To establish security standards that will safeguard society and that will provide
for the most efficient possible rehabilitation of individual prisoners, there shall
be established within the department of corrections a receiving and orientation unit
which shall receive all persons sentenced to the adult correctional institutions for
a term of imprisonment of more than one year. Every person so sentenced shall be segregated
for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days during which period the person shall be
studied and evaluated to determine whether the person shall be a maximum, medium,
or minimum security risk and to develop a program of rehabilitation, education, and
medical and other care as shall be deemed necessary and appropriate to prepare the
person to become a useful member of society. During the period, a medical assessment,
and an assessment of rehabilitative needs shall be made of the person and the results,
together with the nature of the offense for which the person has been committed, the
previous criminal history, if any, the recommendations of the department of the attorney
general and of the sentencing court, and the social history of the person shall be
studied and evaluated in determining the degree of custodial care of the person, the
rehabilitation program for the person, the medical or other care that may be necessary
and the spiritual and religious guidance that shall be indicated by the preference
of the person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case:
Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. 956 (D.R.I. 1977).
Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 443 F. Supp. 956 (D.R.I. 1977).
· cites it 9× “§ 42-56-1 (Supp. 1976), nor obeyed the statutory directive “to furnish the means as shall be best designed to effect such rehabilitation,” R.”
Morris v. Travisono, 499 F. Supp. 149 (D.R.I. 1980).
· cites it 6× “G.L. § 42-56-29. Carillo has had only limited access to newspapers, magazines, and other reading materials, and he has not been allowed to have in his cell such items as a coffee pot or a radio.”
Palmigiano v. Garrahy, 448 F. Supp. 659 (D.R.I. 1978).
· cites it 4× “G.L. §§ 42-56-29, 30, 31), decided on the appropriate security classification and program for each inmate.”
State v. Pari, 553 A.2d 135 (R.I. 1989).
“1956 (1988 Reenactment) §§ 42-56-29, -30, -31. Statutory authority to reclassify inmates is given to the director through § 42-56-10, sub-sections (/) and (m), and departmental policy on classification and reclassification is contained in the Rhode Island Department of…”
Sevegny v. Robinson, No. 1:23-cv-00203 (D.R.I. Aug. 29, 2023).
· cites it 9× “Laws §§ 42-56-30 to 32 and never developed an individualized program of rehabilitation for him as referenced in R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-56-29. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 30-36.”
Parente v. Coyne-Fague, No. 1:16-cv-00055 (D.R.I. Dec. 22, 2023).
· cites it 4× “G.L. § 42-56-29. Count IX claims a denial of the right to due process.”
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.