Let My People Go

In a pretty heated 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has agreed to release thousands of prisoners, due to lack of medical care that amounted to an eighth amendment violation.

For a general background, and some context, check here.

Scratch that- THOUSANDS OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS.

I'll provide all the legal briefs at the end of the post, but please trust my representation- California State Prisons are severely lacking in providing health care to inmates who desperately need to be treated for a variety of ailments. It'll be supported by the attached references, but it's also something that I've witnessed firsthand by doing a few years' work of prison advocacy. I've dealt with clients who suffered infections that stemmed from a tooth ache that wasn't responded to for weeks, even after the appropriate medical request was sent in.

And, if you have an opportunity to read in to this further, I suggest you read the case that really served as the catalyst for the SCOTUS ruling: Plata v. Schwarzenegger. It makes the "Saw" horror movie franchise look like an episode of "Family Matters."

So, what did our highest court rule on. Here is the holding:

"1)The court below did not err in concluding that overcrowding in California prisons was the “primary” cause of the continuing violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights to adequate health care. 2) The evidence supported the conclusion of the three-judge panel that a population limit was necessary to remedy the overcrowding problem. 3) The relief ordered by the three-judge court – the population limit –was narrowly drawn, extended no further than necessary to correct the violation, and was the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation."

Source: SCOTUS blog

I haven't had an opportunity to read Scalia's dissent, but with my hand over my crystal ball, I envision that he finds this ruling to be an activist overreaching overstepping of the constitution.

I, however, see it differently. The violations outlined in Plata, supra, were so blatant that the prison health care system was placed in to federal receivership, which basically means that the feds assume control until the problem is solved. With the three judge panels' decision to release inmates affirmed by the Supremes, we effectuate the goal of not only providing better care to those incarcerated, but also relieving the tax payer of an insurmountable burden.

Allow me to address a couple of misguided arguments that I have heard all-too-often when discussing this issue:

1. Who cares what treatment we give these guys? They should be PUNISHED, not given medical care!
Yes, yes, inmates in the CDC with rare exception of a few are guilty of crimes. Hell, some of them are pretty ugly crimes. And yes, within our own Penal Code, it's very clear that the purpose of incarceration is to "punish." But here's the key: even if you had no desire of even trying to rehabilitate inmates that might be amenable to such treatment, the United States Constitution kinda provides a floor for heinous treatment. I don't really want to get in to the gruesome details of prison health care, so if you're hesitant, go ahead and reread Plata.

2. Release thousands of inmates?! But they'll move next door, drive down property values, rape and pillage, and spit in my combo burrito at Taco Bell!
People are naturally reticent to 35,000 prisoners being released back to society. However, as the SCOTUS noted, their decision to release was "narrowly tailored" to the constitutional harm, and I guarantee you all that all inmates released will be nonviolent offenders. How can I assure that? BECAUSE CALIFORNIA HAS A NASTY TENDENCY TO INCARCERATE THOUSANDS OF NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS, OFTEN DUE TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE ISSUES! By jettisoning these folks, it serves two ends, hopefully. Again, it will provide an opportunity for the CDC to comply with the fucking eighth amendment. Also, it may alleviate some of the taxes that it costs to keep a person in prison. Trust me, in most cases, especially those involving chronic medical problems, it's cheaper to send your kid to Stanford.

There's a lot more to be discussed on this matter, and as it unfolds, I'll do my best to opine. Suffice it to say, though, I am happy with the Court, and most notably the moderate swing vote Kennedy.

Sources:
SCOTUS BLOG
CDC(R)
A Cat Massaging A Dog