Governor Jerry Brown filed a new prison population reduction plan offering ways to decrease prisoners’ sentences and modify the use of private prisons. It is his latest attempt to meet a court-ordered population cap for California’s prisons.
The governor continues to fight an overcrowding ruling that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court May 2010. Brown filed his latest reduction plan after a federal three-judge panel threatened to hold him in contempt for not fully complying with the earlier order to lower California’s prison population.
Last April 11 the U.S. district court ordered Brown to submit a plan to further reduce the prison population by 10,000 inmates by the end of this year.
According to Brown, the State has already reduced the number of prisoners by 42,000 since 2006.
“The State has spent well over a billion dollars to construct new health care facilities and additional treatment space in prisons throughout the State. Most significantly, a new $840-million, 1,722-bed health care facility…opening in July.”
Brown attained legislative approval for a wide-ranging prison plan that augments rehabilitation efforts and locks in funding for multiple “construction upgrades” to existing prison health care facilities.
Under his leadership, the state passed and put into action Public Safety Realignment, shifting low-level offenders and parole violators to county jails rather than state prisons. When Proposition 30 was passed last November, voters amended the state’s constitution to guarantee funding for Realignment.
Brown’s plan asserts, “Due to realignment and the work of many local leaders and state officials to execute it, the prison population lowered by about 25,000 inmates in just over a year.” However, Brown contends if he continues on this path, further reduction could jeopardize public safety.
“Now is absolutely not the time to impose further obligations on already strained counties,” he said.
The state’s plan attempts to meet the court orders by outlining some progress on meeting the population cap, requesting for a modification and relaxing federal control over the mental health delivery system.
Some of the alternative actions in the state’s plan include:
Augmenting existing “good time” credits to qualifying prisoners, including second-strike prisoners with serious prior convictions.
Early release of some elderly and infirm prisoners who are considered incapable of re-offending.
Allowing prisoner firefighter teams to include certain serious and violent prisoners.
Enhancing the use of facilities for drug treatment.
Funding county jails to house more state prisoners, and perhaps utilizing more private prisons in California.
Allowing the approximately 8,300 prisoners in out-of-state private prisons to remain there longer, at a cost of about $300 million annually.
Making more room for nearly 2,000 ailing and mentally ill prisoners after the new $840 million medical facility opens this year in San Joaquin County.
Early release credits for some prisoners and the release of elderly and infirm prisoners would allow the state to gradually bring back thousands of prisoners from private prisons in other states, according to the Brown plan.
One viable solution to lower the prison population rejected by Brown is the release of “low risk” life prisoners with the possibility of parole. The courts have suggested that the state could release eligible convicted felons sentenced to life with the possibility of parole without jeopardizing public safety.
Expert forensic psychologist James Austin in a declaration to the federal court estimated that “3,930 prisoners in this category could be released within four months of implementation.”
According to Life In Limbo: An Examination of Parole Release for Prisoners Serving Life Sentences with the Possibility of Parole in California, a study released by Stanford Law School (Stanford Criminal Justice Center): “Studies that were conducted documenting the recidivism rates for lifers suggest that the recidivism rate—as defined by recommitment for a new offense—is relatively low.”
In CDCR’s Lifer Parolee Recidivism Report January 2013, examination of lifer parolee recidivism rates shows that “lifer parolees receive fewer new convictions within three years of being released to parole (4.8 vs. 51.5 percent, respectively). They also have a markedly lower return to prison recidivism rate than non-lifer parolees (13.3 vs. 65.1 percent, respectively).”
Nonetheless, Brown insists that releasing the lifers who fit the low-risk criteria, “circumvents the carefully considered risk determinations of the Board of Parole Hearings,” and violates the constitutional rights of crime victims to be heard in parole proceedings.
Brown’s plan asserts that Austin’s estimate that 96 percent of eligible life prisoners are low risk is “simply wrong,” and that Austin’s low recidivism rates of lifer prisoners who were released were based on prisoners already deemed by a Board of Parole Hearings panel to “no longer pose an unreasonable risk to public safety.”
Brown argues that, “since the vast majority of lifers currently eligible for parole consideration have been denied parole by a Board panel following extensive review and hearing, the evidence and indeed logic would dictate that most of these inmates continue to pose an unreasonable risk.” As a result, recidivism rates of these prisoners “can be expected to be higher if they were released.”
The governor never addressed Life In Limbo study, which revealed “in a cohort of convicted murderers released since 1995 in California, the actual recidivism rate is in fact miniscule.” The study showed that among the 860 murderers paroled by the Board since 1995, “only five individuals have returned to jail or returned to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations for new felonies since released, and none of them recidivated for life-term crimes.” This figure represents less than one percent overall for released lifers.
Though Brown touts the fairness of parole board decisions, the courts have overturned many decisions by the Board of Parole Hearings, deeming its denials of parole either: unlawful, not applicable, or simply wrong in numerous cases. The governor did not address the Parole Board’s record of having its decisions overturned.
COURT OF APPEALS
According to an April 2013 ruling, the California Court of Appeals found that immutable facts, such as a prisoner’s criminal history, does not by itself demonstrate an unreasonable risk to public safety. Thus, the sole evidence (in Brown’s plan) supporting his claim that lifers denied a parole “pose an unreasonable risk to public safety” stands in opposition to the findings of the Court of Appeals.
The federal court has ordered Brown to submit a list of “all prison population measures” talked about in the Plata lawsuit.
The court further directed Brown to list the “measures in the order that [the State] would prefer to implement them.” The governor’s plan points out that the court order disregards whether or not the governor has the requisite authority to do so.
As a response, Brown said he would take the unusual step of drafting legislative language for the measures he supports, and would submit the language to the Legislature for its consideration. Once the draft language has been submitted, the Legislature would determine whether the language should be introduced as a bill and advanced through the legislative process.
Brown contends that if the Legislature immediately passes the measures he advocates as urgency legislation, and does not pass any other measures to shift prisoners back to the state, then by the end of the year, the State will come within 2,570 inmates (within 2.2%) of satisfying the court-ordered population target, and will fully satisfy the court-ordered target in June 2014. And, with these measures in place, the state prison population would continue to recede over the next several years, the governor said.
Brown is convinced that no further population reductions—beyond the measures advocated by his plan—are necessary. Touting the improvements in the State’s prison health care system, realignment, and implementation of Prop. 36, he said he expected the prison population to continue to decline.