California must cut prison population by 30,000
Bob Egelko
Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
(05-23) 17:20 PDT WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court ordered California on Monday to reduce the population of its jammed prisons by more than 30,000 in two years to repair a health care system that lower courts found was defying constitutional standards and endangering guards as well as inmates.
Federal judges rightly found that overcrowding in a prison system that has held nearly twice its designed capacity for more than a decade was the main cause of "grossly inadequate provision of medical and mental health care," the court said in a 5-4 ruling.
"Needless suffering and death have been the well-documented result," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in the majority opinion.
He cited evidence from two decades of litigation: mentally ill prisoners waiting up to a year for treatment, suicidal inmates held for 24 hours in phone booth-size cages without toilets, waiting lists of 700 inmates for a single doctor, and gyms converted into triple-bunked living quarters that breed disease, and violence victimizing guards and inmates alike.
Death toll
A federal judge found in 2006 that shoddy prison health care in California was responsible for the death of one inmate a week, Kennedy noted.
"The medical and mental health care provided by California's prisons falls below the standard of decency that inheres in the Eighth Amendment," which bans cruel and unusual punishment, said Kennedy, joined by the court's more liberal justices.
Under the ruling, California's prison population of 143,000 must be reduced to 110,000 by mid-2013. Critics both on and off the bench forecast a wave of dangerous felons on the streets.
Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissent joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, said the majority was loosing "the equivalent of three Army divisions" of criminals and was "gambling with the safety of the people of California."
Assembly Republican leader Connie Conway of Tulare said Californians "could be at serious risk of becoming victims of crime ... as a result of this reckless and irresponsible decision."
One alternative
But Gov. Jerry Brown's administration, while critical of the ruling, said the state could comply without releasing any dangerous criminals - if Republicans approve Brown's budget proposal to shift thousands of low-level offenders and parole violators from state prisons to county jails.
"If realignment is done quickly and fully as the governor proposed, it will solve this problem," said Matthew Cate, Brown's prison director. "Our goal is to not release inmates at all."
The California State Sheriffs Association chimed in, saying Brown's plan - as long as it is accompanied by more state funding for counties - is "a way to ensure this is not a massive release of prisoners."
But Republicans have opposed Brown's plan on two grounds: The governor wants to extend tax increases to pay for it, and it would arguably reduce punishment by allowing some felons to avoid state prison.
Sentencing overhaul
At the other end of the spectrum, the American Civil Liberties Union said the ruling should prompt the state to ease some of the nation's harshest sentencing laws by, for example, making it a misdemeanor instead of a felony to write a $450 bad check or possess drugs for personal use.
"California locks up too many people who pose no threat to public safety and keeps them locked up for too long," said Allen Hopper, an ACLU attorney in San Francisco.
Inmates claiming that prisons provided substandard mental health treatment first sued the state in 1990. They were joined in 2001 by prisoners suing over medical care.
A federal judge appointed a receiver to manage the health care system in 2006, saying state officials were unable to comply with constitutional standards. After a trial in 2009, a three-judge panel said the system could be repaired only if the state first addressed overcrowding. At the time, there were 156,000 inmates in a system designed for 80,000.
Reductions to date
While fighting the courts' authority to lower the prison population, state officials have responded to the litigation by making their own reductions.
Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared an overcrowding "state of emergency" in 2006 and transferred nearly 10,000 prisoners to other states. He also acted with lawmakers to speed up the releases of some low-risk inmates and stop returning parolees to prison for minor violations.
In upholding the panel's order, the Supreme Court said California's "serious constitutional violations ... have persisted for years. They remain uncorrected."
Kennedy said the three-judge panel had heard expert testimony by former prison directors in California and other states that prison populations can be reduced in a way that "does not increase crime to a significant degree."
The court also upheld the panel's two-year deadline for lowering the prison population but said state officials might ask the three judges for more time - five years, for example - because of "changing political, economic and other circumstances."
Cate said the Brown administration would seek an extension "if that's what public safety requires."
The ruling in Brown vs. Plata, 09-1233 can be read at links.sfgate.com/ZKZF:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Chronicle staff writer Marisa Lagos contributed to this report.
April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008