Search

The article provides a background to California's COVID-19 correctional catastrophe. Topics include state of prison healthcare in California and the outcomes of federal litigation to improve it; laws governing prison litigation under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996; and the U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Plata and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case Plata v. Newsom on same.

The article discusses challenges of split sentencing in the U.S. Topics discussed include enactment of California's Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011 and its impact of sentencing laws in the country; Brown v. Plata court case addressing prison population; and California's criminal justice system. It also mentions about judges take on the same.

Research Summary: Recent declines in imprisonment raise a critical question: Can prison populations be reduced without endangering the public? This question is examined by testing the effect of California's dramatic efforts to comply with court‐mandated targets to reduce prison overcrowding using a pretest‐posttest design. The results showed that California's Realignment Act had no effect on violent or property crime rates in 2012, 2013, or 2014. When crime types were disaggregated, a moderately large, statistically significant association between Realignment and auto theft rates was observed in 2012. By 2014, however, this effect had decayed and auto theft rates returned to pre‐Realignment levels. Policy Implications: Significant reductions in the size of prison populations are possible without endangering public safety. Within just 15 months of its passage, Realignment reduced the size of the total prison population by 27,527 inmates, prison crowding declined from 181% to 150% of design capacity, approximately $453 million was saved, and there was no adverse effect on the overall safety of Californians. With a mixture of jail use, community corrections, law enforcement and other preventive efforts, California counties have provided a comparable level of public safety to that previously achieved by state prisons. Nevertheless, sustaining these policy objectives will require greater attention to local implementation, targeted crime prevention, and sentencing reform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

American prisons are seriously overcrowded, perhaps more than ever in our history. Before the era of mass incarceration, prisoner advocates sought to build on progressive penological ideas about the proper standards for housing prisoners, which focused on one person to each prison cell to create a jurisprudence of overcrowding that might compel states to reduce their reliance on incarceration. The goal failed, and states adopted tough new sentencing laws that increased imprisonment. As the prison book got under way, the Supreme Court decisively rejected the one person to a cell rule in the 1981 case of Rhodes v. Chapman. This Essay returns to this failed jurisprudence to argue that it has been outdated by a fundamental transformation in the nature of prison overcrowding. Before mass incarceration, overcrowding was primarily a product of antiquated prisons and the reluctance of states to pay for new modern facilities to better fit the then dominant rehabilitative objectives. While overcrowding was a problem, states had effective tools to deal with it, especially parole laws that allowed centralized administrative boards to control the pace of prison releases. Mass incarceration has created a new type of overcrowding, one that is far more severe and enduring than in the past. This new chronic hyper overcrowding plays out in a context where prisoners serve much longer sentences, have less access to rehabilitative programs, and greater unmet needs for medical and mental health treatment. The old overcrowding led to conflicts and riots. The new overcrowding leads to inhumane treatment and sometimes tortuous suffering on a routine basis. With states having eliminated parole mechanisms for the majority of prisoners, the time is ripe for the courts to recognize that the new overcrowding has rendered past precedents out of date and invalid. We need a new jurisprudence of overcrowding; one that recognizes the need for a hard constitutional limit, like one prisoner to one cell. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Brown v. Plata suggests that the Court is now aware of the magnitude of the problem and lower courts have begun to test the applicability of a strengthened overcrowding norm more appropriate to the age of mass incarceration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While most states are considering reducing the impact of mass incarceration in their prison systems, few states have faced a larger challenge than California, and few states have reduced their convict and parole population as much as California. Federal court intervention and a series of legislative and voter-initiated reforms in California have changed the landscape in one of the nation’s largest criminal justice systems. This article draws on a variety of data sources to explore a potentially historic moment in the quest to end mass incarceration; it remains to be seen whether the public debate over appropriate punishments changed among criminal justice interest groups, such as corrections officers, law enforcement, prosecutors, the judiciary, victim advocates, and liberal and conservative spokespersons. Has the fear of crime among the citizenry changed, and has the public embraced a different response to lawbreakers? There have been important law changes that reduce some felonies to lesser crimes and incentives to punish offenders in local corrections rather than state prisons (known as Realignment), but genuine reductions in mass incarceration will require even more actions. Based on my review of California trends in crime, punishment, and public opinion, I argue that even while there will likely be more progress in decriminalizing drug crimes and other nonviolent crimes, public attitudes toward more serious offenders will be decisive in forecasting the future of mass imprisonment and the California prison gulag. At present, California is pursuing an incremental approach to reducing the numbers in prison for very serious crimes. Reform of prisons is likely to consist of small bites of change in sentencing and parole policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Habitual felon legislation is not new, but during the last 20 years it has become a powerful instrument of penal populism. Since passage of California's landmark 1994 three-strikes initiative, more than 100,000 offenders have been incarcerated in that state, contributing to prison crowding so serious that, in 2011, in Brown v. Plata, the United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its prison population by 46,000 persons. While the Californian three-strikes law is unusually draconian, habitual offender legislation also has been enacted in Australia and, more recently, in New Zealand. While little official data are available about New Zealand’s three-strikes law, preliminary analysis indicates that minority groups are overrepresented in the three-strikes population, and that three-strikes demographics resemble those of the New Zealand general prison population. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article focuses on sealing or expungement of the criminal records in order to increase the employment and housing for ex-convicts. It mentions the need of urgency in the movement for strengthening and expanding the laws related to the mass criminalization, mass collateral consequences of criminal records and technological advances that make criminal records easily accessible. It also mentions the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Brown v. Plata on the mass incarceration.

The article discusses the need of reform in California's sentencing practice and policies as of October 2014. Topics discussed include decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the "Brown v. Plata" case regarding California's state prison system; the U.S. Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) which validated the structural injunctions in cases attacking conditions of confinement, and California's draconian sentencing laws.

The article focuses on the concept of human dignity associated with concepts of crime prevention and mass incarceration in countries such as U.S and European Union. Topics discussed include the human dignity concept associated with decreasing imprisonment rates in the U.S, the U.S Supreme Court's decision in case Brown v. Plata and the donations made by the U.S Prison Law Office to corrections project directed by the Vera Institute of Justice.

The article focuses on the challenges faced by suicidal prisoners and the U.S Constitution Eighth Amendment that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and reduces prisoner suicide in the U.S. Topics discussed include suicidal prevention measures, the U.S Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Plata that dealt with the mistreatment of mentally ill prisoners in prison overcrowding issues, and risk of lawsuit from inmate suicide.

The article examines the scope of a potential federal remedial order to combat the overcrowding in the prison system of Alabama under the U.S. Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). It mentions the effects of the PLRA on remedial relief available to inmates interpretations of the Act in the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Brown v. Plata. It mentions the report from U.S. Department of Justice on the conditions of prisoners inside Julia Tutwiler Prison for Women in Alabama.

The article discusses the concept of remedial judicial discretion in relation to constitutional adjudication in America, focusing on the attitudes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts in regards to the case Brown v. Plata which deals with injunctions, prison overcrowding in California, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Dissenting opinions, prisoner releases, and non-retroactivity doctrines are also examined.

The article focuses on the matter of downsizing of prisoners in California prison and its impact on the criminal justice systems in the State. Topics discussed include overcrowding issues faced by the State, the U.S Supreme Court's decision in case Brown v. Plata regarding reduction of prison population in California within two years, the Public Safety Realignment Act in California. It mentions several reports released by Department of Justice regarding decline in the U.S. prison population.

The article discusses the political aspects of California's criminal justice policy realignment plan, focusing on rehabilitation for criminals, the theory of retribution, and the potential impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2011 prison population-related case Brown v. Plata on California's criminal justice policy. Other topics include U.S. federal courts, prison construction in America, and various sentencing reform proposals. Cruel and unusual punishments are also examined.

Justice Kennedy's opinion in United States v. Windsor is characterized by a number of strained and wavering constitutional claims. Prominent among these is the argument that the principle of federalism calls into question the congressional decision to adopt the traditional definition of marriage, which the state of New York rejected. An examination of earlier federalism cases demonstrates that Kennedy's appreciation for federalism is in fact severely limited and suggests and that his lax use of legal authority is directly--if perversely--related to this limited appreciation. Federalism cases prior to Windsor show that Justice Kennedy supports state authority only when it presents no serious challenge to national authority. Indeed, the cases indicate that he is deeply fearful that a robust system of federalism would be dangerous to nationhood. Furthermore, he sees national authority as fragile in part because he has long understood the Court's constitutional decisions, a principal symbol of nationhood, as being based only loosely in conventional legal authority and, therefore, to be highly contestable. The Windsor opinion's imprecise argumentation reflects this skepticism about the conclusiveness of conventional legal authority. Perversely, it is this same skepticism that has led Justice Kennedy to support a strong version of judicial supremacy in cases like Casey v. Planned Parenthood, where a state contested the Court's interpretative power, and Brown v. Plata, where a state undermined a federal court's remedial authority. Thus, Windsor cannot realistically be viewed as being based on respect for state authority over the issue of marriage; rather, Justice Kennedy's opinion in Windsor insists that Congress should have deferred to New York's definition of marriage because that definition reinforced, rather than challenged, the Court's earlier pronouncements on gay rights in Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas. In short, Windsor rests on an exalted view of the need for the Supreme Court's supremacy and at the same time exhibits the reasons for self-doubt that underlie this exalted view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the Chapter 837 of the California legislature, which provides jail inmates with medical financial aid and other benefits under realignment. It informs that Chapter 837 allows state prisons to use county jails for decentralizing their financial burden under realignment by releasing deathly ill jail inmates. it discusses the important case of Brown v. Plata in which the U.S. Supreme Court used realignment to reduce prison population in California.

The article focuses on the rulings of the Supreme Court Case Brown v. Plata. The case pertained to prisoners and their release in county jails. According to an article in periodical "the Economist" the overcrowded state-run prisons in California are rpesent in deserts in outskirts o cities. However, the "Los Angeles Times" newspaper reported that many first time offenders were shifted to county-run jails where they were either sent to mental health centers or under house arrest.

The article focuses on the use of images in judicial opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court for oral argument. It discusses the benefits and harms of such images by drawing the U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding the use of the reapportionment map in Karcher v. Daggettz, the cruise-line ticket in Carnival Cruise, Inc. v. Shute, and the three photos in Brown v. Plata. It suggests that in spite of using artifacts and photographs the Court justices should only use words in their judicial opinions.

The article discusses the Supreme Court case Brown v. Plata and the implications of mandatory minimum sentencing for overcrowding in American prisons. Topics mentioned include statistics on the number of persons currently imprisoned in the United States, the role of the retributive theory of justice in developing minimum sentences, and an overview of some persons imprisoned for seemingly minor crimes.

The article offers information on the 2011 Realignment Legislation (Realignment) that addresses public safety and justice programs by the state as local in California. It analyzes the case Brown v. Plata in which the U.S. Supreme Court focused on the issue of reduction in prison population under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). it explores the challenges faced by California's counties while implementation of Realignment and examines changes to California's penal law made by Realignment.

The article discusses various medical models of treatment for prisoners in U.S. penal institutions as of April 2013, focusing on an assessment of the meaning of imprisonment, as well as information about author John Howard's books about jail fever and the conditions in English jails in the eighteenth century. The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2011 case Brown v. Plata, which deals with a humanitarian medical crisis in California's prisons, disease, and prison overcrowding.

The article discusses several proposals regarding enactments of institutional reform litigation in America in relation to jails, prisons, and courts as of April 2013, focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2011 case Brown v. Plata which deals with American constitutional law and efforts to reduce prison overcrowding in California. Other topics include civil rights-related lawsuits, prison populations, and the U.S. Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).

The United States Supreme Court made one of its most controversial decisions in recent memory in May 2011. Brown v. Plata involved a class action by inmates in California who alleged that their Eighth Amendment rights had been violated because overcrowding in the State's prisons prevented access to adequate physical and mental health care. After California failed to comply with previous orders to remedy those conditions, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ordered the State to reduce its prison population by forty-six thousand inmates. Forced to either affirm the release order and jeopardize public safety or reverse the order and allow continued violation of prisoners' Eighth Amendment rights, the Supreme Court chose the former. Understandably, many questioned the wisdom of both the decision and the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the statute that required it. As a result, the need for prison reform and alternatives to mass incarceration are clearer than ever. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the process of interpreting pain in adjudication and reflects on the gap between rights and remedies in legal order. It examines legal cases originating from an acute instance of suffering and involving a tension between competing legal principles, one influencing in favor of redress and the other in favor of dismissal. The cases examined include Snyder v. Phelps, Brown v. Plata, and Connick v. Thompson.

The article presents information on the detention of a person in a prison in relation to overcrowded prison population in California. It discusses the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Plata and its justification for upholding a mass release to remedy inadequate medical and mental health facilities in state prison system. It informs criminal sentencing reform inspired by the decision of Court.

The article focuses on the problem of increasing prison population and incarceration rate in California and offers information on alternatives available to the criminal justice system to reduce effect of the problem in California. It analyzes the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Plata regarding reduction in prison overcrowding under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It analyzes the effort of California to reform its prison overcrowding and growing incarceration rate.

The article discusses the legacy of the U.S. Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) as of April 2012, focusing on the PLRA's impact on a prisoner's ability to access the American federal court system to litigate alleged civil rights violations. The exhaustion requirement of the PLRA is addressed in a case involving the alleged rape of 16 female prisoners in New York by members of the prison staff. Prison overcrowding is examined in the U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Plata.

An essay is presented which explores the various forms of judicial deference shown in cases involving American prisoners and interpretations of U.S. prison laws such as the nation's Prison Litigation Reform Act as of April 2012. Several U.S. Supreme Court cases involving alleged violations of the legal rights of prisoners are addressed, including Brown v. Plata and Jones v. Bock which deal with prison overcrowding and prison procedures.

The article discusses the particular plaintiffs provision of the U.S. Prison Litigation Reform Act as of April 2012, focusing on the impact of the provision on the American constitutional rights of prisoners and their ability to litigate matters in U.S. courts. Several legal cases are addressed, including the U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Plata which deals with prison overcrowding in California.

This case note examines the controversial decision of the US Supreme Court which, by a majority of 5:4 held that California should reduce its prison population as overcrowding levels gave rise to cruel and unusual punishment. The implications of the case for the interpretation of when prisoners' rights under the Eighth Amendment are breached, the separation of powers are discussed; the possible impact on prison rates in the USA is also examined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the case "Brown v. Plata," which upheld a lower court ruling that the state of California reduce its prison census from 200 percent of holding capacity to 137.5 percent by 2014. California must not only hire additional prison staff, but must also reduce the population of its prisons by 46,000. The author discusses the obstacles to achieving this goal, including funding new prison construction, decriminalizing nonviolent crime, and shortening prison sentences at the risk of weakening deterrence. He recommends a stronger immigration enforcement policy and eliminating the imprisonment before deportation rule as part of a solution to overcrowded prisons.

In its May 2011 Brown v. Plata decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a remedial order that required the potential release of a shockingly large number of California prison inmates. The Court found that, because of overcrowding in its prisons, California had failed to provide adequate health care to its prisoners--a failure that constituted a systemwide violation of the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. In order to reach its ultimate result, however, the Court had to confront the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a statute that Congress had enacted to combat precisely the type of prison reform litigation that Plata embodied. In the end, the Court found its way through the PLRA's requirements and, in the process, reinforced a strong judicial prerogative to fashion remedies, which now more clearly includes the rare structural injunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States Supreme Court decision of Brown v Plata, handed down on 23 May 2011, the majority denounced the overcrowding conditions in Californian prisons insofar as they impacted upon the mental and physical health of prisoners and upheld an order mandating such prisons to reduce their populations to 137.5% of design capacity. The majority judgment found there had been a breach of the Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and that it was appropriate for the courts to ensure that the right was enforceable. This paper reviews the landmark and controversial judgments in Brown v Plata and argues that it is a decision in relation to the obligation for imprisoning authorities to care for the wellbeing of prisoners that is likely to have significant repercussions well beyond the confines of the United States. It raises squarely the potential for the cruel and unusual punishment preclusion to be used as a potent protection for those made vulnerable and dependent by reason of their incarceration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article compares the prison conditions, practices, and criminal justice philosophies in European Union (EU) countries with those of the U.S and focuses on issues surrounding prison reform in EU countries. Topics discussed include U.S Supreme Court's decision in case Brown v. Plata that addressed prisoners' rights, a tour conducted by students from the University of Maryland to correctional facilities in Germany and prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment under Eighth Amendment.