California Budget Crime and Punishment Parole Policy Prison Prison Policy

Fed Judges Say CA Must Drop Prison Pop by 44,000

prison-dorm-by-max-whittaker-nyt

On Tuesday, a three-judge federal panel ordered the state
to reduce its 150,000 prison population by 44,000 inmates within two years. The state was told that it had 45 days to come up with a plan to do so.

Here is what the New York Times reports:

The judges said that reducing prison crowding in California was the only way to change what they called an unconstitutional prison health care system that causes one unnecessary death a week.

In a scathing 184-page order, the judges said state officials had failed to comply with previous orders to fix the prison health care system and reduce crowding.

The judges left it to state officials to come up with a specific plan within 45 days, saying there was “no need for the state to release presently incarcerated inmates indiscriminately in order to comply with our order.” They recommended remedies including imprisoning fewer nonviolent criminals and reducing the number of technical parole violators.

The order is the largest state prison reduction ever imposed by a federal court over the objection of state officials, legal experts said.

True. But timing is of the report is quite curious.

There have been rumblings ever since the 2007 creation of the panel about the possibility of such a putting a cap on the state’s prison population if the governor and the legislature didn’t get with the program and reduce the population on their own, in addition to introducing certain prison health reforms.

And the panel has been warning since at least January that a cap was on the horizon.

But more recently, with all California’s budget woes, the federal receiver appointed to oversee the state’s prison health system has been working relatively cooperatively with Schwarzenegger and state’s other leaders.

Plus, there is the fact that this month, the state legislature will vote on a large pile of proposed corrections reforms that are aimed to bring the average daily population down well below the number that the fed judges have required, moves aimed at saving the state its needed $1.2 billion.

So why the demand from the judges now?

Perhaps the timing has something to do with the budget stimulated reforms that are on the table.

Perhpas the judges’ are, in a back-door way, trying to help the governor and the legislative leadership to get some desperately needed reforms, and with report accompanying the demands, are giving him/them some excellent ammunition with which to fight off attacks from Republican lawmakers and others among the hard line, law-and-order right who would torpedo the corrections reform package.

Among other things, the judges’ report has a whole section on ways to reduce the prison numbers, most of which dovetail with the governor’s plan.

What is more the judges have presented a bunch of studies and other research, some of it from states that have already instituted like reforms. The research referenced in the report concludes that the existing California stystem is bad for public safety as well as inmate safety, whereas the reforms, if instituted may actually make our streets and our prisons safer.

A copy of the 184-page ruling may be found here or here. Unlike some reports of its nature, it’s well put together and makes for weirdly engaging reading for the criminal justice-obsessed among us.

9 Comments

  • Talk about micro-management by judges who are acting like legislators. Maybe they will mandate a tax on citizens who didn’t vote for them to pay for judicial activism.

    Let’s reduce the number of judges by an equal percentage that they want to reduce inmate population, and then move prisoners into the newly available courthouse space…and, cut salaries of judges.

    I wonder why, if prisons are so terrible, that the released inmates keep going back.

  • As always, people like Woody and all the “consertive” (corrupt) Republicans out there live in their fantasy world of “tough on crime” while choosing to ignore the reality of the real world. It is about time that someone has taken a stand and try to mend this billion dollar disaster of a prison system that was forced upon the true citizens of the State of California by law enforcement unions and the corrupt politicans that they own.

  • The central issue in this case seems to be what the extent of federal judicial power is and whether it has been abused in this instance. This is a case ripe for U.S. Supreme Court review.

    To the extent that federal judicial decisions have taken over control of aspects of prison management (for example, pharmacy, psychiatric and medical services for inmates), where are the federal dollars to pay for these mandates? When the state gets sued for alleged abuses based upon these federal cases, why isn’t the federal monitor responsible for providing a defense and the payment of adverse judgments with federal, not state, dollars? Since when can a federal judge compel a state to appropriate money?

    But, does the state even have a unified position on these issues? Have any California politicians dared to take a strong public stand? Until we get a definitive ruling, California’s prison system will remain a multi-billion dollar sink hole adrift upon shifting political seas.

  • Helping to empty federal prisons.

    After 34 years, Lynette ‘Squeaky’ Fromme to be released

    The president she tried to assassinate has been dead for nearly three years, and her longtime idol and leader, Charles Manson, remains in prison.

    Fromme was convicted in 1975 of pointing a gun at then-President Gerald Ford in Sacramento, California. Secret Service agents prevented her from firing, but the gun was later found to have no bullet in the chamber, although it contained a clip of ammunition.

    She said it never occurred to her that she could wind up in prison. Asked whether she had any regrets, Fromme said, “No. No, I don’t. I feel it was fate.” However, she said she thought that her incarceration was “unnecessary” and that she couldn’t see herself repeating her offense.

    In the WCHS interview, Fromme said that Manson should not be incarcerated because “he didn’t kill anybody. … I would rather be in, because I know I laid a lot of my thinking in his mind.”

    Hasn’t prison has done wonders to rehabilitate Fromme and make her a model citizen to re-enter society? Why can’t we do the same with 27,000 or 44,000 or whatever it is that judges want to let out?

  • Woody, that interview was in 1987. She was clearly a nut case. Maybe still is. I have no idea. But she didn’t kill anybody, so…

    Was the gun loaded? I can’t remember. Okay, I found it. There were bullets in the gun, but not in the chamber. (Not that this makes it any better. One should get to point any kind of gun—loaded or unloaded, partically loaded—at a president, without going to a nice Federal hotel for a great, GREAT many years.)

    I note she’s being paroled from a hospital not a prison, which I don’t find terribly comforting.

  • Celeste, I always found it strange that someone who shot at a person with intent to murder gets a lesser sentence for his bad aim than someone else who had a steadier hand.

  • Wouldn’t it have been nice if these judges had used up to date figures not those from four or five years back? They refused to consider any advances made recently and why would that be? California spends above the national average these days in medical, dental and mental health care but activist judges running amok is nothing new.

    Is there even one of you that truly believe the release of these criminals will not end up in more stories like Lily Burk, and many more to a lesser degree? If you can say with a straight face that it won’t happen you’re crazy.

    Jerry Brown is a little off in his numbers, California spends $17,000 a year now per inmate on their health care. How many of you pay that much? The 9th Circuit is the most reversed circuit in the nation and who sat on this panel, Stephen Reinhardt, the most reversed of them all and husband of Ramona Ripston local queen bee of the ACLU.

    This is another misguided liberal attempt that will backfire on them when it reaches The Supreme Court. Once again we see a demonstration of liberals not caring one bit about the safety of the average law abiding citizen.

  • I would hope that of those who are released that are illegal aliens will be deported immediately. If they are going to send 43,000 criminals out on the street I hope that they look at the crimes of these people and release non violent drug criminals out first. Of those, any illegals be deported to their homelands. I hope that they won’t release murderers who are dangerous out on the streets before they release convicts who haven’t done anything violent even though they have been sentenced because of mandatory sentencing rules. Gang members, repeat offenders, sex offenders and certain murderers shouldn’t be considered for this at all. I don’t understand how they can have a trial and then later let some of these people out early just because of overcrowding. How would it be ok to ignore the overcrowding in these prisons because of so many illegal alien convicts. I don’t think that these guys should get a pass just because of overcrowding. They need to look at the population of the prison, see how many of these guys are here illegally, and then take measures legally that would prevent this from happening again. If there is an overcrowding because of so many illegals, then there has to be some kind of law that helps to eleviate this problem. We shouldn’t be releasing criminals out on the streets just because of overcrowding when many of them are not supposed to be here in the first place. They must be dealt with before they become a burden of the state.

Leave a Comment