Three Judge Panel Takes Further Step Toward Prison Cap on California

The drama of whether and when federal courts in California will order population caps on California's super-sized and massively overcrowded prison system took another step forward yesterday. The three judge panel composed of Appeals Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt from the 9th Circuit and two District Court judges, Judge Lawrence Karlton of the ED District of California and Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the Northern District issued a seven page ruling (check here for it to be posted) that set out a briefing a trial schedule for a two part process. In phase I, the plaintiffs will have the burden of proving that a prison population cap is the least intrusive approach the courts can take in relieving the unconstitutional conditions brought on by the overcrowding. If the courts find with the plaintiffs in phase I, phase II will unfold to consider the actual form a population cap remedy might take.

The order also sets out a briefing and hearing schedule that aims to bring phase I too trial in February of 2008. Assuming the court finds that a cap is necessary, phase II should be underway by spring. With appeals however, it is hard to imagine real caps biting before 2009 begins. Keep in mind that the courts have already found that currently unconstitutional practices lead to as many as 1 unnecessary death from medical care failings every week in the system. That probably means 100 inmates will die from untreated by treatable medical problems before the caps come into play (how many prisoners have died at Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib?)

The order also makes an important determination that statutory intervenors including state legislators, county district attorneys, county sheriffs and other local criminal justice officials will be allowed to intervene as parties (giving them powers of discovery and a voice in the hearings) only during phase II. These intervenors are precisely the political actors that my book Governing through Crime describes as the most reliable and fierce defenders of a war on crime mentality (see chapter 2 on prosecutors and chapter 3 on legislators). The Prison Litigation Reform Act, a classic piece of war on crime legislation, enacted in the 1990s to hamper prison reform action by the courts, specifically empowered those kinds of actors to intervene as of right in proceedings to which a population limitation is possible outcome. This suggests that one of the express purposes of the Act was to maintain the growth of mass imprisonment in the US. In limiting the statutory intervenors to only one phase the three judge panel is opening one of the largest avenues for reversal on appeal. This might result in an immediate delay in the case if an appeal is taken to this intermediate order. But if the judges are permitted to continue with phase I, this could result in a finding that a population cap is necessary sometime early spring 08. The actual cap would be delayed as the intervenors sought discovery and other litigation rights that will slow the process. This might have the happy result of putting maximum pressure on the Governor and the California legislature to solve the problems of the system before the no longer imaginary caps are implemented, while also providing space for the nearly paralyzed California political system to work.

The order does allow one third party to participate fully in phase I. That is the CCPOA, the union of the correctional officers. The union has no statutory right to intervene, but the panel has apparently concluded that they are essential to producing a viable cap (which the union supports).

US and Iran: Drug Obsessed Theocracies?

According to a recent report from Iran's own prison chief, carried by Yahoo.com drug offenses account for the largest category of prisoners of the Islamic Republic. That would be even higher than the US where most estimates place drug offenders at 1/3 to 1/2 of current prison inmates in the US. Iran with 225 inmates for every 100,000 adult residents lags the US with more than twice that proportion of its population in either jails or prisons.

Three Times as Much

How much more money the State of California spends to run its prisons as it spends to run the UC system according to Richard C. Paddock's reporting in the LA Times. Of course UC is only the top of the larger pyramid of state supported higher education with many more students attending Cal State University campuses and community colleges. Still the two systems looked more closer in scale during the 1960s when the UC system was building its 8th campus at Santa Cruz and the Department of Corrections was operating around a dozen institutions.

Safety First! School Security Uber Alles

News reports from Knight Highschool in Palmdale, California, brings us the latest images of what life in high school is like under the regime of governing schools through crime. When 16-year-old Pleajhia Mervin dropped a birthday cake she was carrying in the cafeteria to celebrate a friend's birthday, and didn't clean it up to the satisfaction of the school's 300 pound (est.) racist school security guard, she got her wrist broken, got called "nappy headed" and was expelled. When another friend filmed it on his cell phone (watch it here) he got tackled. When her mom came to complain, she got arrested for assault on the principal and spent the night in jail.

How does the school explain such senseless brutality:

"Good afternoon. I can just comment we did have an incident at our school last week. However, I would like to emphasize that we do have a safe campus. I've been working with our staff, with my district office staff, community leaders, and parents, to ensure that we continue to keep our campus safe for all students, but I want people to know that our focus here is academic excellence for all students," (said Dr. Susan McDonald, principal of Knight High School.

How did a "safe campus" become an excuse for brutality? How did sicking security guard who looks like an ex-bouncer from a biker bar on students become the icon of academic excellence at Palmdale High? Thats a good question to ask Dr. Susan McDonald. Her phone number is (661) 533-9000 ext. 184

(Thanks to Paul Hirschfield for calling this to my attention)

Governing Cruise Ships through Crime

Apparently even a cruise is no longer a way to escape from America's pervasive culture of fear. According to Kimi Yoshino's reporting in the LA Times, even these privileged vessels of the high seas now bristle with efforts to govern passengers through the problems of crime.

“Industry and law enforcement officials testified that between April 1 and Aug. 24, the FBI received 207 reports of serious crimes, including four missing Americans, 41 sexual assaults and 13 thefts of items valued at more than $10,000. Of the 18 open cases, 13 involve sexual assaults.”

“The Fort Lauderdale, Fla.-based Cruise Lines International Assn. announced the formation of a "Survivor Working Group," to be composed of victims or their families, senior-level cruise line executives and representatives of industry groups, who will meet quarterly.”

“Among the changes, Royal Caribbean is installing peepholes on cabin doors in its two newest ships and working on an existing ship. The company plans to install peepholes on doors of all its ships, a spokesman said.

“In addition, Royal Caribbean has hired female investigators and counselors, put suicide hotlines in place and required mandatory sexual harassment training. In January, the company will begin notifying guests of a shipboard policy that crew members are not to fraternize with customers.

“Additionally, cameras are being installed in hallways and corridors, though Bald conceded that those cameras were not being monitored.”

Predictably, politicians are jumping on this new opportunity to manifest their concern for the public.

"I firmly believe that to do justice to the noble victims who have so bravely shared their stories, we must take definitive action," [Rep. Doris] Matsui [(D-Sacramento)] said. "There have to be better mechanisms for crime prevention and better systems for handling the crimes when they occur."
“On Monday, Matsui and other lawmakers introduced the Protect Americans From Crimes on Cruise Ships Resolution recognizing the lack of federal regulation of crime reporting, absence of law enforcement officials and lack of information made available to cruise customers. No legislation has been introduced to specifically address the issue, but Matsui and others have expressed interest in drafting such a bill at the request of victims.”

Between Fear and Barbarity

Connecticut's parole system is back in the news a couple of months after a pair of parolees from the state were accused of kidnapping and murdering a mother and her two daughters. Christine Stuart reported in the New York Times earlier this week that Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell has halted paroles of all inmates imprisoned for violent crime.

“Until we can find a better way to determine who poses a risk to the public if released, we will not add to the ranks of people on parole,”

Of course, the parolees who stand accused of the murders were not in prison for violent crime to begin with. More importantly, we have no really reliable ways to predict who poses a risk to the public. But if the answer is to keep prisoners eligible for parole locked up until we have such reassurance, states like Connecticut will soon face the prospects of mass prison overcrowding, and the resulting barbarism we are now witnessing in California's super extended but still grossly overcrowded prison system. Indeed, the LA Times Tim Reiterman reports that the state's collapsed prison health care system may have led to the unnecessary deaths of one out of six inmates that have died in recent years.

Violent offenders should receive close supervision in the community once they have been released. But so long as Governors trade in the promise of total security through imprisonment, prisons will continue to become increasingly barbarous and the resources to make parole supervision more effecive, will never be available.

Between Fear and Barbarity

Connecticut's parole system is back in the news a couple of months after a pair of parolees from the state were accused of kidnapping and murdering a mother and her two daughters. Christine Stuart reported in the New York Times earlier this week that Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell has halted paroles of all inmates imprisoned for violent crime.

“Until we can find a better way to determine who poses a risk to the public if released, we will not add to the ranks of people on parole,”

Of course, the parolees who stand accused of the murders were not in prison for violent crime to begin with. More importantly, we have no really reliable ways to predict who poses a risk to the public. But if the answer is to keep prisoners eligible for parole locked up until we have such reassurance, states like Connecticut will soon face the prospects of mass prison overcrowding, and the resulting barbarism we are now witnessing in California's super extended but still grossly overcrowded prison system.

Violent offenders should receive close supervision in the community once they have been released. But so long as Governors trade in the promise of total security through imprisonment, prisons will continue to become increasingly barbarous and the resources to make parole supervision more effecive, will never be available.