The Supreme Court today ruled that California's prisons are so overcrowded, they actually enter the territory of cruel and unusual punishment.[Full opinion | WSJ article] In a 5-4 decision penned by Justice Kennedy, the Court found that the overcrowding so impeded the delivery of mental and physical health care to prisoners that immediate release of a significant proportion of the population was required to avoid constitutional violation. The prison system was roughly 100% over capacity at the time of the original appeal, and the government had failed to comply with other orders to alleviate the capacity issue in a reasonable time frame. In a withering dissent (as always), Justice Scalia said the ruling "ignores bedrock limitations on the power of Article III judges" to "uphold the absurd."
I must say, I agree with Scalia. The statute was narrowly drawn to avoid just this result, and the injunction entered orders the release of 46,000 felons. I disagree with his standing analysis (I think substantial risk of poor care is easily displayed by just about every felon with over a year's sentence - he totally avoids this with a "whatever that means" off-hand dismissal), but statutorily, he's correct - these appeals were to be analyzed on a case-by-case, violation-by-violation basis.
What are your thoughts? I'm interested to see how this will play out. I think who they release, and how they do it, is going to be a big part of how successful this is in the long term. For instance, merely letting out those with the shortest time remaining on their sentence is unlikely to reach a just conclusion given the ridiculous sentences forced on individuals under the California three-strikes law. Releasing non-violent offenders sounds good, until you realize they're mostly going to be drug addicts who will just return to their former pastimes and be caught up again. Combine this with the fact that CA has a 3-year probation period for most offenses (as compared to 1 year in most states) and there's ample room for these releases to be reversed inside of a year or so.
I must say, I agree with Scalia. The statute was narrowly drawn to avoid just this result, and the injunction entered orders the release of 46,000 felons. I disagree with his standing analysis (I think substantial risk of poor care is easily displayed by just about every felon with over a year's sentence - he totally avoids this with a "whatever that means" off-hand dismissal), but statutorily, he's correct - these appeals were to be analyzed on a case-by-case, violation-by-violation basis.
What are your thoughts? I'm interested to see how this will play out. I think who they release, and how they do it, is going to be a big part of how successful this is in the long term. For instance, merely letting out those with the shortest time remaining on their sentence is unlikely to reach a just conclusion given the ridiculous sentences forced on individuals under the California three-strikes law. Releasing non-violent offenders sounds good, until you realize they're mostly going to be drug addicts who will just return to their former pastimes and be caught up again. Combine this with the fact that CA has a 3-year probation period for most offenses (as compared to 1 year in most states) and there's ample room for these releases to be reversed inside of a year or so.
(no subject)
Date: 23/5/11 22:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/5/11 22:32 (UTC)Drug plea deals are an easy plea to make.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 00:08 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 00:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/5/11 22:37 (UTC)The US CJ system's over-reliance on imprisonment is beyond misguided - it's outright harmful. Very well-respected criminologists have drawn connections between high incarceration rates and the further breakdown of inner-city families and social norms. Plus, imprisonment doesn't do shit. Nobody "gets better" in prison - not from criminality, not from a substance abuse problem, and not from the poverty and crappy life that probably led them to offending in the first place. If anything, when these individuals are finally released from prison, they're even worse off - their social support network is gone, they can't get jobs, they can't get housing, and they've most likely adapted to prison culture and that way of surviving. It's a tragedy.
If you're interested in this topic, I encourage you to seek out some books by today's criminologists on the effects of mass incarceration and poor re-entry programming. Off the top of my head, I can recommend Petersilia's When Prisoners Come Home, Travis' But They All Come Back, Chesney-Lind's Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment, and Clear's Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. These authors are some of the most respected scholars in my field today.
(no subject)
Date: 23/5/11 22:43 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 02:29 (UTC)This is patently false. There are plenty of examples of people who "got better" in prison. You can say that the vast majority don't or break it down along some other line, but your absolutist statement is absolutely false.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 23/5/11 23:31 (UTC)On that note, I can only say, the conditions in many prisons are less than desirable. I am sorry, yes these people are often drug users, or the lowest of the low, but for the most part I would consider them human. Where we have failed in our system is, we do not try to rehabilitate people anymore. We simple try to punish them, with no regard for anything other than suffering, and in that we are masters. While I do not have the statistics right here, and I feel far to lazy to find them, we have the most people incarcerated. More people are incarcerated in America than China. I think the line reads that one out of every 50-150 Americans is currently incarcerated, if memory serves this does not include those in jail, and children.
(no subject)
Date: 23/5/11 23:45 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:I'm not
From:I hear Manhatten is lovely this time of year.
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 02:22 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 08:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 23/5/11 23:37 (UTC)So if overpopulation in CA is due mainly to MM and 3Strikes, could not SCOTUS not declare those to be cruel and unusual as well?
Legalize drugs and put former convicts to work in the legal drug trade that replaces the black market. It's a start.
(no subject)
Date: 23/5/11 23:39 (UTC)Not really. Those are sentences, and sentencing is judged under a different standard (generally the rational basis standard). What we're seeing here is the after-effect of sentences. Outlawing MM and 3-strikes wouldn't fix the violation, at least not for several years.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 23/5/11 23:39 (UTC)He is such a dumb ass.
(no subject)
Date: 23/5/11 23:45 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 01:14 (UTC)/Unsure whether Robocop or Fortress more accurately describes our near future
(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 01:25 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 02:22 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 04:14 (UTC)Just think...
Date: 24/5/11 01:19 (UTC)A: A small army.
Re: Just think...
Date: 24/5/11 01:24 (UTC)The War on Drugs?
From:Re: The War on Drugs?
From:Re: Just think...
From:Re: Just think...
From:Re: Just think...
From:Re: Just think...
From:Re: Just think...
From:Re: Just think...
From:Re: Just think...
From:Re: Just think...
From:Re: Just think...
From:Re: Just think...
From:Re: Just think...
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 01:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 02:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 02:29 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 02:34 (UTC)And then have to be released again to avoid violating this ruling. Either California's law enforcement is going to stop enforcing silly drug and/or prostitution laws outright (sort of like how Utah's law enforcement doesn't enforce its fornication laws) or the rapidly revolving door on the offenders is going to force the state legislature to lighten up those laws, mainly with shorter sentences, to get capacity back under control.
I would also be interested in seeing how this ruling impacts other states.
(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 02:51 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 05:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/5/11 08:40 (UTC)http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111843426
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: