iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Supreme Court Upholds Order For California To Cut Prison Population

Supreme Court California Prison Population

DON THOMPSON   05/23/11 07:48 PM ET   AP

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that California must drastically reduce its prison population to relieve severe overcrowding that has exposed inmates to increased violence, disease and death.

The decision, however, doesn't mean the prison gates will swing open in an uncontrolled release.

The high court's decision calls on the state to cut the population to no more than 110,000 inmates, meaning California will have to shed some 33,000 inmates to comply over the next two years. State officials can accomplish that by transferring inmates to local jails or releasing them.

The 5-4 ruling revealed a sharp divide on the court between Justices Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.

Kennedy wrote for the majority and described dismal conditions where prisoners are denied minimal care and suicidal inmates are held in "telephone-booth sized cages without toilets."

"A prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, is incompatible with the concept of human dignity and has no place in civilized society," Kennedy wrote, joined by the court's four Democrat-appointed justices.

Scalia read a blistering dissent from the bench in which he called the ruling "perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history" and said it would require the release of a "staggering number" of convicted felons.

The ruling also raised concerns among California lawmakers and attorneys general from 18 states who argued that a decision ordering the reduction of California's inmate population infringes on states' rights and could leave their prisons open to similar lawsuits.

It's "a historic attack on the constitutional rights of states and the liberty of all Californians," said former state Sen. George Runner, who had intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of legislative Republicans. It will result in "flooding our neighborhoods with criminals."

California has already been preparing for the ruling, driven as much by persistent multibillion dollar budget deficits as by fears for the well-being of prison inmates and employees. The state has sent inmates to other states. It plans to transfer jurisdiction over others to counties, though the state doesn't have the money to do it.

"Our goal is to not release inmates at all," said Matthew Cate, the state corrections secretary. Shorter term inmates will leave prison before the Supreme Court's deadline expires, and newly sentenced lower-level offenders would go to local jails under the plan.

Concerns over prison crowding and security grew over the weekend with a pair of riots that injured inmates.

A fight by nearly 200 inmates in a San Quentin State Prison dining hall Sunday left four men with stab or slash wounds. On Friday, six inmates were sent to hospitals, two of them with serious injuries, after about 150 inmates rioted at California State Prison, Sacramento.

A special panel of three judges based in different parts of California decided in 2009 to order the prison population reduction. Monday's order puts them in charge of how the state complies. The 2009 ruling grew out of lawsuits alleging unconstitutionally poor care for mentally and physically ill inmates. One case dates back 20 years.

The growth in the prison population in the nation's most populous state can be attributed in part to years of get-tough sentencing laws, including a three-strikes law that sends repeat offenders to prison for life. As of May 11, there were roughly 143,000 inmates in a 33 adult prison-system designed to hold 80,000.

At the peak of overcrowding in 2006, nearly 20,000 inmates were living in makeshift housing in gymnasiums and other common areas, often sleeping in bunks stacked three high. Prison doctors conducted examinations in shower stalls or in makeshift offices without running water, often in full view of other inmates.

One of the federal judges involved in the lower court ruling once blamed the prison system's poor medical care for causing the death of about one inmate every week due to neglect or medical malpractice.

The same judge in 2006 seized control of the prison health care system, putting it under the management of a federal receiver. A second judge in the case has blamed crowding for contributing to poor care for mentally ill inmates, leading some to kill themselves.

At the time, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a public safety emergency because of the crowding. He then began shipping inmates to private prisons in Arizona, Mississippi and Oklahoma. More than 10,000 California inmates are now housed in private prisons out of state.

"They've made a lot of plans already," said Michael Bien, one of the attorneys who sought the ruling on behalf of mentally and physically ill inmates who suffered in severely crowded conditions. "We're sure it can be done safely and appropriately.

"What's more, it will save a lot of money," he said.

The ruling comes amid efforts in many states, accelerated by budget gaps, to send fewer people to prison in the first place. Proposals vary by state, but include ways to reduce sentences for lower-level offenders, direct some offenders to alternative sentencing programs and give judges more discretion in sentencing.

"There's a growing consensus that there are better ways to run criminal justice systems," said Michael Mushlin, an expert on prisoners' rights at Pace Law School in White Plains, N.Y.

In recent years, California legislators and Schwarzenegger tried to find ways to reduce prison time for those less likely to commit new crimes. Schwarzenegger signed legislation that increased early release credits and made it more difficult to send ex-convicts back to prison for parole violations. He signed another law that rewards county probation departments for keeping criminals out of state prisons.

One result of those changes is that the state has been able to do away with nearly two-thirds of its makeshift beds, although more than 7,000 inmates remain in temporary housing.

Gov. Jerry Brown sought and signed a bill this year that would reduce the prison population by about 40,000 inmates by transferring jurisdiction for many low-level offenders to counties. The law is stalled until the lawmakers or voters authorize money to pay for the transfer. Much of the money is intended to help counties handle the responsibility of housing convicts.

"As we work to carry out the Court's ruling, I will take all steps necessary to protect public safety," he said in a prepared statement.

Several organizations, from the state prison guards union to the California State Association of Counties, backed Brown's realignment plan – and the elusive funding – as the most practical way to comply with the court's mandate.

"If we don't do it smart, we could have all those people come back for additional crimes," said Chuck Alexander, executive vice president of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association.

Dissenters on the Supreme Court fear the worst, both in terms of public safety and what they described as a lower bar set for court intervention in how state's run their prison systems.

Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissent along with Chief Justice John Roberts, said he feared that the decision, "like prior prisoner release orders, will lead to a grim roster of victims. I hope that I am wrong. In a few years, we will see."

Aside from reducing the inmate population, the court said the state must continue to improve medical treatment in prison. Cate, the corrections secretary, and J. Clark Kelso, the federal receiver who now controls prison medical care, noted that construction of a new centralized medical facility south of the state capital is already under way.

The California dispute is the first high court case that reviewed a prisoner release order under a 1996 federal law that made it much harder for inmates to challenge prison conditions. The law was enacted after Republicans led by Newt Gingrich regained control of Congress and tried to rein in judicial interference in states' affairs, said Frank Zimring, a University of California, Berkeley law professor.

"This is also sort of an object lesson in be careful what you wish for," he said.

___

Associated Press writer Mark Sherman in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that California must drastically reduce its prison population to relieve severe overcrowding that has exposed inmates to increased violen...
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that California must drastically reduce its prison population to relieve severe overcrowding that has exposed inmates to increased violen...
Filed by Alexander Belenky  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,033
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (55 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
07:55 PM on 05/24/2011
We'll see the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in a few years. Hopefully Brown's prisoner transfer agreement goes through and there won't be any large numbers of released criminals on the street. But if it doesn't, I'm afraid that Alito will be 100% correct.
07:11 PM on 05/24/2011
Many of those felons are nothing more than crank dealers or space cadets low level risks and are getting three hots and cot on the taxpayer dime , if you are afraid of this low flying trash get yourself a nice .45 and learn how to use it .
07:01 PM on 05/24/2011
With adequate fencing, What would be wrong with selected good-behavior prison inmates plowing and planting their own food, on property adjacent to the back of all prisons and jails? Sell the overage vegetables and fruit to local outlets. Wouldn't that reduce costs to the government?

What would be wrong with adding a wing to partially enclose the fields that would provide their food. They could also pick the food when it is ready to harvest. The great outdoors might relieve the tension of the good prisoners. Only ones allowed outside would be the good ones with lesser crimes. Put the rioters and troublemakers inside to stay with no windows, no weight-lifting or sports.

Wouldn't an added wing every few years be less expensive than building entirely new prisons. Add that wing with specially designed cells for the good behavior prisoners with a view of the fields and the nice scenery beyond.

Wouldn't something ... anything...be better than letting 30,000 prison inmates on our streets?
photo
UH34D
1. The Dark Ages or 2. Progressivism, I opt for #2
06:37 PM on 05/24/2011
Too many mentally ill people are incarcerated in prisons. This phenom began during the Reagan years when federal funding was dramatically decreased to states. The belief was, local juristictions would take up the slack. Well state budgets being what they are, funding for the mentally ill was dramatically decreased. Fewer state facilities, mentally ill people were sent to prison.

Next is drug convictions. I say legalize all of it, control it and tax it ala booze and butts. America has spent trillions on the 'War on Drugs' and where has it gotten us? Nowhere! It has to be safer and cheaper to treat these addicts than this wasted war on drugs. Like Prohibition in the US and all our society suffered during those years it was realized only legalization was the sanest and most rational answer to a serious problem. Ditto on drugs. Granted, drug addiction is an ugly part of society, but our years of effort with interdiction and lack of treatment is only making matters worse.

I realize some will not agree, but if anybody can provide a rationalization for continuing our current option in dealing with drug addiction, I'm all ears? I would like to know how legalization could be worse than our current situation? Legalization would certainly reduce our prison population, would have to lead to much less violence with the profit motive removed and maybe help a lot of people instead of making their lives worse than they already are with imprisonment.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FlyDiesel
12:18 PM on 05/26/2011
I don’t think that is an accurate reading of the shift from involuntary commitment to imprisoning the mentally ill, although Gov Reagan (not President Reagan) was certainly involved. Not as a cost-cutter, however, but as a reformer. The legislation signed by Reagan in the 1960’s was considered by reformers as the “Magna Carter of the Mentally Ill”, and made it much more difficult to involuntarily commit people. As is often the case with poorly-considered popular reforms, we were avoiding the documented abuses of mental institutions by throwing them aside altogether in favor of something that had not yet failed. Now that it has, shall we throw this baby out with the bath water in favor of yet another new baby that has not yet failed? And do so on specious reasons that ignore the true history of this issue?
05:20 PM on 05/24/2011
Time to get your guns and keep em loaded out there. They will be dumping the criminals on the street even more than before…
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
07:53 PM on 05/24/2011
I recommend the Remington 870. You only need 1 shot so your ammo costs won't be that expensive.
10:38 PM on 05/24/2011
lock n load..........
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
svplanb4
04:53 PM on 05/24/2011
how about a points system....if you have the most points in prison and i steal a candy bar and get sent to prison, in order to free up a bed, you are executed....that woud deter repeat offenders
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Garspies
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
06:48 PM on 05/24/2011
I see that the CA Penal Code and the sentencing guidelines mean even less to you than they do to those in prison.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
svplanb4
09:24 AM on 05/26/2011
the california penal code , and lack of immigration enforcement is what got you to this point.......enjoy the 30,000 criminals...hide your kids!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
svplanb4
04:40 PM on 05/24/2011
send all illegal aliens in prison home...problem solved....if they return.... life on a chain gang or execution
05:21 PM on 05/24/2011
great idea. just sending the ones working there home would save money
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Garspies
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
06:56 PM on 05/24/2011
And just how do you know which inmates are undocumented? They do not have Federal immigration status hearings until their pending release.
Try again.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FlyDiesel
01:56 AM on 05/26/2011
Inmates may self-identify as foreign nationals, and up to 13% of the California prison population has. A percentage have questionable status, and those are the ones who are investigated at release. A small percentage of the rest may have falsified identities that remain unquestioned. Most of these are Mexican. Then, the Hispanic population in prison- citizens and non-citizens- has grown far beyond their representation in society, as have blacks.This may be explained by the fact that convicted criminals are mostly from the poorer sectors of society, and both ethnicities are over-represented in this demographic..
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
svplanb4
09:33 AM on 05/26/2011
if you are illegal and serving 7-10 years and are offered a get out of jail and return home free card, my guess is you will identify yours self as an illegal. maybe even if you are an legal immigrant......hows that? you need to think before responding .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thirdcloud
02:55 PM on 05/24/2011
The Initiative process in California has enabled the criminal justice system to become the self perpetuating bureaucracy that is responsible for much of the state's financial problems.

The Criminal Justice System Lobby has become the most powerful lobby in the state which no politician will stand up to - even for education.

Californian's complain about taxes and budgets but don't seem to realize whose hand is in their pockets (other than their own).

The comments of Scalia and Alito are dogmatic and expected!!! Private prisons are not a solution - they are more expensive than state run institutions and just another way to pass tax payers money back to the private sector and maintain the self perpetuating power.

These are not new issues and I can tell you from professional experiences that the Federal Courts installed a special magistrate back in the 90's and nothing has changed - just more talk. It is unlikely that anyone soon will see much change although there may be some pressure on judges to avoid state prison sentencing, give longer county jail sentences and start granting parole. In the mean time it will be business as usual.

The California Criminal Justice System is not about to let people out of prison because that means jobs! Nothing to do with crime which is down substantially. With the Initiative process in place, they will soon put a guy (maybe a juveniles too) away with "one" strike they won't needs three - it's just a matter of
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
FreedToChoose
...lest my wife says I'm not.
02:43 PM on 05/24/2011
When do human rights trump government stinginess? Don't understand why this wasn't 9-0.

What would Brown v. Board of Education be with this court? 5-4?
12:41 PM on 05/24/2011
The proof is there that MOST of these inmates can not be re-habilitated. Just look at the guy they arrested for the beating of the Giants fan.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:20 PM on 05/24/2011
We can't say that because our country has never tried implementing a justice system which emphasizes rehabilitation over incarceration. Look at other countries with similar cultures and demographics: Canada, the U.K. and Australia all have reasonably comparable crime rates but have far smaller incarceration rates. We all have the same problems, the difference is how we deal with them.

Besides, the majority of the people in our prisons aren't even there for violent offenses. The thug who beat that Giants fan is the exception, not the rule.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Garspies
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
06:51 PM on 05/24/2011
Well stated--fanned for your voice of reason.
11:03 AM on 05/24/2011
Justice Scalia appears to believe that the Courts do not have jurisdiction to determine the rights of prisoners collectively in reviewing the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. He seems to invite individual writs to be determined by the Courts on an individual basis. To reach this conclusion, I believe one must assume that “overcrowding” is not an “incident to slavery or involuntary servitude”. The Thirteenth amendment allows slavery “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted... within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction”. Specifically, the amendment states: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." If the Thirteenth Amendment allows the punishment of slavery or involuntary servitude for those convicted of a crime and as such defines the word punishment before he invites individual cases under his view of the Eighth Amendment shouldn’t he define these terms before denying a class action? After all the Thirteenth Amendment was passed after the Eighth Amendment.
10:58 AM on 05/24/2011
The prison system is simply the new plantation. Now that states are going broke feeding this machine, people care. The criminal justice system is a racist institution full of corruption, but people say prison is not supposed to be fun. Racist policing has been overlooked in America for countless years. Keep doing it, it will resolve itself.
09:19 AM on 05/24/2011
just legalize pot.....and tax it......to pay for more jails
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:19 AM on 05/24/2011
No, just legalize pot, and then release those that are in jail for just possessing small quantities. This should put a big dent in that 33,000 number.
10:27 AM on 05/24/2011
and tax it..........
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marvelousdreams
Writer of Prophecy
08:28 AM on 05/24/2011
This story should be front page. I had to do a search to find it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rory talbot
Former Dem but they r now wing of Corp. party
08:27 AM on 05/24/2011
In dissent, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts stated, "How on earth can we expect to keep the brown people voiceless if not through prison?"
09:19 AM on 05/24/2011
sure he did.......
05:25 PM on 05/24/2011
you would prefer they were on the street in your neighborhood?

Didn't think so.

But you would gladly dump them on poor hard working and law abiding people. Gotta love liberal logic