Opinion
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] R. HUNT PARKER
Chief Justice
WM. H. BOBBITT
CARLISLE W. HIGGINS
SUSIE SHARP
J. WILL PLESS, Jr.
JOSEPH BRANCH
Justices
Honorable Dan K. Moore
Governor of North Carolina
Raleigh, North Carolina
Dear Governor:
In your letter of 2 November 1966 you request an advisory opinion from the members of the Supreme Court on the following question:
Does the provision of Article XI, Section 1, of the Constitution of North Carolina, prohibiting the farming out of prisoners sentenced on charges of Murder, Manslaughter, Rape, Attempt to Commit Rape, or Arson, prohibit such prisoners from participation in the Work Release Program authorized by G.S. 148--33.1?
It is my opinion that the question should be answered, 'Yes.'
The determination of the answer to the question does not, of course, turn upon the social or economic benefits or detriments anticipated to result from participation by such prisoners in the Work Release Program. The prohibition of Article XI, Section 1, means the same thing today as in 1875 when it was placed in the Constitution. Therefore, the answer to your question lies in the purpose for which the prohibition was then proposed and adopted.
Obviously, work release was unknown in 1875 and the program authorized by G.S. 148--33.1 differs in many respects from the farm-out system of that time. The two programs have, however, at least one very important similarity. Under each, the prisoner, during working hours, is outside the confines of the prison and is not under prison guard.
The purpose of prohibiting the farming out of prisoners in these specified categories was not to protect these prisoners from the evils of the farm-out system, nor was it to deny them whatever benefits it may have offered or to deprive the State of the economic fruits of their labor. The purpose, obviously, was to protect the public against the danger that a prisoner, so working without a prison guard, may escape and commit another crime. The possibility of escape appears no less under the Work Release Program described in G.S. 14--33.1 than under the farm-out program. In my opinion, the intent of the prohibition was and is to forbid the sending of prisoners, serving sentences for one or more of the specified offenses, out of the confines of the prison to work at jobs upon which they will not be under prison guard. Therefore, it prohibits the participation by these categories of prisoners in the Work Release Program described in G.S. 148--33.1. It is the meaning of the provision, not its wisdom, as to which you have asked the opinions of the members of the Court. Consequently, it is not material to the inquiry that individuals serving sentences for other crimes may be more dangerous to society than certain individuals serving sentences for one or more of the specified crimes.
Article III, Section 6, of the Constitution, as amended in 1953, has no bearing upon the question, in my opinion, the assignment of a prisoner to the Work Release Program not being a parole.
Respectfully yours,
I. BEVERLY LAKE,
Justice