The issues surrounding the Plata v. Brown case are violations of the constitution’s eighth amendment. The amendment prohibits the subjection of unusual punishments and cruelty to the prisoners. The lawsuit, in this case, was on behalf of the physical and mentally ill individuals incarcerated in the prison system of California. These populations’ unusual punishment and cruelty were ascribed to overcrowding and inadequate provision of basic medical care in the prisons. At the time of the ruling the population of California’s correctional facilities was almost 200% of its capacity (Legal Information Institute, 2011). Therefore, appropriate measures were necessary to address the issues.
The evidence presented before the court indicated that the overcrowding issue resulted in the cramming of prisoners into spaces that were not intended or designed to house the inmates. Two or three correctional officers also monitored about 200 prisoners crammed in such spaces (Legal Information Institute, 2011). Consequently, the severe overcrowding imperiled the inmates’ and correctional officers’ safety, leading to preventable harm and deaths. The prisoners with serious mental illnesses were not receiving adequate basic care due to a shortage of treatment beds. Suicidal prisoners and others with psychiatric disorders were confined in small cages and segregation centers with limited or without mental health services (Coppola, 2019). Such inmates would wait for up to 12 months before getting appropriate health care. Equally, physically ill inmates faced significant delays before accessing health care because of a shortage of resources. The design of California’s correctional centers and inadequate staff could not meet medical needs of more than one hundred percent of their capacity. As a result, inmates suffered, and some died from preventable and treatable illnesses.
California’s Response to the Issues Surrounding Plata V. Brown
Although the ruling in the Plata v. Brown case required California to release many prisoners, the state adopted alternative measures to address the issues surrounding the lawsuit. According to Kubrin and Bartos (n.d.), the first measure was to transfer the inmates to the local jails or other states where necessary. The second approach involved reducing penalties for certain lower-level offenses. The last strategy that the state used to respond to the issues was to provide offenders with opportunities to earn good time credits that would accelerate their time to be released. As a result, the overcrowding in California’s correctional facilities has reduced considerably, facilitating the adequate provision of health care for both mental and physical illnesses.
Response to Juveniles Issues
The state of California responds to the issue of juvenile overcrowding in correctional facilities in two ways. The state is closing the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to minimize the number of juveniles imprisoned every year. According to Merrefield (2021), California has also developed rehabilitation programs for youth offenders to reduce the high rate of recidivism. Further, the youthful offenders are housed at county-level juvenile detention facilities that are spacious. The move allows the offenders to access home communities and families, who can be an instrumental resource for the rehabilitation process.
Resolving the Issues for Offenders with Health or Mental Health Problems and Juveniles
California resolves the issues for offenders with health or mental health problems by ensuring it has equipped the correctional facilities with adequate medicines and other treatment equipment. Additionally, the state has deployed qualified and enough health professionals to attend to all inmates’ health needs within an appropriate time. On the other hand, the state addresses the issue of the high recidivism rate among the juvenile by providing rehabilitation programs for the offenders (Weisberg, 2019). The responses’ major strengths are that they alleviate incidences of constitutional violation, ensure the well-being of inmates, and minimize juvenile recidivism. However, responses are expensive for the government to implement, which may require the state to reduce funds for other programs. I believe the state’s approaches to resolving health issues for the offenders and higher recidivism among the juveniles were the best and there were no alternatives.
References
Coppola, F. (2019). The brain in solitude: an (other) eighth amendment challenge to solitary confinement. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 6(1), 184-225.
Kubrin, C., & Bartos, B. (n.d). Criminal justice reform and public safety: A California 100 working paper. California100.org.
Legal Information Institute. (2011). Brown V. Plata. Law.cornell.edu.
Merrefield, C. (2021).Youth incarceration in Calif. fell when counties had to pay more: Research. The Journalist’s Resource.
Weisberg, R. (2019). The Wild West of Sentencing Reform: Lessons from California.Crime and Justice, 48, 35-77.