California prison overcrowding case heads to Supreme Court
The state is appealing a 2009 federal judicial order to reduce the prison population by more than 40,000 in two years. Lawyers for 18 other states are backing the appeal.
John Meeks plays cards at a prison in Lancaster, which is at twice its capacity. California is appealing an order to release or transfer 40,000 inmates. (Gary Friedman, Los Angeles Times / June 9, 2010)
Reporting from Washington and Los Angeles
The suicide rate in California’s overcrowded prisons is nearly twice the national average, and one inmate dies every eight days from inadequate medical care.
These are just two indicators cited in the 15-year legal battle over whether the state’s prisons are failing to provide humane medical care for the 165,000 inmates.
On Tuesday, the problems of California’s prisons will move to a national stage when the Supreme Court hears the state’s challenge to an extraordinary court order that would require the prison population to be reduced by about 25% in two years. That could mean releasing or transferring more than 40,000 inmates, state lawyers say.
The case is not just of interest to California.
Lawyers for 18 other states, including Illinois, Pennsylvania and Virginia, joined in support of California’s appeal, saying they feared a ruling upholding the prison release order could trigger similar moves across the nation. “Real world experience” suggests that releasing a large number of inmates would “inevitably place innocent citizens at much greater risk,” they said.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state officials call the order from a panel of three federal judges “the most sweeping intrusion into a state’s management” of its prisons ever handed down by a court. They say the panel — composed of two federal district judges and a federal appeals judge — is “using the guise of providing healthcare” to order a restructuring of the state’s correctional system. They also argue that the forced release of prisoners would threaten public safety.
Defenders of the judges’ order cite Schwarzenegger’s own words in 2006 declaring that California faced an overcrowding emergency in its prisons. They also say the state is exaggerating the possible effect of the order. California locks up many prisoners for repeat petty crimes or for technical parole violations, even though they are not considered dangerous or violent.
“California has people in prison who wouldn’t be in prison in any other state,” said former George W. Bush administration Solicitor Gen. Paul D. Clement, who represents one group of state prisoners. His brief cites comments from a former Texas prison director who said he was surprised and disturbed by the overcrowding in California’s prisons.
Supporters of the judges’ order also emphasize that it does not require a wholesale release of inmates. For example, the prisons could free up space by relocating some inmates to county jails, private prisons or out-of-state facilities. In addition, some nonviolent inmates could be released early.
“We’re sending 80,000 people to prison each year for two to three months — parole violators who are going from their home communities to sit in reception centers where there is no rehabilitation, no healthcare, no drug programs,” said Michael Bien, lead attorney in the case brought on behalf of prisoners deprived of mental healthcare.
“This is the kind of thing that everyone knows doesn’t do anything for public safety,” Bien added. “These men and women come back home after a couple of months having been exposed to much more dangerous people. If they weren’t dangerous before, they are now.”
The case began in the early 1990s with separate lawsuits contending that inmates who were mentally ill or had chronic health problems were suffering behind bars. The 8th Amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment, and it has been read to mean prisoners cannot be denied needed medical care.
U.S. District Judges Lawrence Karlton in Sacramento and Thelton Henderson in San Francisco separately ruled that the prisoners were suffering from unconstitutional ill treatment, and they handed down at least 80 orders requiring state prisons to make improvements. Despite promises from prison authorities, the state did not comply with most of the orders.