Decision over prisons a matter of state rights

In early August, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered California to reduce its prison population by 40,000 inmates in the next two years.

This is the largest federally mandated state prison reduction order ever forced over the objection of state officials. This blatant usurpation of states' rights is not only unconstitutional, but dangerous to the public safety of Californians.

The release order arose out of two lawsuits alleging that prison overcrowding was resulting in an overburdened health care system and the resulting poor care was a violation of prisoners' constitutional rights.

However, the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which was enacted by Congress in 1996 as a means to protect states from frivolous prisoner lawsuits, made any federal release order - including population reduction - a "remedy of last resort."

Regardless, the court decided that health care reform had not been properly addressed - therefore a mandatory release order was the last resort. Yet the original act was never intended to have such broad interpretation to allow it to be used in such a way.

The federal order not only demands the release of mass numbers of prisoners, it also recommends policy in which to safely do so.

The California Senate and Assembly in the last few weeks have been scrambling to produce a plan that would decrease prison population in the time granted to them. Amidst fierce debate, the bodies have not produced reform that would adhere to the mandate and still keep Californians safe.

Rather, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently asked the federal courts to delay the order and plans to file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court. If this fails, a dangerous precedent of the federal court dictating states' public safety laws will be set.

Will the state have control over the fate of their corrections system? Effective policy is needed, but whose?

The answer is explicit in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, which puts the power in the state's hands. The mass release of inmates will also strain an already overburden parole/probation system. The court's answer: that the effect will be "mitigated by the gradual release of prisoners" into the parole program.

How is the release of 40,000 prisoners in two years, gradual?

Prison overcrowding in California has reached an impasse and new avenues must be pursued, but federal judges ordering the mass release of inmates from state prisons tramples on the right of states to establish their own public safety laws and must be challenged by California in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

<B>NOTE:</B><I> Guest columnist </I><B>Courtney O'Brien</B> is the Legislative Assistant for the Public Safety and Elections Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council.