U.S. Supreme Court conservative justices questioned California prisoners’ lawyer on how public safety would be affected if correctional officials were forced to release thousands of prisoners to ease overcrowding.
A three-judge federal court asserted that California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) medical care is so poor due to overcrowded conditions that it is unconstitutional. The fact that one prisoner died every eight days of ailments that could have been prevented or delayed was a significant factor for the decision.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. implied that California could build more facilities and hire more staff to solve its unconstitutional prison conditions. However, an August 2010 analysis of CDCR’s medical facilities conducted by the State Inspector General found only two institutions barely exceeded the minimum score, and numerous prisons were significantly non-complaint. The report warns that the receiver has not yet implemented a mechanism to ensure that CDCR medical policies and procedures are followed system-wide or that medical community standards are met by the institutions inspected.
Referring to a potential release order, Julie Small of radio station KPCC reported that Secretary of Corrections Matthew L. Cate said, “…we need to be able to do it at the pace that we think is safe. Let’s say that we’ve seen a reduction in crime rates, for example, over the last several years. Well, if that trend reverses and we see a serious uptick in violent crime and at the same time we have to reduce our population in two years…what do you do?”
Carter G. Phillips, representing the State of California, argued against a prisoner population cap claiming, “…the reality is that anytime you say you’re going to release 30,000 inmates in a very compressed period of time, I guarantee you that there’s going to be more crime and people are going to die on the streets of California.”
Supreme Court Justice Alito commented, “If I were a citizen of California, I would be concerned about the release of 40,000 prisoners.”
Don Specter, representing California prisoners, reminded the Court that, “…based on expert testimony…from the State’s experts, from the intervener’s experts, they all came to the unanimous conclusion that there are methods that – by which you can reduce crowding which will not increase crime in our State.” Specter asserted, “All of the testimony that they heard from experts from Texas, from Pennsylvania, from Washington State – all of whom had suffered, and dealt with crowding in their prison systems, have said…unless you reduce the crowding, nothing else is going to work.”
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts stressed that the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act of 1996, “…requires that [the] court give substantial weight to adverse impact on public safety,” to any release order.
Specter assured the court that “low risk” prisoners could be released safely. He submitted that “low risk” prisoners recidivate around 17 percent, significantly lower than the general 70 percent recidivism rate for all parolees.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia retorted, “…the 17 percent figure goes to exactly my concern…it seems likely this is going to have an effect on public safety.”
CDCR’s Oct. 11, 2010, “Outcome Evaluation Report,” analyzes recidivism, risk for future criminal behavior and specific trends in California’s incarceration policies.
The report identifies who is recidivating by use of the “California Static Risk Assessment” (CSRA). The CSRA provides accurate predictions to show which paroled prisoners are most likely to return to prison and under what circumstance within a one, two or three year period.
Researchers broke down recidivism rates into various categories, such as gender, age group, race/ethnicity, county, commitment offense, mental health, and length of imprisonment.
The report shows the majority of CDCR releases are “high-risk” prisoners and they disproportionately augment the overall recidivism rate.
The data recognized prisoners released at age 60 and older who have been incarcerated over 15 years have the lowest recidivism rate for any category examined.
The report confirms: 59 lifers were paroled in FY 2005-06, five returned to prison, three re-released – meaning that they returned to prison for a parole violation. This means, only two of the released lifers were returned to prison for something other than a parole violation.
At this time, there is no reliable data other than the statistical trends reported for FY 2005-06 to extrapolate recidivism for the 403 lifers released in 2009.
The typical profile of the 403 includes: imprisoned over 20 years, over the age of 50, and a “low-risk” assessment. That means they are no danger to public safety according to at least one of the following: the report’s general finding, the Board of Prison Terms, the governor of California, and/or the courts.
In the report, Matthew L. Cate addressed his CDCR colleagues: “The mission of the CDCR is to protect the public by safely and securely supervising adult and juvenile offenders, providing effective rehabilitation and treatment, and integrating offenders successfully into the community. Consistent with this purpose, we are holding ourselves accountable for data-driven policies informed by the latest research on what works in corrections and rehabilitation…Our goal is to provide information that will be useful in moving the state forward in our attempt to increase public safety through the reduction of recidivism.”
