State Prisons

State Prisons in the United States

State Prisons Growth

The number of prisoners in state lockups across the United States has grown by 705 percent in the past four decades. In 2009, the United States saw that figure’s first downward dip since 1972-but not by much. In 2009 the inmate count declined by 3 percent, to about 1.4 million, due in part to state budget deficits and policy reforms. (That change was more than offset by a rise in federal prisoners.) Even after California reduced its tally by 4,257 inmates in 2009, the state still has the nation’s second-largest prison population (behind Texas) at 169,000. In the fall of year 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court hear a case that determined whether California must abide by a federal court order to ease prison overcrowding by 46,000 inmates over two years.

State Prisons and the State Laws

Select from the list of U.S. States below for state-specific information on State Prisons:

State Prisons in State Statute Topics

Introduction to State Prisons (State statute topic)

Resources

Comments

One response to “State Prisons”

International

November 17, 2015

John

A Judge in San Jose, California, is forcing medication on inmates, setting up mentally ill inmates for failure by expecting them to complete programs and classes etc. on their own and when they fail to do so he issues bench warrants for their arrest and keeps them stuck in the system, and does not provide the proper evaluation of inmates for mental health. He is keeping mentally ill people in jail and trapped within the system for much longer than the crime they committed calls for, up to 3 years in some cases for minor drug charges. He ignores evaluations done by professional psychiatrists outside of his program, he ignores the letters and grievances of the family’s and lawyers of the mentally ill and tries to force the same plan of action on every person instead of evaluating each individual case, he is punishing people for being ill not for the crime. He knows that the expectations he is putting on mentally ill inmates cannot be followed through by certain individuals yet he continues to recommend treatment plans that will just put the person back into jail. The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights (ratified December 15, 1791[1]) prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments, including torture. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to the states. there is also a competence law see below In American law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings. Defendants that do not possess sufficient “competence” are usually excluded from criminal prosecution, In United States law, this protection has been ruled by the United States Supreme Court to be guaranteed under the due process clause. If the court determines that a defendant’s mental condition makes him unable to understand the proceedings, or that he is unable to help in his defense, he is found incompetent. The competency evaluation, as determined in Dusky v. United States, is whether the accused “has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding—and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.” Being determined incompetent is substantially different from undertaking an insanity defense; competence regards the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the trial, while insanity regards his state of mind at the time of the crime. It has also been referred to as a “730 exam”. The word incompetent is also used to describe persons who lack mental capacity to make contracts, handle their financial and other personal matters such as consenting to medical treatment, etc. and need a legal guardian to handle their affairs. also please read this below In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Court decided that a California law authorizing a 90-day jail sentence for “be[ing] addicted to the use of narcotics” violated the Eighth Amendment, as narcotics addiction “is apparently an illness,” and California was attempting to punish people based on the state of this illness, rather than for any specific act. The Court wrote: “To be sure, imprisonment for ninety days is not, in the abstract, a punishment which is either cruel or unusual. But the question cannot be considered in the abstract. Even one day in prison would be a cruel and unusual punishment for the ‘crime’ of having a common cold.” Traditionally, the length of a prison sentence was not subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment, regardless of the crime for which the sentence was imposed. It was not until the case of Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983), that the Supreme Court held that incarceration, standing alone, could constitute cruel and unusual punishment if it were “disproportionate” in duration to the offense. The Court outlined three factors that were to be considered in determining if the sentence is excessive: “(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.

Reply