Prison overcrowding in California has become so dire that the federal courts have stepped in to force change. That is welcome news for all offenders, whether they are being held for violent crimes or other types of offenses.
California state lawmakers have repeatedly vowed to improve prison conditions by addressing overcrowding as well as access to basic services, including medical care. With inadequate budget allocations and persistent staffing vacancies, the state's promises have remained empty. So inmates sued in federal court, asserting that the conditions of confinement in such an overcrowded system constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
The federal courts have found merit in the inmates' case. The U.S. Supreme court, in a landmark ruling in May 2011, ordered the state to reduce prison population by more than 30,000 inmates. The ruling was based on the belief that the significant overcrowding violates the Eight Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The facts showed that a California prisoner dies every week due to constitutional deficiencies.
Critics fear the prison population reduction is not a viable and permanent solution. For one thing, it would still leave the system more than 37 percent over the capacity that it was designed for. There is also concern that releasing so many inmates will put the people of California at risk.
Supporters of the court order point out, however, that the state has two years to complete the reduction in state facilities through means such as building new facilities or transferring prisoners out of state. Further, if the two-year deadline is missed, state officials may request more time.
Reductions in the prison population may also come through other legislative measures, such as Governor Jerry Brown's budget plan to move thousands of nonviolent inmates and parole offenders to county jails. Additional actions by the state to reduce inmate population include placing nonviolent offenders on non-revocable parole, increasing earnable credit for good behavior and sending fewer people to prison.
Under the plan to send nonviolent offenders to county jails, newly convicted nonviolent offenders will be sent directly to county facilities and newly accused defendants may wear electronic-monitoring bracelets while awaiting trial instead of being held in lock up.
With such efforts, it appears the state is finally taking serious steps to reduce inmate overcrowding problems and comply with Supreme Court mandates. Will it work? Unfortunately, with a decades-long history of failing to meet court-ordered benchmarks, doubts continue to linger.
