Ethics Heroes: The U.S. Supreme Court

To be more accurate, the heroic component in this instance is the liberal wing of SCOTUS ( Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg, and Breyer) plus the swing vote, Justice Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in Brown v. Plata.  The decision upheld a court order requiring California to release a staggering 46, 000 inmates of its prisons, more than a fourth of the those sentenced there. The majority concurred with the lower court’s assessment that California prisons were so obscenely over-crowed that conditions amount to a human rights violation and a breach of the constitutional prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Some Supreme Court decisions come down to ethics as much as law, and this was certainly one of those times. At issue from a legal standpoint was  whether federal judges had the power to order the release of state prisoners as a necessary means of curing a constitutional violation. But the brilliant legal minds on the conservative side of the Court’s divide had no problem answering that question in the negative, and persuasively too.  The dilemma is that California’s least sympathetic citizens, its residents of the state’s penal institutions, are being kept in conditions that violate their constitutional rights, and despite many years of knowing about the problem, the state hasn’t found a way to rectify it. More than likely, the state hasn’t had the political will to rectify it, drowning as it is in red ink with a population both averse to taxes and addicted to government-funded goodies. Except for a small handful of prisoner advocates who are traditionally regarded as bleeding heart do-gooders with warped priorities, few citizens anywhere, not just in California, are willing to see their government place prison reform over funding programs for law-abiding citizens.

When elected officials lack the courage and principles to do what’s right despite the selfish desires of voters, as they almost always do, the judiciary must come to the rescue, or rescue will not come. In this case, the draconian solution of releasing criminals is sure to get the voters’ attention, as reports of fifty inmates using one toilet and other conditions redolent of Turkish prisons have thus far failed to do.  The decision will not immediately send drug pushers and wife-beaters back into the streets, because it allows time for officials to continue their (slow) efforts to find a solution. The point is to sharpen California officials’ resolve. Once the issue becomes keeping criminals from running amuck, rather than making sure prisoners don’t have to use a bucket for a toilet and sleep on the floor, the priorities of California’s non-imprisoned citizens can be expected to evolve rapidly.

Brown v. Plata  will take a lot of heat from conservatives who adopt Justice Scalia’s argument that the opinion is “absurd” and that the results of releasing so many inmates will be a disaster—I can almost hear Rush Limbaugh now. Critics will be ignoring the fact that when the United States of America persists in allowing known human rights violations on its own citizens, no matter who they are or what they have done, that is a disaster.

You can read the opinion here.

1 Comment

Filed under Citizenship, Ethics Heroes, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement, Leadership, U.S. Society

One response to “Ethics Heroes: The U.S. Supreme Court

  1. But where does it say that prisoners must be housed in these “traditional” structures to begin with? My first stint at correctional work involved pulling shifts at the old Fort Gordon GA stockade in 1972. This facility consisted of a block of prefab wooden barracks (WWII vintage) surrounded by a double chain link fence with wooden guard towers at each corner- plus sally port. Note, too, that the original barracks were built by soldiers overseen by engineers. This could easily (and cheaply) be done again. Certainly, it’s a far better option than letting a horde of hardened criminals loose on society.

    Nor can I blame California’s citizens for objecting to their already immense (and now growing again!) tax burden. They have the right to expect financial discipline and innovative ideas from their officials for their prosperity and safety. Unfortunately, the ones who, as you mentioned, have an insatiable appetite for state freebies also have the biggest voice in government lobbies. Is it any wonder, then, that the good citizens (and companies) are leaving the Golden State in droves? This is what happens when insanity becomes institutionalized.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s