In Legal Terms - March/April 2001

Ruling May Not End Prison Backlog Problem

The long-running prisoner lawsuit filed by counties against the Department of Corrections in the early 1990s has been reactivated in recent months in an effort to once again have the backlog of state prisoners removed from the county jails. By the time you read this article, there will probably be a ruling from the Montgomery County Circuit Court regarding whether to sanction the Department of Corrections for contempt in its noncompliance with an earlier consent agreement to remove state prisoners from county jails within 30 days. Unfortunately, it is my guess that while this may once again give counties some temporary relief from the burden of having state inmates housed in county jails long after they have been sentenced and are ready for transfer to a state facility, it will not be the last round of battle between counties and state officials in this long-standing feud among friends. Furthermore, it is likely that, regardless of the judge's ruling, this case will end up in the appellate courts.

Clearly, the immediate relief we get from court action eases the burden on counties for a little while. Unfortunately, however, there has never been a long term solution to the problem, so the problem keeps recurring and actually grows more acute. It seems to me that this cycle will never end until and unless state officials place a concentrated effort on true reform of the state correctional system. This will obviously involve long-range planning and a strong funding commitment. It will not be easy, but I do believe that it can be done.

I recently attended a workshop in New York involving several states dealing with the issue of community corrections and related sentencing reform. I can report that Alabama is not alone in its prison overcrowding problem. Many of our problems are unique and in some instances, more severe than those facing other states. However, there are many similarities, and in some small ways, we are more fortunate than others. I can also report though, that while the problems are big ones, and the solutions are difficult, they can, at least to some extent, be solved. I heard some real success stories about how to address prison overcrowding at both the state and county level through innovative probation plans, community corrections, and rehabilitation programs. Of course, I also heard about the pain and agony that each state suffered along the way.

The issue of how to address prison overcrowding is very complicated. There are certainly no easy answers, and there are many conflicting interests at stake: the tough-on-crime stance versus the problem of filling up prisons with persons committing "minor" offenses; the desire to reduce recidivism rates through rehabilitation programs versus the need to devote those dollars to finding sufficient bed space; the concerns of victims who want to ensure that offenders are punished for the crimes they have committed and in many instances, that they receive some form of restitution versus a system that provides for probation as an alternative to imprisonment and parole as a method of early release. In addition to all of this, laws creating new crimes are enacted during every legislative session and stiffer penalties are frequently enacted for punishment of existing crimes. We have in Alabama, as in many states, a strong habitual offender law, which has a valid and laudable purpose, but adds significantly to the prison population problems that plague both state and county government.

Any meaningful discussion of prison reform must include many different groups: prison officials, county officials, pardons and parole officials, judges, district attorneys, sheriffs, victims, probation officers, the governor, the attorney general, members of the legislature, rehabilitation advocates, and others. Each of these groups approaches the problem from a different standpoint and seeks a different outcome. It is easy to see why the problem is not easy to solve. Nonetheless, it is imperative that some meaningful effort toward this goal be made.

A few steps have been taken. The Alabama Legislature created the Alabama Sentencing Commission during the 2000 Regular Session and directed this Commission to study and report on the problem and viable solutions prior to the 2002 Regular Legislative Session. Among other things, the Commission is specifically directed to "review the overcrowding problem in county jails, with particular emphasis on funding for the county jails and the proper removal of state prisoners from county jails pursuant to state law and state and federal court orders".

The Sentencing Commission is made up of appointees from most of the groups named above. In addition, several work groups have been formed to study the many different pieces of the puzzle: structured sentencing, community based punishment, mandatory sentences, truth-in-sentencing and post-incarceration supervision, and juveniles. County representatives serve on most of these committees. Each committee has been assigned the task of researching their piece and making recommendations to the full Commission by September of this year. However, as a member of the community based punishment work group, I can assure you that this is an ambitious (and perhaps impossible) goal!

The Legislature is to be rewarded for taking this first step, although it remains to be seen how it will address the recommendations eventually made by the Commission. On a discouraging note, the Legislature provided no funding in the coming fiscal year for the Sentencing Commission or the office and staff set up to oversee and coordinate its activities.

The Governor has also made recent efforts to address these issues with a written proposal for a long-range plan to reduce the overcrowding problem. His plan was submitted to the media and to the Montgomery County Circuit Court in response to the latest round of court pleadings and hearings in the counties' class action lawsuit against the Department of Corrections. It is refreshing to finally see a plan in writing presented by the state. However, it will be difficult to implement without proper funding or without full cooperation from all of the groups and agencies directed to play a role in its implementation. It will also be impossible to implement if it is not made a priority by the administration and the Department of Corrections and supported, as necessary, by the legislature.

The comment has been made in recent weeks that the counties have to do more to alleviate the problem of state prisoners overcrowding the county jails. Obviously, county officials (and ACCA staff) take exception to this statement. Under Alabama law, the state is solely responsible for state prisoners. Having said that, however, counties may want to look at implementing new and innovative programs in their area to assist in addressing one of the real causes of the problem - the problem of crime in our state.

There are many county-level community corrections and rehabilitation programs which have shown some success in reducing recidivism and addressing addiction and educational problems which are so often at the root of the crime problem. Implementing some of these programs may benefit the citizens in the counties in much more than just a reduction in the number of bodies filling beds in state and county jail facilities. There is some funding available for community corrections programs through the "Alabama Community Punishment and Corrections Act of 1991", found at Code of Alabama 1975, § 15-18-170 et seq. There is also provision in the law for work release programs for inmates in county jails. See, Code of Alabama 1975, § 14-8-30 et seq.

Counties can in some instances play an important role in addressing some of the problems creating the overflow of inmates (state and county) crowding our jails, and to this extent, we should try to partner with the administration, the legislature, and any other public or private groups seeking to address the ever-growing problem of crime through effective educational and rehabilitation programs. However, while individual counties may determine that the time is ripe for looking at ways to address these problems in their community, counties cannot and should not relieve the state of its obligation or excuse its past failings in these areas. Moreover, counties cannot and should not allow any new mandates from the administration, the legislature, or the courts that attempt to make counties even partially responsible for the prison problems confronting the state. ____________________________________________________________________________

1 Recent statistics compiled by the Department of Corrections show that Alabama has the highest ratio of inmates to officers in neighboring states and the smallest budget for Corrections. Additionally, Alabama has the lowest budget per inmate in the country.

2 Commissioner Sam Jones, Mobile County Commission, serves on the Sentencing Commission as the governor's appointee from a county commission.