Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/09-1233.pdf
Page Number: 66

8 

BROWN v. PLATA 

SCALIA, J., dissenting 

ing  would  “perpetuate  a  criminogenic  prison  system  that
itself  threatens  public  safety,”  id.,  at  186a,  and  volun-
teered  its  opinion  that  “[t]he  population  could  be  reduced
even  further  with  the  reform  of  California’s  antiquated 
sentencing policies and other related changes to the laws.” 
It  “reject[ed]  the  testimony  that  inmates 
Id.,  at  253a. 
released  early  from  prison  would  commit  additional  new 
crimes,” id., at 200a, finding that “shortening the length of
stay through earned credits would give inmates incentives
to  participate  in  programming  designed  to  lower  recidi-
vism,” id., at 204a, and that “slowing the flow of technical
parole  violators  to  prison,  thereby  substantially  reducing
the  churning  of  parolees,  would  by  itself  improve  both
the prison and parole systems, and public safety.”  Id., at 
209a.  It found that “the diversion of offenders to commu-
nity  correctional  programs  has  significant  beneficial  ef-
fects  on  public  safety,”  id.,  at  214a,  and  that  “additional 
rehabilitative  programming  would  result  in  a  significant
population reduction while improving public safety,” id., at 
216a. 

The District Court cast these predictions (and the Court
today accepts them) as “factual findings,” made in reliance 
on the procession of expert witnesses that testified at trial. 
Because  these  “findings”  have  support  in  the  record,  it  is
difficult  to  reverse  them  under  a  plain-error  standard  of 
review.  Ante,  at  38.    And  given  that  the  District  Court 
devoted nearly 10 days of trial and 70 pages of its opinion
to  this  issue,  it  is  difficult  to  dispute  that  the  District
Court has discharged its statutory obligation to give “sub-
stantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety.”

But the idea that the three District Judges in this case
relied  solely  on  the  credibility  of  the  testifying  expert 
witnesses  is  fanciful.  Of  course  they  were  relying  largely 
on  their  own  beliefs  about  penology  and  recidivism.    And 
of course different district judges, of different policy views,
would  have  “found”  that  rehabilitation  would  not  work