NCJ Number
215436
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 96 Issue: 3 Dated: Spring 2006 Pages: 795-848
Date Published
2006
Length
54 pages
Annotation
This article critiques the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Johnson v. California (2003), which upheld the California Department of Corrections' (CDCs') policy of using race as the determinative classification criterion in assigning inmates to the double-occupancy cells of its reception centers.
Abstract
The CDC argued that its policy of "separate but equal" in housing inmates in reception centers was necessary in order to prevent interracial violence, although corrections officials provided no empirical evidence of race-based violence in the reception centers. The Ninth Circuit concluded that "common sense" dictated that the races be separated to prevent violence among the inmates. In its 2004 term, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Johnson v. California. In doing so, the Supreme Court departed from its longstanding policy of deferring to "the reasonable judgments of prison officials." On the other hand, the Court crafted a "tamed" version of Brown v. Board of Education, which rendered unconstitutional separate school systems by race. The Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. California cannot undo the de facto racial segregation that pervades the prison community, including its inmate subculture. This article views the Ninth Circuit's decision as based in "common-sense racism" applied in the prison setting. The Supreme Court's reversal of this policy is not likely to change the view of prison officials that it is only common sense to segregate inmates by race in order to avoid security problems. 319 notes