Document: 410 U.S. 263 93 S.Ct. 1055 35 L.Ed.2d 282 Paul D. McGINNIS, Commissioner of Correction, et al., Appellants.v.James ROYSTER al. No. 71—718. Argued Dec. 11, 1972. Decided Feb. 21, 1973. Syllabus Appellees challenge as violative equal protection § 230(3) the New York Correction Law, which denies certain state prisoners good-time credit toward parole eligibility for period their presentence county jail incarceration, whereas those released on bail prior to sentence received under statute full allowance entire prison confinement. A three-judge District Court, viewing statutory scheme primarily aimed at fostering discipline, upheld appellees' claim ground that there is no rational basis distinction between and non-jail defendants in awarding credit. Held: Under takes into account a prisoner's performance program rehabilitation fostered system, but not jails, serve detention centers. Since jails have significant program, exists declining give pretrial jail-detention period; will be sustained even if was necessarily primary legislative objective, cf. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 301, 331, 86 803, 820, 15 769; Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 486, 90 1153, 1162, 25 491. Pp. 268—277. 332 F.Supp. 973, reversed. Michael Colodner, City, appellants. G. Jeffery Sorge, Long Beach, N.Y., appellees, pro hac vice, by special leave Court. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion 1 The question before us concerns constitutionality McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 43, denied appellee 'good time' incarceration jails.1 disallowing such them while permitting up ultimate who were sentencing deprived laws. one judge dissenting, claim, 973 (1971). other officials (hereafter Commissioner) appealed we noted probable jurisdiction, 405 986, 92 1247, 31 452 (1972).2 2 challenged system complex one, some basic definitions are required outset. Jail time denotes an individual passes trial sentencing. Good awarded good behavior efficient duties during incarceration. Both figure variously calculations series release dates each prisoner receives upon his arrival prison. Each inmate has both minimum date, earliest date he may paroled discretion Parole Board, must Board.3 calculated §§ 230(2) subtracting greatest amount can earned (10 days per month) from indeterminate term.4 230(4) (5 maximum term. 3 Although appellees did receive jail-time jail, explicitly forbids, calculating any served transfer prison.5 Appellee Royster, being unable post bail, 404 days' Nassau County consecutive 5-to-10-year terms burglary third degree grand larceny first degree. Rutherford also failed make spent 242 trial, sentencing, concurrent 10 20 years robbery two one-half five second It undisputed that, Royster confinement they would entitled appear Board approximately four three months earlier, respectively, than computation 230(3). 4 Two additional points merit mention. While does deny computing (3), it allows 230(4).6 Finally, itself provides shall confined after penitentiaries, opposed convicted felonies, transferred prison.7 5 * Section Law does, note, draw 'between treatment incarcerated similarly incarcerated.'8 contend 'denying pre-sentence fortunate enough obtain (receive) ultimately spend custody'9 violates laws discriminates against afford or otherwise qualify trial. 6 We note relative disadvantage works lessened fact September 1, 1967, replaced 230 its with 803 805, apply all convictions offenses date.10 new scheme, abolished. meets expiration term, regardless how much arriving prison.'11 given appellees—and sentenced committed 1967—a chance elect procedure, declined do so. thus enjoy least favorable position subsequent including sentence. disadvantaged only comparison made Even adverse impact this difference lessened, though eliminated, deprive actual potential month ordinarily available inmates conduct duty.12 7 further, complain arose course State's sensitive difficult effort encourage constructive future citizenship avoiding danger releasing prematurely society. determination optimal elicited multiple classifications groupings, court below rightly concluded require sustain them. James Strange, 407 128, 140, 2027, 2034, 32 600 (1972); Lindsey Normet, 56, 73—74, 862, 874—875, 36 Schilb Kuebel, 357, 479, 30 502 (1971); 487, 491 (1970). themselves recognize appropriate standard.13 For Court observed '(t)he problems government practical ones justify, require, rough accommodations, illogical, be, unscientific.' Metropolis Theatre Co. City Chicago, 228 61, 69—70, 33 441, 443, 57 L.Ed. 730 (1913). wish inhibit experimental troublesome area, inquire whether rationally furthers legitimate, articulated purpose. conclude does. II 8 defends noting 'state prisons differ respect purpose, usage availability facilities.' State 'intended prime purpose facilities these institutions built equipped purpose.' cites presence 'educational vocational services schools, factories, jobtraining programs related activities.'14 At argument, noted: 'We barber shops. teach trades. manufacture lot goods. . Greenhaven Prison textile factory.'15 9 pass judgment success merits efforts, serious rehabilitative exists. hand, asserts 'neither nor intended anything more detain people awaiting maintain run factories work inmates.'16 point existence recreational within jails,17 clear nothing comparable These differences different constitutional framework. granting performance. authorizes 'for willing assigned (emphasis added).'18 regulations Department N.Y.C.R.R. 260.1(a), that: '(T)he opportunity earn allowances offers tangible reward positive efforts incarcertation added).'19 As contemplate evaluation inmate's progress rehabilitation, time,20 reasonable award where systematic exist evaluated responsible officials. Further, hardly undertake rehabilitate man still clothed presumption innocence. In short, neither supervision participating programs. Where little participation anyone evaluate, justification credit.21 III 11 agree integrity appellants' assertions undermined grant penitentiary dates.22 legislature could inmates, nonfelons less one-year sentences, quantitatively qualitatively rehabilitation—with fewer risks misevaluation—than crimes. And distinguished acceleration posed greater without adequate exposure Thus, York's decision solely justified risk unrehabilitated dangerous criminals well when IV 12 Neither contended increased provision 'overriding' one,23 'the legislature's aim enacting foster insure maintenance discipline.' 978 added).24 dispute statements: disciplinary certainly important possibly 'primary' legislation.25 Yet, out decisions authorize courts pick choose among legitimate aims determine subordinate. Rather, solutions respected 'distinctions drawn experience,' 769 (1966), interest advanced, U.S., S.Ct., 1162. So long upholding class nonillusory, lack primacy disqualifying. 13 When call strict judicial scrutiny, approach consistent proper regard judgments Legislative Branch. search often elusive enough, Palmer Thompson, 403 217, 91 1940, 29 438 (1971), requirement ascertained. Legislation frequently multipurposed: removal 'subordinate' shift altogether consensus supporting statute. Permitting nullification based nonprimary allow peruse proceedings subtle emphases subjective impressions preferences. Equal Protection Clause countenance speculative probing purposes coordinate branch. supplied imaginary likewise refuse discard because perceived another primary. V 14 classification here promotes desire evaluate eligible parole, Reversed. 16 DOUGLAS, whom MARSHALL concurs, dissenting. 17 loses punishment discipline appearance board computed conduct' law governing appellees.1 No allowed, however, jail. prisoners—one personal recognizance pending trial—are treated differently comes through same crime identical result, makes plain, wait longer term crime. 18 deduction inducement bad conduct. That what held 973. construction accurately reflects interpretation Parez Follette, 58 Misc.2d 319, 295 N.Y.S.2d 231, said: 19 'The policy underlying discretionary reductions clear. attitude should improve offered incentive productive withheld conduct.' Id., 321, N.Y.S.2d, 233. discipline—not progress—is key evidenced way. Once arrives prison, immediately credited 'In effect, then, 'earn' goes exemplary assorted rather simply avoids penalized behavior.' F.Supp., 978. confirmed 235 Law: 21 '(a) (is) accordance rules hereinbefore mentioned. Reduction instance, account, warden, provided section hundred thirty, stand reduction unless wholly partly punishment, above provided.' 22 Moreover, Act, excluded This paroled, unlike involves paroled. But grounds been advanced allowing case other. 23 correlated red herring litigation. exposed fallacy rationale. induce confined, place becomes irrelevant. Jail-time allowed penitentiaries. 203(3). And, I said, date. 24 seem used capriciously, since cases dissimilar present one. After said done, discrimination leveled too poor raise recognizance.2 See People Deegan, 56 567, 289 285. real rub case. 26 Warden, N.Y.L.J., May 1969, p. 18, col. 6, 27 'time off' respondent considered allowance. Time computation. respondent's follows method suggested Correction. 28 'This agreement (the) employed. inequitable persons charged able furnish arraignment remanded result inability bail.3 inequity blatantly apparent following cases. crimes nature. On defendant furnishes bail. subsequently sentenced, resulting verdict finding him guilty charged, year Predicated sixty total 305 days. B, 350 sentence, one-sixth fifteen despite imprisonment. B 363 compared A. refuses disparity discrimination.' If progress, muster Fourteenth Amendment. disallowed cannot recognizance, plainly invidious. deal deepseated inequity. 1964, 49% accused imprisoned 40% conviction.4 Wald, Pretrial Detention Ultimate Freedom: Statistical Study, 39 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 631, 634 (1964). poverty 'generally accepted main reason detention.' 636. inequality apparently appears end product disposition case, likelihood seems defendant's at-large status glow freedom shines through.' 635. Another sample 385 showed 64% continuously adjudication 17% 374 sentences. Rankin, Effect Detention, 641, 643 Detained likely bailed high low amounts set. 641. 34 studies Vera Foundation founded Louis Schweitzer. Programs Criminal Reform, Institute Justice, Ten-Year Report 1961—1971 (1972). states 'people private counsel ended pay.' 96. see Ares, Sturz, Manhattan Bail Project: An Interim Use Pre-Trial Parole, 38 67 (1963). periphery most critical criminal enforcement. issue involved released. hearing. To speed hearing rich influential get delay means buy bond influence prestige emphasizes invidious 230(3): definite prisoner, imposed court, allowance, provisions hereof until year. penitentiary, Subject commissioner correction, ten may, hereinafter for, whole part withheld, forfeited cancelled, correction conduct, violation failure perform properly assigned.' Other relevant sections read set forth below. 230(2): 'Every except having day natural life, receive, assigned, exceed allowable year, herein contained construed confer right whatsoever demand reduction.' 230(4): institution jurisdiction department meritorious achievement testing classification, event, subdivision reduce actually court. .' claims brief instant action, Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23, petition habeas corpus attendant exhaust remedies. Brief Appellants 2. not, jurisdictional statement, argue light this, unnecessary comment further possible exhaustion question. He all. two, bears direct relevance terms. 230(1): '. imprisonment limits fixed governor sentence.' 'There doubt express wording mandates denial plaintiffs Subsection thereof .,' subsection 'in mimimum (Emphasis added.)' 974—975. 285 (1968); 6. allowance.' added.) 5. 5—6. correctly '(The) 230, subject lawsuit, York. 805 70.30 70.40 Penal (but convictions—as herein—for effective date). scope (and proposed class) limited, statute, now applies whose yet expired, met elected 'conditional release' old 230—a Law. Of prisoners, smaller yet—comprised prison—actually feel effect 230(3)'s proscription time. Nevertheless, briefs attest continuing mandate substantial number individuals.' 975 n. 4. 12. above, months, Board. Tr. Oral Arg. 30. 14. 13. 15. 17. notes 'some counties absolutely nothing. Some something.' supra. 'Section 260.3 sets criteria states: "(b) evaluating granted, (i.e. behavior, program) viewed factors: "(1) inmate; "(2) capacity "(3) capacity.' 'These factors committee, recommendations superintendent granted 261.2. committee awards (7 261.3): "(d) consider file interview then decide recommendation applying principles 260.4 Part. "(e) recommend authorized withholding automatic rule, appraise institutional experience own determination.' added).' Reply 2—3. affidavit Deputy John R. Cain, stated encouraging programs, discipline. correctional seeks job training education facility's incentive. Prior facility, facility program. need participation.' App. 19a. note: fact, recently changed federal policy, pre-trial U.S.C. 4161, behavior. 4161 begins 'with commences run', start penitentiary. Blackshear United States, 434 F.2d (5th Cir. 1970). uniformly Bandy Willingham, 398 333 (10th 1968), cert. den. 393 1006, 89 497, 470, Aderhold Ellis, 84 543 1936), 299 587, 123, 81 433, Swope Lawton, 83 814 (9th 1936).' 20—21. supra, 268, nn. 8. stated: 'Whatever defendants' attempted distinction, remains and, circumstances, are, reasons variout system. classes reinforces belief oral argument instructive colloquy occurred: 'Q. Then your all, sir, exclusively, single one? 'MR. SORGE: Your Honor, extremely say just believe has— you trouble? is? so, because, district stated, overriding consideration disciplinary. You go take it, court's way Brennan saying subordinate function that. really all? themselves, might position. However, repeat aspect it.' 28—30. statement 'Defendants participate provide services, therein. exclusively so endemic understandable; 977. demonstrated 'a automatically initially cited providing "punishment penitentiary' added) ..' 977—978. statements demonstrate negate There show revoked acceptably violations. Indeed, requires loss 'bad 40, appellees—for yet—composed affects individuals. 285, refusing infer exclude 'Adoption prejudicing funds order 'equal laws' 14th Amendment Constitution. example, liberty judgment, similar 16-months, 18-months petitioner languished logic justice anomaly escapes court.' 568, 287. real, '(w)hat losing possibility appeared persuade favor. loss, practical, human qualified liberty.' States ex rel. Campbell Pate, Cir., 401 55, 57. Report, Project, 'bail generally door rich, poor.' latter, notes, 'poverty is, punishable offense.' money purchase (id., 3). bondsman review. write whenever chooses—because 'mistrusts' defendant, dislikes members minority group, got wrong side bed. obliged valid sensible reasons.' staff magistrate arrested recognizance. 'During Project's courts, 2300 members. 'Ninety-nine cent returned required; appear. period, about freed verified information background reliable criterion ability bond.' 7.

Category: 3