Supreme Court Orders 46,000 Prisoners Released (Brown v. Plata)
Going back to the 1990’s, California’s prison system has been found to be in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Designed to hold roughly 80,000 inmates, the prison system has been averaging a population of nearly 160,000 over the past 11 years. Two separate lawsuits ensued. Coleman v. Brown alleged inability to adequately provide mental health treatment, and Plata v. Brown alleged inability to provide adequate physical health treatment.
Lower courts gave California between five and twelve years to correct the problems without success. After failure to resolve the problems, the two cases were consolidated before a three judge panel which found that the primary cause of the problems was overcrowding in the prison system and ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5% of capacity within two years. That’s a reduction from roughly 156,000 current inmates to 110,000, requiring the release of about 46,000 inmates. Today the U. S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the three judge panel.
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, described the overcrowding in stark terms,
“Prisoners are crammed into spaces neither designed nor intended to house inmates. As many as 200 prisoners may live in a gymnasium, monitored by as few as two or three correctional officers. … As many as 54 prisoners may share a single toilet.”
In this case, Kennedy joined the “liberal” bloc of the Court, leaving Scalia to write a dissent in which Thomas joined and leaving Alito to write a dissent in which Roberts joined.
The case, which you can read in full here , relies on statutory interpretation which allows for inmate reduction orders where a state has been given sufficient opportunity to correct a problem and where overcrowding is found to be the primary cause of the constitutional violations. On the mental health side of this case, the Court found that even if California could increase mental health staffing, facilities did not exist for such staff. On the physical health side, the Court noted a backlog of 700 waiting for necessary treatment.
In dissent, Scalia tears into the majority’s decision beginning in his first sentence.
“Today the Court affirms what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our Nation’s history: an order requiring California to release the staggering number of 46,000 convicted criminals.”
39 Responses to “Supreme Court Orders 46,000 Prisoners Released (Brown v. Plata)”
Scalia has a good point. More pointedly still, it really is radical to order so many prisoners released, even in large California. (This is a court negation of state law violation punishment.) It would be more radical and activist still (activist without a doubt) if the court had ordered California to construct more prisons (add more capacity) promptly. (Would the court provide the money for that?)
A reduction in the prison population that large is radical, but it’s not the same as ordering more prison capacity to be added.
Meanwhile, will the court somehow accept the responsibility if the many prisoners that may be released commit subsequent crimes?
Certainly there’s an overcrowding (and undercapacity in other ways than lodging; consider medical care) problem, and ordering an end to overcrowding should ameliorate it. (Note that implicit in the ruling or order is a restriction on future prosecution in the state for violations of the laws that have imprisonment as the penalty. The court should accept responsibility also for the cases where offenders aren’t incarcerated and go on to commit other crimes.)
Maybe it will awaken people to the need to build and pay for an adequate prison system (with adequate capacity), but likely will be limited to concerns in California about finding the money to build more (sufficient) prisons (capacity). (That includes the larger logistics costs, food, uniforms, etc., and hiring more staff.)
Wow, thanks for the overview, tidbits.
I consider this issue (prison overcrowding in California) to be perhaps the biggest failure of our recent governor. It was a major campaign promise during both of his elections, and he accomplished exactly zero on the issue.
It was perhaps inevitable that it would come to a Supreme Court decision, and really there was only one way this could come out eventually, as the situation is just not sustainable with the 3 strikes law. The real question, I think, is how they come up with a method to pick the 46,000 prisoners that will be let go. My hope is that they start with non-violent petty criminals instead of, for example, just shortening the sentence of every person in prison by a certain percentage. With the sheer number of people that need to be let go, it’s certainly untenable to go through each and every case individually to make the decision. A lottery is probably a bad idea, even if it only includes certain types of prisoners.
Furthermore, I find it pretty impossible that we would have the systems in place to deal with the release of so many prisoners — half-way houses, etc.
D-
The opinion notes that CA had the option of building new capacity, voluntary not court required, but failed to do so.
Depending on the time frame that they end up with, it could be seen as an involuntary experiment. Will the crime rate go up, and if so, by how much? If the change is sudden enough, we may for once get to find out how effective prison time is at deterring crime.
The problem is not insufficient supply of prisons but demand bloated by our three-strikes law as Roro says. The prison guards’ union that supported that law would no doubt prefer to see us increase our use of their services, but we’d do better to lock up fewer people.
It is a little radical for the courts to require releasing prisoners, but unless they turn a blind eye to the problem, what else can they do? As you say, requiring building more prisons is even more of a stretch, as it requires not just materializing the funds but deciding whose backyard to put them in. Perhaps the courts could hold legislators in contempt and lock them up until they get the problem resolved?
Very interesting from a legal powers issue….I need to read more.
From a practical perspective, a non-event. Drop off 11,500 each in Richmond, Inglewood, Compton and the IE and daily life of all involved will not be affected.
It’s an interesting case and I think I agree with the conclusion (I’m in the Dr J. “what else can they do?” camp), but I’m also not sure what to make of what Kennedy wrote. Is he implying that a prisoner being made to live in a gymnasium with a large group is a violation of his rights? I’m sure it’s crowded, yes, but cruel and unusual? It seems to me he/we should stick with the specific charges of lack of adequate health services. Otherwise, I think we could open up a whole new can of precedent worms.
Drop off 11,500 each in Richmond, Inglewood, Compton and the IE and daily life of all involved will not be affected.
Um, wow. I’d *love* to hear an explanation for that, casual.
Adelinesdad,
Kennedy was simply putting some emphasis on the situation. The real issues were inability to provide necessary mental health services and necessary physical health services. Other conditions like 54 people to a toilet no doubt add to the impression of “cruel and unusual conditions.” Sleeping on cots in a gymnasium…I agree…probably not so compelling.
having a ministry to prisons, cots in gym depends on, like in homeless shelters, who is there and what they are doing in the dark
Perhaps the best approach would be to have more states model the Minnesota sentencing system, which requires judges to in essence “reserve” a bed for anyone sentenced to prison as part of a “resource analysis” phase of sentencing. It is the only way to force legislatures (and ultimately the public) to actually pay the costs of politically popular “tough on crime” policies like the drug war and large minimum sentences.
Dr. E,
Good point. Glad you raised it.
————–
Logan,
Good point also and a pragmatic way to address the issue. MN is not the only jurisdiction that assesses available beds as part of sentencing, though it is more common at the county jail level than the state penetentiary level.
No, they are no longer unique to Minnesota (according to a draft manuscript I am currently working with, “most” states have enacted some version of resource assessment as part of sentencing), but Minnesota deserves credit as the state which pioneered their use.
First of all I don’t believe the Supreme Court made a “radical decision” to release 46,500 prisoners. Rather the court did what they should, which is to rule in cases concerning the US Constitution. If I read the article correctly CA has had since the 90′s to make corrections.
The real issue is taxes and politicians who refuse to consider tax increases.
The bottom line is that this society expects certain things, such as a good military, roads, education, fire/police protection and prisons (among many other things).
If Americans refuse to pay for these services, then what in the world do you expect? A country can’t expect to have first world privledges on a third world budget.
StockBoy, I may be wrong, but I think one of the other issues is that most of California’s (and much of the rest of the nation’s) prisons are run by for-profit groups, instead of being run by the state. Like military-for-profit, corrections-for-profit has every insentive to be wasteful, to keep prisoners in the system by whatever means (more prisoners = more profit), and to ignore regulations as long as possible. The for-profit companies have all the power, but the state carries all the legal responsibility. We’re in a position now where California really doesn’t even have much of a choice — it’s been so long since the state has run a prison system that they effectively have neither the expertise nor the infrastructure to do so.
“The real issue is taxes and politicians who refuse to consider tax increases.”
Or the reduction in the use of mandatory minimum sentences, especially for non-violent pseudo-crimes like drug possession.
Increasing taxes is not the only available solution. Decreasing the footprint of government is often a viable alternative.
It is completely inaccurate and unfounded to lay the blame at the feet of privatized prisons. Prison contracting does not create the excessive number of prisoners, mandatory minimums and foolish drug laws do that.
Not every issue is a legitimate opportunity for anti-corporation ranting.
Um, I had already mentioned in my first comment that the 3 strikes laws were unsustainable for the prison population. That we pay more to for-profit companies than the state would be able to manage is also true. There’s plenty of ways to find fault with the system as it is run once the prisoners get in, including how much it costs, in addition to the laws and handling of the laws beforehand. There is more than one root cause to the problem, and there will need to be more than one solution.
And there was no “ranting”, Logan. At least not on my part.
Last 3 posters”…..please read Wiki link “prisons in California” and issue retractions and revisions as necessary….you each are purveying misinformation
Retracted. (As I said earlier, “I might be wrong”…)
Are you going to explain your first comment here?
No it just gives corporation an incentive to lobby for though on crime laws such as three strikes you’re out…
And it also gives them an incentive to bribe judges to put people in prison…
Last but not least Private Prisons cost more than Government run prisons…
“No it just gives corporation an incentive to lobby for though on crime laws such as three strikes you’re out…”
There is no evidence I am aware of that any such laws resulted from lobbying. In fact, all of the mandatory minimum laws I am aware of pre-date the use of privatized prisons.
Nice try to perpetuate the topic hijack, though. The anti-corporation obsession is particularly a particularly malevolent form of rhetorical cancer.
Wow, Logan, a malevolen rhetorical cancer??
That’s a bit over the top, don’t you think? It wasn’t a hijack, even though my information about whether it was an issue in this case was incorrect. If you’re talking about a system that is costing too much money, it is ALWAYS a good idea to look at who stands to profit from that money. In this case, I was wrong that for-profit companies are doing so, but questioning it doesn’t make it a “hijack”.
Furthermore, saying “this might be a problem contributing” is not in any way an “obsession”. It seems that if anyone is obsessive about the subject, it is you, evidenced by the vehemence and aggression with which you are denying that there could ever be any relevence in even talking about the subject. Like corporations that contract from the government are some sort of untouchable good.
THE PRISON BOOM PRODUCES PRISON PRIVATIZATION
Now that I’ve made it thru my annual physical…clean bill of health…I can get back to the discussion.
Certainly mandatory minimums, new criminal acts, three strike rules and sentence enhancements like gun possession whether or not used in the crime and hate crime enhancement have had unintended consequences, one of which is prison overcrowding and situations like that in CA.
My question to Logan, since he is doing or has done some research on this, is how do states that try to fit sentencing to prison space availability address mandatory minimums and sentencing enhancement statutes within that context?
As to private prisons, I’ll save that for another thread. I’ve written on it some in the AZ context, but may do something broader in the future…or Logan can…or we both can…and we can all comment away.
CO: “Last 3 posters”…..please read Wiki link “prisons in California” and issue retractions and revisions as necessary….you each are purveying misinformation.”
Umm.. OK, I read the article, Prisons in California” in Wikipedia… I must be missing something. There is nothing in that article contradicting anything in my post. Can you please enlighten me as to the misinformation I was purveying? Thanks- S~
Actually from what I have read it is more the prison unions than the private prisons that lobby hard for tough sentences that resulted in a population bubble in the prison system. Not that the private prisons didnt lobby along with them, I am sure they did, but they lack the clout and numbers that the prison union in CA has. One thing I will never get is when it comes to Pols or unions conservatives always say “follow the money” yet when it is blatant, like Halliburton and no-bid contracts, or the trail leads to a corp suddenly we should never follow the money.
Lookie here ladies and gents(or Libs and Cons) we have a perfect storm of union/corp lobbying PLUS get tough on crime rhetoric PLUS aging non-corp prisons PLUS drug war incarceration insanity and instead of linking arms and saying yup this is all a problem we are busy trying to sweep our “sides” dirt under the rug while pointing the finger at the other “side.” Utter silly season.
Let us ponder why it is that we have such a small percentage of the worlds populace, such a high percentage of the worlds prisoners and the reality that this is a phenomenon that is only a few decades old. Maybe it is because if we pondered that it would be to scary and we would no longer feel as safe, maybe it is because regardless of the cause the effect seems like a police state reality, or maybe it is just because if we looked at the entire issue we might actually be forced to admit we were each wrong on some part of it at some point and things may need to change that we would prefer did not. We do not deserve to call ourselves the land of liberty when we as a nation take that liberty from so many over nonviolent crimes.
Isn’t the explanation obvious? CO thinks that the people who are suffering the most should get the additional suffering because they’re already suffering so much that they won’t notice that they’re suffering more.
Kathy
We could send them to Orange County, that place could use some improvement in the demographics department.
Now that would be cruel and unusual punishment…
ROTFLMAO…
Prison Privatization and the Use of Incarceration (PDF)
Is anyone really surprised that it has come to this?
The USA has more prisoners per capita than any nation on earth. More than China. More than Iran. More than North Korea, even.
Why is that?
Because “tough-on-crime” politicians and prosecutors have done everything in their power to see to it that our failed War on Drugs continues to put nonviolent people in cages. And they’re joined by prison unions and police unions who consistently support the War on Drugs anytime some decriminalization measure comes up for a vote.
To those we can add the ridiculous Californians who continue to vote in favor of cannabis prohibition despite the fact that California doesn’t even have anywhere to put these people.
Way to go, California!
I don’t see marijuana being legal in other states. Besides a lot of police turn their heads in California. And some cities, such as San Francisco a few years back (when Bush was president) SF did not want to enforce some of the more asinine cannabis laws which the federal government and Bush’s cronies in the DoJ wanted to enforce. I thought the Republicans were all about limited federal government, but they took every opportunity and then created some more, to interfere with matters that should not be dictated by the federal government.
This ruling has an implied effect on sentencing so long as not enough prison capacity exists. Perhaps this will force some to review those drug laws and maybe not imprison non-violent drug offenders as much as communities have. If times get even tougher and even less money will be available to competing objectives, the drug laws might indeed get revised.
If the drug laws are kept and the sentences are just changed to probation instead of jail time, that means there will be a need for many, many more probation officers than we have now, so don’t rush to assume huge savings are guaranteed by sentencing reform.
DLS-Nope instead they will release those with nonminimum sentence situations and give that same group lower prison time at sentencing. The group mostly consists of rapists, child molesters, armed robbers and murderers and in that order. Then with violent crime up it will be time for a brand new “tough on crime” pol to step in and crack down on…drug users. Stir repeat, stir repeat, we have been doing it since the 70′s so I see little chance we will suddenly get sane, there is too much money in it to get sane.
Looking to the past:
1. The original drug war (prohibition) was abandoned, in part, because it got too expensive.
2. Like gambling, many states had to change their laws to allow private prisons. There were reasons for outlawing them.
Kathy — They’re all majority black and latino areas, with high crime rates. Compton, for example, was where the Rodney King riots happened. He’s making a racist comment.
roro80-And now you have fallen into a reverse race-baitor trap. See he did not say anything “specifically” about race but only something that while in itself neutral could be taken as alluding to it for those that heavily agree/disagree with that kind of comment(this is called a dog whistle also). Now that you have noted that it is race tied he can come back and note that you are race obsessed and crying “bigot” where it doesnt belong and the opinions of what was said most often fall on party lines that are relatively static. I learned so much more from listening to Rush in my youth than I ever suspected lol.
And if casual wants to make Rush-esque arguments after making blatantly racist comments, he can do so. Rush isn’t convincing, and neither would he be making such arguments. I really don’t care. I just wanted to translate for those unfamiliar with California geography.