In a move that one justice called "the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history," the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered California to cut its prison population by more than 33,000 inmates.
It is a landmark decision in a decades-long legal battle over conditions inside California prisons, and the immediate response from some quarters warned of an impending public safety crisis.
"If that doesn't have a negative impact on the safety of the people of California, I don't know what does," said U.S. Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Gold River. "This is not releasing the Vienna Boys Choir."
But the reality is that the court's opinion has no immediate effect on how many inmates the state can keep in custody.
"This is not a sudden court order requiring the prison doors to fly open," said Allen Hopper, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union.
Instead, the high court's opinion gives the state at least two years to reduce its current population of 143,435 inmates to 109,805.
State officials hope most of those reductions will come through Gov. Jerry Brown's budget proposal to remove tens of thousands of nonviolent inmates and parole offenders from prisons and place them in county jails.
The court cited that proposal as a sign "that the prison population can be reduced in a manner calculated to avoid an undue negative effect on public safety."
Monday's ruling described almost medieval conditions inside California's 33 adult prisons and affirmed a three-judge federal panel's decision two years ago that inmate populations need to be reduced to 137.5 percent of capacity.
The state's prison capacity is designed for 80,000 inmates, and for many years the system housed more than twice that many. The population now is about 180 percent of capacity.
The Supreme Court also suggested the state could seek an extension from the three-judge panel to get as many as five years to come into compliance.
The state has been under threat of court-ordered reductions for nearly two decades over cases that claim overcrowding has resulted in medical care and mental health services so woeful they are unconstitutional.
"The violations have persisted for years," the high court said in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. "They remain uncorrected."
Justices sharply split
The court majority cited stark instances of overcrowding: 54 inmates sharing a single toilet, suicidal inmates being held for long periods in "telephone booth-sized cages without toilets," up to 50 ill inmates being held without treatment for five hours in a 12-by-20 foot cage.
"After one prisoner was assaulted in a crowded gymnasium, prison staff did not even learn of the injury until the prisoner had been dead for several hours," Kennedy wrote.
The court took the unusual step of including photographs of crowded prison conditions with the majority opinion, but it was clear the justices were sharply divided in their views.
Justice Antonin Scalia said in a dissenting opinion that the majority decision was "radical" and that "the proceedings that led to this result were a judicial travesty."
Prisoners who may win release under the court's decision "will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym," he added.
Justice Samuel Alito said in his own dissent that the original estimate of how much the state would have had to reduce its inmate population – by 46,000 prisoners – is "the equivalent of three Army divisions."
The governor said the court's decision reinforces the need for the Legislature to approve his budget and the realignment plan it contains to shift thousands of nonviolent prison inmates to the custody of county jails.
"As we work to carry out the court's ruling, I will take all steps necessary to protect public safety," Brown said.
Corrections Secretary Matthew Cate told reporters that prison conditions have improved vastly since the court battles began and that the state has taken dramatic steps to cut the inmate population in recent years.
Those efforts included sending more than 10,000 inmates to prisons in other states, placing more than 30,000 nonviolent offenders on non-revocable parole and increasing the amount of time credited for good behavior that inmates can earn.
Today, the state's first medical parole hearing will take place at Corcoran State Prison under an effort to remove incapacitated and vegetative inmates from prisons to cut costs and overcrowding.
Even with those efforts, Cate said, the state "respects the order of the court and will comply."
Tax money key to plan
Much of the effort to comply would come from legislation Brown signed last month, Assembly Bill 109, to carry out the inmate shift.
But that happens only if the state provides sufficient money to local governments. Brown and legislative Democrats want to extend higher rates on vehicle and sales taxes to pay for it.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said the timing of the Supreme Court's decision was "very significant" because it comes just weeks before lawmakers are scheduled to vote on the state budget and Brown's revenue package.
"Either the court will do it or we have the opportunity to do it right," said Steinberg, a Sacramento Democrat.
"One of the worst things we could do would be to give sheriffs and police chiefs and local communities this responsibility, which is coming by virtue of the Supreme Court decision, and not give them the resources to be able to do their jobs," he said.
By 2014-15, Brown's plan envisions the state will have diverted 40,984 inmates from state prisons to local jails. That includes "lower-level" offenders and those who currently must return to prison for several months after violating parole.
His proposal would shift about $955 million in state costs during 2011-12, as well as $611 million to $762 million annually in subsequent years. All would be funded by the tax extensions over five years.
Republicans, who oppose Brown's tax plan, criticized the court's decision. They say shifting inmates to local facilities could force an early release of dangerous individuals since many county jails are filled beyond capacity.
"People that go to the state prison system aren't there because they stole a pack of chewing gum," said Senate Republican Leader Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga. "There are some very serious people there."
INMATE NUMBERS AT A GLANCE
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ordered California to reduce its prison population to 109,805 inmates. There were 143,435 inmates in 33 adult prisons across the state as of Monday. The prison system is designed to hold 80,000 inmates.
In recent years, the state has taken steps to reduce overcrowding by:
• Housing 10,000 inmates out of state.
• Placing 5,000 inmates in fire camps.
• Ordering 4,000 to 5,000 inmates to community correctional centers.
Gov. Jerry Brown's realignment proposal would send an estimated 40,900 nonviolent prisoners to local jails by 2015.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Spending Limits Don’t Balance Budgets
California Budget Bites
Press reports and the rumor mill are once again hinting that some type of new-fangled spending limit may be under consideration as part of negotiations over extending temporary taxes needed to balance the state’s budget. Thus our interest was piqued when we read that State Treasurer Bill Lockyer had developed a packet of charts and graphs analyzing the impact of various types of limits on future spending. The Treasurer’s analysis clearly documents the harsh impact that ACA 4 of 2010, placed on the ballot as part of the October 2010 budget agreement, as well as other types of caps might have on future spending.
If approved by the voters – the measure will go on the 2012 primary ballot – ACA 4 would require deeper spending cuts than even an “all cuts” 2011-12 spending plan. ACA 4, similar to Proposition 1A of 2009, uses a statistical technique known as a “linear regression” to limit future years’ spending. Beginning in 2013-14, ACA 4 would restrict the use of “unanticipated revenues,” defined as the lesser of the difference between:
Estimated General Fund revenues for a given fiscal year and an amount determined “by a linear regression” of the prior 20 years’ General Fund revenues; or
Esimated General Fund revenues, transfers, and available balances and the prior year’s estimated spending adjusted for population and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for California.
We’ve written about many of the problems inherent in this type of approach before in our analyses of Proposition 1A of 2009 and Proposition 76 of 2005. We’ll also release an analysis of ACA 4 in the near future. While no details of measures that may be under consideration as part of the current debate are publicly available, there’s every reason to suspect that such a measure would impose an even more stringent straightjacket than ACA 4.
At the end of the day, it is important to remember that California has had a constitutional spending limit since 1979. Moreover, California’s limit is arguably one of the toughest in the nation. If spending limits balanced budgets, California wouldn’t be where it is today. In fact, spending caps simply limit lawmakers’ options for responding to shortfalls in tough times and limit states’ ability to respond to an increasingly competitive global economy.
Voters have defeated additional limits on state spending twice in less than a decade: first with the defeat of Proposition 76 in 2005 and again with the defeat of Proposition 1A of 2009. That should send a clear enough signal. As we’ve said before, and will no doubt say again, a balanced approach is the only reasonable approach to solving California’s budget problems.
– Jean Ross
Press reports and the rumor mill are once again hinting that some type of new-fangled spending limit may be under consideration as part of negotiations over extending temporary taxes needed to balance the state’s budget. Thus our interest was piqued when we read that State Treasurer Bill Lockyer had developed a packet of charts and graphs analyzing the impact of various types of limits on future spending. The Treasurer’s analysis clearly documents the harsh impact that ACA 4 of 2010, placed on the ballot as part of the October 2010 budget agreement, as well as other types of caps might have on future spending.
If approved by the voters – the measure will go on the 2012 primary ballot – ACA 4 would require deeper spending cuts than even an “all cuts” 2011-12 spending plan. ACA 4, similar to Proposition 1A of 2009, uses a statistical technique known as a “linear regression” to limit future years’ spending. Beginning in 2013-14, ACA 4 would restrict the use of “unanticipated revenues,” defined as the lesser of the difference between:
Estimated General Fund revenues for a given fiscal year and an amount determined “by a linear regression” of the prior 20 years’ General Fund revenues; or
Esimated General Fund revenues, transfers, and available balances and the prior year’s estimated spending adjusted for population and the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for California.
We’ve written about many of the problems inherent in this type of approach before in our analyses of Proposition 1A of 2009 and Proposition 76 of 2005. We’ll also release an analysis of ACA 4 in the near future. While no details of measures that may be under consideration as part of the current debate are publicly available, there’s every reason to suspect that such a measure would impose an even more stringent straightjacket than ACA 4.
At the end of the day, it is important to remember that California has had a constitutional spending limit since 1979. Moreover, California’s limit is arguably one of the toughest in the nation. If spending limits balanced budgets, California wouldn’t be where it is today. In fact, spending caps simply limit lawmakers’ options for responding to shortfalls in tough times and limit states’ ability to respond to an increasingly competitive global economy.
Voters have defeated additional limits on state spending twice in less than a decade: first with the defeat of Proposition 76 in 2005 and again with the defeat of Proposition 1A of 2009. That should send a clear enough signal. As we’ve said before, and will no doubt say again, a balanced approach is the only reasonable approach to solving California’s budget problems.
– Jean Ross
Friday, April 29, 2011
College Bound
The Sacarmento Bee reports that more California high school courses will blend college and career prep.
For years, high schools have prepared some students for college and others for work. Now there's a push at the highest levels of state government to meld the two, so that as students learn job skills, they're also fulfilling course requirements needed to get into college.
You can see the concept at work at Cosumnes Oaks High School in Elk Grove, where a licensed contractor teaches college-prep engineering classes.
"I know I have a lot of students that aren't going to college, but my goal is still to prepare them because ultimately they have to be critical thinkers, whether they're in the workforce or they go to school," said Tim McDougal, a college-educated teacher who owned a contracting business for 12 years.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/27/3581302/classes.html#ixzz1KvryqEw6
For years, high schools have prepared some students for college and others for work. Now there's a push at the highest levels of state government to meld the two, so that as students learn job skills, they're also fulfilling course requirements needed to get into college.
You can see the concept at work at Cosumnes Oaks High School in Elk Grove, where a licensed contractor teaches college-prep engineering classes.
"I know I have a lot of students that aren't going to college, but my goal is still to prepare them because ultimately they have to be critical thinkers, whether they're in the workforce or they go to school," said Tim McDougal, a college-educated teacher who owned a contracting business for 12 years.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/04/27/3581302/classes.html#ixzz1KvryqEw6
Monday, April 25, 2011
Council lifts employment restrictions on ex-cons
By Chirs Frost
Compton - The Compton City Council voted unanimously on April 5 to eliminate a restriction barring ex-convicts from applying for many city jobs.
The resolution – dubbed “ban the box” because it would eliminate the box on job applications that must be check if the applicant has been convicted of a felony – was brought to the council by All of Us or None, a group that opposes discrimination against those who have served prison sentences.
Saying the measure is in the “true spirit” of ban the box, Melissa Burch, from All of Us or None, commended the council for the move. However, she did express concerns as the initiative moves into the implementation phase.
The resolution needs to ensure that employers provide a copy of background checks for prospective employees, Burch said, and all them to contest any errors in the report.
“Arrests not leading to convictions will not be considered, but it should specify that dismissed convictions will also not be considered,” she said. “According to the regulations of California’s Fair Housing and Employment Act, expunged and dismissed convictions are not to be considered by prospective employers.”
She said the group is willing to meet with the city attorney to resolve any concerns and help the resolution move through implementation successfully.
District 3 Councilwoman Yvonne Arceneaux said she is happy the resolution made the agenda.
“They’ve served their time and paid their debt to society,” she said. “Everyone has made mistakes along the way.”
Mayor Eric J. Perrodin said that the initiative is good and he supports second chances.
“I live second chances in my courtroom every day,” he said. “I think they should be afforded an opportunity, but they shouldn’t be given an opportunity over the kids who didn’t do anything wrong.”
While the measure would open up many jobs to those who have been convicted or a crime, the resolution still bars those who have committed a crime directly related to the job.
“If you’ve been arrested for child molestation, you can’t work in the Parks and Recreation Department,” Perrodin said.
Many residents spoke in favor of the resolution and commended the council for taking action.
Vonia Quarles said she took advantage of the opportunities she had when she was paroled.
“I support ban the box because I am a third generation felon,” she said. “Because a lady withheld my background check, I was able to get gainful employment.”
Quarles said her employer invested in her and, as a result, she used the opportunity to go to college and get a law degree.
Minnie Sawyer, who has opened her home to people who were being paroled in the past, spoke in favor of the measure.
Compton - The Compton City Council voted unanimously on April 5 to eliminate a restriction barring ex-convicts from applying for many city jobs.
The resolution – dubbed “ban the box” because it would eliminate the box on job applications that must be check if the applicant has been convicted of a felony – was brought to the council by All of Us or None, a group that opposes discrimination against those who have served prison sentences.
Saying the measure is in the “true spirit” of ban the box, Melissa Burch, from All of Us or None, commended the council for the move. However, she did express concerns as the initiative moves into the implementation phase.
The resolution needs to ensure that employers provide a copy of background checks for prospective employees, Burch said, and all them to contest any errors in the report.
“Arrests not leading to convictions will not be considered, but it should specify that dismissed convictions will also not be considered,” she said. “According to the regulations of California’s Fair Housing and Employment Act, expunged and dismissed convictions are not to be considered by prospective employers.”
She said the group is willing to meet with the city attorney to resolve any concerns and help the resolution move through implementation successfully.
District 3 Councilwoman Yvonne Arceneaux said she is happy the resolution made the agenda.
“They’ve served their time and paid their debt to society,” she said. “Everyone has made mistakes along the way.”
Mayor Eric J. Perrodin said that the initiative is good and he supports second chances.
“I live second chances in my courtroom every day,” he said. “I think they should be afforded an opportunity, but they shouldn’t be given an opportunity over the kids who didn’t do anything wrong.”
While the measure would open up many jobs to those who have been convicted or a crime, the resolution still bars those who have committed a crime directly related to the job.
“If you’ve been arrested for child molestation, you can’t work in the Parks and Recreation Department,” Perrodin said.
Many residents spoke in favor of the resolution and commended the council for taking action.
Vonia Quarles said she took advantage of the opportunities she had when she was paroled.
“I support ban the box because I am a third generation felon,” she said. “Because a lady withheld my background check, I was able to get gainful employment.”
Quarles said her employer invested in her and, as a result, she used the opportunity to go to college and get a law degree.
Minnie Sawyer, who has opened her home to people who were being paroled in the past, spoke in favor of the measure.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
KEEP UP THE FIGHT FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
By Shonda Hutton
In the 112th session of Congress, Republicans have declared war against the American Woman – war against me, you, your mother, sister, daughter, aunt, niece, and friend. They want to undo her right to make decisions about her body.
Her body, her choice!
Congressman Mike Pence and US Senator David Vitter seem to think they know what’s best for women, especially low-income women of color.
How could that be? Because they both introduced legislation this year to undo a woman’s right to access affordable health care services.
Vitter introduced S.96, Title X Family Planning Act, which will amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit federal family planning funds from being awarded to any grantees who offer abortion services.
Pence introduced a similar bill in Congress named Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R.217), which will amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from providing any federal family planning assistance to any entity who performs an abortion.
This is NOT JUST about abortion – Pro-life or Pro-choice – this about a woman’s right to access basic primary and preventative health care. Services that allow women to take care of her health needs:
• Birth control
• Breast and cervical cancer screenings
• Pelvic exams and pap smears
• High blood pressure
• Diabetes and anemia screenings
• Testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV
• Basic fertility services
• Pregnancy test
• Comprehensive health education
How could you deny a woman access to critical services?
What is the Republican Party’s interest?
My guess, they want to blow smoke and mirrors in front of the eyes of millions of Americans as they turn a blind eye to the issues that are truly important – economic growth, lessening the budget deficit, and education reform.
Truth be told, Title X funds cannot be used for abortion services.
But the Republicans will have us believe so.
Put your armor on because the battle has begun. Like the brave soldiers who fought for civil liberties for people of color and the rights of all people in the 1960s, we must fight for women to maintain their reproductive rights.
No matter if you are a lefty or a righty, one thing is clear you are an American. How would you feel if your own country raged war against you?
Her body, her choice!
Congressman Mike Pence and US Senator David Vitter seem to think they know what’s best for women, especially low-income women of color.
How could that be? Because they both introduced legislation this year to undo a woman’s right to access affordable health care services.
Vitter introduced S.96, Title X Family Planning Act, which will amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit federal family planning funds from being awarded to any grantees who offer abortion services.
Pence introduced a similar bill in Congress named Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R.217), which will amend the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from providing any federal family planning assistance to any entity who performs an abortion.
This is NOT JUST about abortion – Pro-life or Pro-choice – this about a woman’s right to access basic primary and preventative health care. Services that allow women to take care of her health needs:
• Birth control
• Breast and cervical cancer screenings
• Pelvic exams and pap smears
• High blood pressure
• Diabetes and anemia screenings
• Testing for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV
• Basic fertility services
• Pregnancy test
• Comprehensive health education
How could you deny a woman access to critical services?
What is the Republican Party’s interest?
My guess, they want to blow smoke and mirrors in front of the eyes of millions of Americans as they turn a blind eye to the issues that are truly important – economic growth, lessening the budget deficit, and education reform.
Truth be told, Title X funds cannot be used for abortion services.
But the Republicans will have us believe so.
Put your armor on because the battle has begun. Like the brave soldiers who fought for civil liberties for people of color and the rights of all people in the 1960s, we must fight for women to maintain their reproductive rights.
No matter if you are a lefty or a righty, one thing is clear you are an American. How would you feel if your own country raged war against you?
Friday, April 15, 2011
Limiting Use of Shackles on Incarcerated Pregnant Women
Pregnant women, the majority of whom are in for non-violent and non-serious offenses, are frequently shackled by the ankles, wrists, belly, and even to another person while being transported to and from a correctional facility. 
The incidence of minor trauma, especially falls, increases as pregnancy progresses and excessive shackling poses undue health risks to a woman throughout her pregnancy. Accordingly, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes the use of shackles on pregnant women in all but the most extreme circumstances.
In 2008, Federal law (42 USC §17501) prohibited shackling of pregnant prisoners in federal facilities for all but the most extreme cases.
Costs to implement regulations are minimal as any regulatory changes will be incorporated in the routine regulatory review cycle of the entities involved.
AB 568 protects the safety of pregnant women and protects counties and the state from potential liability by requiring that pregnant women be restrained in the least restrictive way possible, consistent with the legitimate security needs of each woman.
The incidence of minor trauma, especially falls, increases as pregnancy progresses and excessive shackling poses undue health risks to a woman throughout her pregnancy. Accordingly, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes the use of shackles on pregnant women in all but the most extreme circumstances.The use of shackles prohibits doctors from treating women with such potentially fatal conditions as pre-eclampsya which is frequently suffered by pregnant women
In 2008, Federal law (42 USC §17501) prohibited shackling of pregnant prisoners in federal facilities for all but the most extreme cases.
Costs to implement regulations are minimal as any regulatory changes will be incorporated in the routine regulatory review cycle of the entities involved.
AB 568 protects the safety of pregnant women and protects counties and the state from potential liability by requiring that pregnant women be restrained in the least restrictive way possible, consistent with the legitimate security needs of each woman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)