States worry overcrowded prisons case could impact entire nation

California’s 15-year legal battle over inmates’ health care heads to U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday

By David G. Savage and Carol J. Williams / McClatchy-Tribune News Service

Published: November 29. 2010 4:00AM PST

 WASHINGTON — The suicide rate in California’s overcrowded prisons is nearly twice the national average, and one inmate dies every eight days from inadequate medical care.

These are just two indicators cited in the 15-year legal battle over whether the state’s prisons are failing to provide humane medical care for 165,000 inmates.

On Tuesday the problems of California’s prisons will move to a national stage, when the U.S. Supreme Court hears the state’s challenge to an extraordinary court order that would require the prison population to be reduced by one-fourth in two years.

That could mean releasing or transferring more than 40,000 inmates, state lawyers say.

The case is not just of interest to California.

Lawyers for 18 other states, including Illinois, Pennsylvania and Virginia, joined in support of California’s appeal, saying they feared a ruling upholding the prison-release order could trigger similar moves across the nation. “Real-world experience” suggests that releasing a large number of inmates would “inevitably place innocent citizens at much greater risk,” they said.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other state officials call the order from a panel of three federal judges “the most sweeping intrusion into a state’s management” of its prisons ever handed down by a court. They see an activist panel — composed of two federal district judges and a federal appeals judge — “using the guise of providing health care” to order a restructuring of the state’s correctional system. They also argue that the forced release of prisoners would threaten the public safety.

Defenders of the judges’ order cite Schwarzenegger’s own words in 2006 declaring that California faced an overcrowding emergency in its prisons. They also say the state is exaggerating the impact of the order.

California locks up many prisoners for repeat petty crimes or for technical parole violations, even though they are not considered dangerous or violent.

“California has people in prison who wouldn’t be in prison in any other state,” said former Bush administration Solicitor Gen. Paul Clement, who represents one group of state prisoners. His brief cites comments from a former Texas prison director who said he was surprised and disturbed by the overcrowding in California’s prisons.

Supporters of the judges’ order also emphasize it does not require a wholesale release of inmates. For example, the prisons could free up space by relocating some inmates to county jails, private prisons or out-of-state facilities. In addition, some nonviolent inmates could be released early.

“We’re sending 80,000 people to prison each year for two to three months — parole violators who are going from their home communities to sit in reception centers where there is no rehabilitation, no health care, no drug programs,” said Michael Bien, lead attorney in the case brought on behalf of prisoners deprived of mental health care.

“This is the kind of thing that everyone knows doesn’t do anything for public safety,” Bien added, “These men and women come back home after a couple of months having been exposed to much more dangerous people. If they weren’t dangerous before, they are now.”