A three-judge federal court panel insists California can cut its prison population to previously ordered levels without endangering public safety, and it orders the administration to get busy increasing good-time credits to accomplish the goal.
The judges’ latest order is based partially on testimony from prison experts.
The panel sharply criticized state officials who have “consistently sought to frustrate every attempt” to solve the state’s overcrowded prisons by being “consistently confusing, contradictory, and unhelpful” in carrying out proposals to fix the problem. The judges even threatened to find Gov. Jerry Brown in contempt of court unless he complies.
Brown is appealing the order to the U.S. Supreme Court, insisting it would endanger public safety. The high court previously upheld the panel’s original order.
The latest court ruling on June 20 found that California prison officials “have made it clear that they will not, on their own, comply with a population cap,” and the state continually responds to proposals with defiance to the court’s deference.
State prison officials “have used this court’s patience and good-faith attempts to achieve a resolution as an excuse for protracting these legal proceedings to a time that could hardly have been imagined when the litigation to constitutionalize California’s prison conditions commenced over two decades ago,” the ruling states.
The court cited the history of both cases, which the court said demonstrates that prison officials have repeatedly failed to take the necessary steps to remedy prison overcrowding and conditions which “remain uncorrected.”
The population cap was the result of Coleman v. Brown, a ruling that cited prison officials’ failure to provide constitutionally adequate mental health care to mentally ill prisoners, and Plata v. Brown, which ruled that prisoners were denied constitutionally adequate medical health.
Since the cases were decided, “there was a backward slide in progress, attributable largely to the growing overcrowding problem in the California prison system,” according to the court.
In 2005, the Plata judgment declared: The prison medical delivery system is in such a blatant state of crisis that (the state) publicly conceded their inability to find and implement on their own solutions that will meet constitutional standards. The state’s failure has created a vacuum of leadership, and utter disarray in the management, supervision, and delivery of care in the Department of Corrections’ medical system. After years of litigation, it became apparent that a remedy for the constitutional violations would not be effective absent a reduction in the prison system population.
California prison officials attempted to accomplish the population reduction through Assembly Bill 109, referred to as “realignment.” Realignment shifted responsibility for low-level offenders from the state prison system to county jails— including parole supervision and revocation.
It soon became apparent, realignment was not sufficient to achieve the 137.5 percent benchmark by June 2013 or to meet the final population cap at any time thereafter, the court noted.
Based on state officials’ lack of progress in coming up with a viable plan to cap its prisons at a level in which constitutionally adequate health care could be delivered to inmates, the June 20, 51-page ruling, ordered prison officials to reach the cap by expanding “good time” credits in the following manner:
Inmates housed in minimum custody facilities are to receive 2-for-1 good time credits.
Good time credits for completing educational and other qualifying programs are to be increased from six weeks to eight weeks per year and are to be made available to violent and second-strike offenders.
Good time credits are to be increased from 20 percent to 34 percent and extended to and non-violent second-strike felons. (Sex offenders are excluded from this provision.) Good time credits are to be increased from 15 percent to 34 percent and extended to violent (non-strike) felons. (Sex offenders are also excluded from this provision.)
When the court calculated the population level after implementing the expansion of good-time credit plan, it found that the prisons would still be 4,170 inmates above the population cap on Dec. 31.
However, the ruling asserts if the state were to implement the full expansion of good time credits for all prisoners, prospectively and retroactively “the measure would result in the additional reduction of as many as 5,385 prisoners,” thus meeting the population cap on time.
The judges further admonished state officials that if the prisons are not at the population cap, then officials must release the necessary number of inmates by using a list that shows which offenders are least dangerous to public safety through the so-called Low Risk List.
“No matter what implementation challenges,” prison officials may face, “no matter what unexpected misfortunes arise,” the state “shall reduce the prison population to 137.5 percent by Dec. 31, even if that is achieved solely through the release of prisoners from the Low-Risk List,” the ruling states.
The court elicited testimony from nationally known criminologists to address public safety.
The experts reviewed historical data regarding the expansion of good time credits involving 21 California counties between 1996 and 2006. During the 10- year period, approximately 1.7 million inmates were released by court order.
The review found the released prisoners “did not result in a higher crime rate.”
“Illinois, Nevada, Maryland, Indiana, and New York all successfully implemented good time credits expansion without adversely affecting public safety,” according to an expert with 30 years experience in correctional planning.
The court said that it would “not allow constitutional violations to continue simply because a remedy would involve intrusion into the realm of prison administration,” noting the state officials “have now had almost four years” to met the cap, with an additional six months “for ease of compliance.”
The judges ordered prison officials to submit progress reports every two weeks regarding the specific steps taken toward implementing each measure in the good time credit expansion plan, any proposed substitutions, and the status of the development of the Low-Risk List.
The court ordered state officials to waive all laws and regulations standing in the way of the implementation of the good time credit expansion plan, so that it could go into effect immediately.
The court determined that the good time credit expansion plan should result in achieving the population cap on Dec. 31, but warned it would not in itself provide a long-lasting solution to the problem of unconstitutional conditions and denial of lawful medical and mental health care.
The court pointed out three reasons that the prison population might balloon again:
1. The state’s plan for the “slow return of inmates housed in private contract prisons in other states.”
2. The state prison population is growing in excess of projections.
3. Timely completion of new construction projects has proven unreliable due to a lack of administrative approvals and legislative appropriations.
