U.S. Supreme Court backs state prison reductions
In this file photo, Inmates at Chino State Prison, which houses 5500 inmates, crowd around double and triple bunk beds at a gymnasium that was modified to house 213 prisoners on December 10, 2010 in Chino, California. More than 144,000 inmates are currently incarcerated in prisons that were designed to hold about 80,000. Photo: Kevork Djansezian, Getty Images
Marisa Lagos - Saturday, August 3, 2013
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday refused to block a lower court's decision ordering the state of California to reduce its prison population by about 10,000 inmates by year's end, rejecting Gov. Jerry Brown's argument that the downsizing will put public safety at risk.
The 6-3 decision appears to mean the state is out of legal options and must reduce the prison population to about 110,000 inmates by Dec. 31 - or run the risk of being held in contempt of court, said Donald Specter, a lawyer for the inmates who sued the state over health care in 2001.
Brown and his predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, have consistently fought the 2009 inmate reduction order by a three-judge panel, which stemmed from a ruling that overcrowding in state prisons led to inadequate inmate health care that violates prisoners' constitutional rights. The order was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, in a 5-4 decision. This time around, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the majority and ruled against the state.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Secretary Jeff Beard issued a statement saying the state would "pursue its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court so that the merits of the case can be considered without delay."
The state seems to be banking on the fact that the Supreme Court did not rule on the appeal itself. But Specter said the fact that the high court refused to stop the lower court's injunction is a "terrible sign" for that appeal. And, he said, given the court's calendar it doesn't seem possible it would rule on the appeal by the end of the year.
The state has worked to comply with the order, in large part by implementing a program in 2011 that required low-level felons to serve their time in county jails instead of state prisons. That program, known as realignment, has helped reduce the prison population by about 24,000 inmates. In January, Brown declared that the overcrowding and health care problems had been solved and asked the three-judge panel to withdraw its population cap order.
The judges refused and said the state should increase sentence-reduction credits for inmates that demonstrate good behavior; Brown balked and went to the Supreme Court, arguing in the appeal that most of the state's low-risk inmates have already been freed and to go further would put public safety at risk. His appeal has been supported by a number of Democratic lawmakers, four former governors and a number of mayors, including San Francisco's Ed Lee.
Specter said that argument is a fallacy.
"I don't know what they are taking about really - 3,000 prisoners are on parole every single month, and a couple of years ago it was 10,000 every month. Yet the crime rate is generally going down, and the court found, after hearing lots of testimony, that increasing good time credits and letting people out a few weeks early wouldn't do anything," he said.
In a biting dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia- joined by Justice Clarence Thomas- wrote that he has opposed the lower court's release order from the start and accused his Supreme Court colleagues of washing their hands of the entire case with their 2011 ruling affirming the lower court's injunction.
"So also today, it is not our fault that California must now release upon the public nearly 10,000 inmates convicted of serious crimes - about 1,000 for every city larger than Santa Ana," he wrote. "As for me, I adhere to my original view of this terrible injunction. It goes beyond what the Prison Litigation Reform Act allows, and beyond the power of the courts. I would grant the stay and dissolve the injunction."
Marisa Lagos is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: mlagos@sfchroncle.com
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/U-S-Supreme-Court-backs-state-prison-reductions-4704105.php
U.S. SUPREME COURT ORDERS IMMEDIATE END TO CALIFORNIA PRISON OVERCROWDING
Created: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:15:00PST
Updated: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:17:22PST
SAN DIEGO (CNS) -The U.S. Supreme Court again ordered an immediate end to severe overcrowding in California's prisons Friday, a decision that was deemed "very disappointing" by some San Diego County politicians.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court ordered California to find other quarters for nearly 10,000 inmates, easing what has repeatedly been ruled to be "cruel and unusual punishment."
Federal judges at the trial, appeals and Supreme courts have already ruled in favor in inmates. The governor had argued that recent shifts of prisoners to county jails, and other steps, have shown solid progress to eliminate those unconstitutional overcrowding conditions.
Today, the court ruled again that the prison population must be reduced, immediately.
Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, and wrote, "California must now release upon the public nearly 10,000 inmates convicted of serious crimes, about 1,000 for every city larger than Santa Ana."
But the majority voted to back up its 2011 decision that putting three inmates in single-bunk cells, providing spotty and inferior health care and other serious overcrowding violations violates the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
It ordered the state to reduce the prison census to 137.5 percent of the prisons' design capacity.
"I'm disappointed in the decision, but not surprised," San Diego County Supervisor Ron Roberts told City News Service. He said the county expected the state would lose again, and has been preparing for another influx of convicts who normally would be in state prisons.
A state Assembly member decried the ruling.
"I believe the state demonstrated a very strong case against early release, both in improved prison conditions but also in the negative impacts that realignment has had on public safety in California," Lorena Gonzales, D-San Diego, said.
An attorney with the Prison Law Office in Berkeley, Paul Clement, denounced the state's delaying tactics and appeals as "open defiance of the federal judiciary."
In Los Angeles, county supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said the governor should "stop pussyfooting and immediately utilize available detention beds, at less than half the cost of the state's prison beds."
Antonovich said those beds were at private and out-of-state prisons.