Unintended Consequences of Criminal Offenders Being Transferred from State Prison to County Jail

The growing population of over 150,000 inmates in state prisons in California has exceeded the level the U.S. Supreme Court opined in 2011 is permissible. There has been litigation in Federal Court to obtain a more speedy reduction of the state prison population, and a new law has been enacted as a result of the Governor and Legislature in California establishing the state’s prison realignment; this is the name given to transferring inmates to county jails to reduce the state prison population to about 110,000. A Federal three-judge court previously set June, 2013 as the deadline for California to reduce by over 37% its state prison population beyond each prison’s building capacity. The date was recently extended to February, 2016.  This narrative has been based upon the perceived challenge of the State of California to provide adequate health care to inmates.

The Federal Court allowed this additional period of time subject to transferring state prisoners to private correctional centers and county jails in California, but not any longer to out of state facilities. This was also based upon, among other reasons, the representation of Governor Brown that shorter sentences would be imposed on non-violent criminals; issuing additional good behavior credits to prisoners so they could be eligible for an earlier release; speeding up and expanding early parole for those over 65 years of age with at least 25 years in prison; along with those who are medically incapacitated, as well as expanding the rehabilitation programs provided to inmates.

The problem is not simply the transfer of inmates to County Jails, but now the local detention facilities statewide are overcrowded. Moreover, it has been alleged there is an even greater conundrum in that far more sophisticated criminals are now incarcerated in County Jails.  For example, the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department that oversees the jails in this County has reported there has been an increased number of drugs being smuggled into the jails; this drug trade that previously was typical of state prisons has now become a serious problem in county jails.  It has been reported there were 221 of these drug and alcohol cases in the San Diego County Jails in 2012, which constitutes over a 50% increase from that in 2011. There was a total of 279 of such cases in 2013, and about 335 of these particular cases between January and September, 2014.

To better address one of  these problems, San Diego has installed body scanners at a cost of $150, 000 each unit and $10,000 each year to provide service and maintenance. This month, the County Board of Supervisors also approved spending more than three-quarters of a million dollars to obtain four additional scanners and for a five year maintenance agreement. Besides visitors hiding contraband, some of those picked up for minor probation and parole violations have been smuggling drugs into the jails, as they may only be incarcerated for up to 10 days.

But what is the best solution? Clearly, we need to implement greater rehabilitation and educational programs. For the most part, we are spending the money to incarcerate people who are addicted to alcohol and drugs, have a mental illness and/or do not have sufficient education and labor skills, when rehabilitation will have a far greater impact on this growing societal problem. Many advocates believe it can help to let local and state legislators know our political views, and of course, to become more involved in community programs.

 

 

No constitutional right to jigsaw puzzle in jail, judge says

Regardless of the circumstances surrounding an alleged criminal offense and its resulting trial and conviction, beginning a jail sentence is rarely an easy transition. As such, it can be comforting for defendants to have certain personal belongings in prison with them. But as a federal judge recently made clear, inmates have no constitutional right to those items, and are therefore at the mercy of the court and jail officials when seeking comforts from home.

In the case, an inmate who was serving time in a federal prison for his role in an alleged conspiracy to commit securities fraud requested that his family be able to order and bring him a jigsaw puzzle with which to play during his incarceration. Jail officials refused, and the inmate filed a lawsuit, alleging that his constitutional right to free speech had been violated by the refusal.

Specifically, the inmate argued that possessing the puzzle was an expression of free speech and was therefore protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The judge disagreed, ruling that the inmate had not shown a clear violation of his constitutional rights by the jail’s refusal to allow the puzzle.

The inmate also argued that the prison regulations that forbade the puzzle were unfair and baseless, and that there was no logical reason to ban a puzzle that was a similar size to an allowed book. The judge again disagreed, citing the “limitations on the ability of prisons to process and store inmate property” as the reason that books are allowed but puzzles are not.

What do you think? Should the jail have allowed the puzzle?