Policy Development Paper

Policy Development Paper

Introduction

California needs at the direction of the Supreme Court of the United States reduce the number of inmates in its overcrowded prisons. High severity of penalties and many relapses make the situation untenable. The situation in California's prisons is so bad that it is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. That the Supreme Court has ruled in the U.S. recently. The member state prisons in California are overcrowded for several years dramatically. At present in the aligned at 80 000 prison inmates live 143,000 prisoners (Cohen, 2011). The consequences of overcrowding are unsanitary conditions and inadequate medical and psychological care. This means, in the words of the judge, "needless suffering and death".

Discussion

An Injunction to End Overcrowding In California

In a resounding stop, the Supreme Court of the United States had confirmed, by a majority of five votes against 4, the injunction issued by a panel of three judges especially federal, who ordered drastic measures to stop prison overcrowding in California. The injunction ordered the disputed state of California to reduce the occupancy rate of its prisons to 137.5% of their theoretical capacity, against a little less than 200% currently, and could affect about 37,000 people on a prison population of 156,000 (overcrowding was 46,000 persons when the actions at issue were committed, but the situation has partially improved during the proceedings) (Cohen, 2011). In many respects, such a judgment cannot fail to stimulate reflection on the effectiveness of the procedural protection of fundamental rights in Europe, where the issue of prison conditions is also equally crucial.

The conditions of detention in California, a punishment "cruel and unusual" prohibited by the Constitution of the United States

The eighth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, part of the "Bill of Rights" American written in 1787 and inspired by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, prohibits punishment "cruel and unusual" ("Shall not be Excessive lease required, nor excessive fines Imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments Inflicted"). Originally, this prohibition as all the guarantees of "Bill of Rights" that required only the federal government, not the states. But after the Civil War and the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the essential guarantees of "Bill of Rights" were extended to relations between citizens and states. The Supreme Court has ruled that these guarantees were implicit in the guarantee of "due process of law" (a term difficult to translate, which is the essential guarantees of respect for the rule of law, both procedural and substantive), which s 'imposes on States under the 14th amendment (Lara, 2010).

When they reach a certain level of degradation, the conditions of detention may constitute a violation of the constitutional guarantee, which may be corrected by the judges. In 1995, a law passed by Congress, "Prison Litigation Reform act" however, severely limited the circumstances in which federal judges can intervene to stop these violations. It provides in particular that only a special federal court composed of three judges (instead of a single judge) may order the release ...