NCJ Number
136806
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 56 Issue: 1 Dated: (March 1992) Pages: 29-39
Date Published
1992
Length
11 pages
Annotation
This article reviews court remedies that have been used in the 49 reported jail and prison overcrowding cases since "Wolfish" and "Chapman" in 1979, the only two U.S. Supreme Court cases that have dealt with overcrowding.
Abstract
The remedy most often used by courts (26 cases) is to set a ceiling on the population of a jail or prison. In setting a maximum population limit, courts often consider the design capacity, expert testimony, and standards set by organizations such as the American Corrections Association as well as information obtained from personal visits to the facilities. In considerations of the number of inmates per cell, many courts have focused on minimum cell sizes or minimum space requirements for each inmate. In deciding whether some double-bunking may be allowed, courts have taken into account the type of inmates (length of sentence, violent nature of the crime), length of stay, square footage per inmate, and amount of time spent outside the cell. One of the "spillover" effects of court-ordered population caps that involve State prisons is that those prisons either decrease or stop their acceptance of sentenced inmates from local jails. In some cases, courts have ordered the closing of institutions deemed incapable of complying with minimal standards for inmate housing. This is usually done only when alternative correctional facilities of acceptable quality can be provided. Occasionally a court will couple the threat of a fine for noncompliance with a population cap or other order. Other remedies include new construction and combinations of the aforementioned remedies. This article also discusses how courts fashion their remedies for overcrowding, appellate court treatment of remedy issues, and lessons learned from the court remedies instituted. 57 notes, 10-item bibliography, and list of cases cited.