, in support of H.”
Olson v. Maschner, 697 P.2d 893 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 3× “Finally, appellant argues that K.S.A. 75-5201 sets forth rehabilitation as the primary purpose of the Department of Corrections, but that goal is defeated when good time credits are *292 unavailable to class A felons.”
Branson v. McKune, 3 P.3d 572 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).
“Appellant also contends “the parole board should be required to articulate specific facts and that said facts should relate not just to the crime which he committed but his present attitude and condition, specifically as it relates to rehabilitation” as mandated under K.S.A.…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.