No prison system is perfect, and most are far from it. That's true in Colorado, too. Prison conditions can fall short — sometimes, abysmally so — of the ideal standard for securely yet humanely housing criminal convicts.

And while there are checks and balances in place to provide redress for inmates' grievances, that process, as well, can be imperfect. There doubtless are instances in which inmates have been deprived of basic rights or even abused without the relevant authorities knowing about it.

But do we have to encourage more lawsuits — often, frivolous suits — by inmates to address prison deficiencies? Is more litigation the remedy for the various challenges facing state and federal prisons?

Or, does it only serve to hamstring effective prison administration; divert time and resources from more meaningful and effective reforms that could prepare inmates for their eventual return to life outside prison — and of course clog up our courts?

A new federal court project in Colorado beginning next month will provide "pro bono," or free legal counsel to inmates who otherwise might have to represent themselves when filing suits from behind bars.

As reported last week in The Gazette, the pilot program run by the U.S. District Court in Colorado will let inmates at the Fremont Correctional Facility, a state prison, consult an attorney for free. Inmates will be able to submit questions and have a 20-minute phone call with an attorney to discuss their cases.

As also noted in The Gazette report, there are other programs in the federal and state systems pairing pro bono lawyers with prisoners. But the new effort's use of a phone chat is novel and, as envisioned, has the potential to entice attorneys into offering additional services after exploring the merits of a prisoner's case.

Such "pro se" plaintiffs, who act as their lawyers, typically are not as successful in pressing their claims as are plaintiffs who have licensed legal representation. To those driving the new program, the high rate of dismissals is an indicator those inmates without counsel are being denied justice.

But what if a lot of their filings were unsuccessful because they didn't deserve the time of the court system in the first place?

Think of the self-styled "jailhouse lawyers" who paper-jam the civil justice pipeline with frivolous complaints just to game the system and also because, let's face it, they don't have anything else to do.

Often enough the frivolous cases have a serious veneer, alleging violations of fundamental civil rights. The details of such claims, however, can be a lot flimsier.

Like the lawsuit by a Florida inmate a number of years ago claiming the soybean added to prison meals was "cruel and unusual." Or, the Washington, D.C., inmate who sued, claiming the prison's hot water had burned his genitals during a shower.

Then there was the inmate at Colorado's Supermax federal prison in Florence who sued Taco Bell, alleging the fast-food conglomerate had stolen his idea for making a hard shell taco out of a Doritos chip. And these are just the cases that made headlines.

Even after curbs on frivolous prison litigation were enacted by state and federal governments — most notably the Prison Litigation Reform Act passed by Congress in 1996 — estimates say tens of thousands of inmate lawsuits continue to be filed each year.

Must we stoke even more litigation?

None of which is to dismiss bona fide claims about very real abuses. But shouldn't the response be to enact substantive penal reforms p— not gridlock the civil justice system?

REPRINTED FROM THE COLORADO SPRINGS GAZETTE

Photo credit: Emiliano Bar at Unsplash