Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 91

Cite as:  563 U. S. ____ (2011) 

17 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

accomplished  in  a  safe  manner. 
PLRA’s public-safety requirement is so trivial. 

I  do  not  believe  the 

The  members  of  the  three-judge  court  and  the  experts 
on  whom  they  relied  may  disagree  with  key  elements  of
the  crime-reduction  program  that  the  State  of  California 
has pursued for the past few decades, including “the shift
to  inflexible  determinate  sentencing  and  the  passage  of 
harsh  mandatory  minimum  and  three-strikes  laws.”  Id., 
at 254a.  And experts such as the Receiver are entitled to
take the view that the State should “re-thin[k] the place of
incarceration in its criminal justice system,” App. 489.  But 
those controversial opinions on matters of criminal justice
policy  should  not  be  permitted  to  override  the  reasonable
policy  view  that  is  implicit  in  the  PLRA—that  prisoner 
release orders present an inherent risk to the safety of the 
public. 

* 

* 

* 
The  prisoner  release  ordered  in  this  case  is  unprece-
dented, improvident, and contrary to the PLRA.  In largely
sustaining  the  decision  below,  the  majority  is  gambling 
with the safety of the people of California.  Before putting 
public  safety  at  risk,  every  reasonable  precaution  should 
be taken.  The decision below should be reversed, and the 
case should be remanded for this to be done. 

I  fear  that  today’s  decision,  like  prior  prisoner  release 
orders,  will  lead  to  a  grim  roster  of  victims.    I  hope  that
I am wrong.

In a few years, we will see.