Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 46

40 

BROWN v. PLATA 

Opinion of the Court 

of a reduction in overcrowding.  Juris. App. 248a.

The  court  found  that  various  available  methods  of  re-
ducing  overcrowding  would  have  little  or  no  impact  on
public safety.  Expansion of good-time credits would allow 
the State to give early release to only those prisoners who
pose  the  least  risk  of  reoffending.    Diverting  low-risk 
offenders to community programs such as drug treatment,
day  reporting  centers,  and  electronic  monitoring  would
likewise  lower  the  prison  population  without  releasing 
violent convicts.12  The State now sends large numbers of 
persons  to  prison  for  violating  a  technical  term  or  condi-
tion of their parole, and it could reduce the prison popula-
tion  by  punishing  technical  parole  violations  through
community-based  programs.  This  last  measure  would  be 
particularly  beneficial  as  it  would  reduce  crowding  in  the
reception  centers,  which  are  especially  hard  hit  by  over-
crowding.  See  supra,  at  23–24.    The  court’s  order  took 
account of public safety concerns  by giving the State sub-
stantial flexibility to select among these and other means 
of reducing overcrowding. 

The State submitted a plan to reduce its prison popula-
tion in accordance with the three-judge court’s order, and 
it  complains  that  the  three-judge  court  approved  that
plan  without  considering  whether  the  specific  measures
contained  within  it  would  substantially  threaten  public 
safety.  The  three-judge  court,  however,  left  the  choice  of 
how  best  to  comply  with  its  population  limit  to  state 

—————— 

12 Expanding  such  community-based  measures  may  require  an  ex-
penditure  of  resources  by  the  State  to  fund  new  programs  or  expand 
existing ones.  The State complains that the order therefore requires it 
to “divert” savings that will be achieved by reducing the prison popula-
tion  and  that  setting  budgetary  priorities  in  this  manner  is  a  “severe,
unlawful  intrusion  on  the  State  authority.”    Brief  for  Appellants  55. 
This argument is not convincing.  The order does not require the State 
to  use  any  particular  approach  to  reduce  its  prison  population  or 
allocate its resources.