Jail Litigation in California: An Empirical Assessment

• Author: Wayne N. Welsh
• Published date: 01 March 1991
• Date: 01 March 1991
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/003288559107100104
• Subject Matter: Article

Jail Litigation In California:

An Empirical Assessment

Wayne

N.

Welsh*

Despite

200

years of periodic reforms, modern jails are criticized for much the same

problems as their ancestors: inadequately trained personnel; official misuse, misjudg-

ment or mismanagement of capacity; failure to provide for basic human needs while

expending maximum fiscal resources; and failure to adequately protect the safety of

inmates or the public. In fact, the language used by the 18th century reformers could

easily be substituted for their 20th century counterparts (Advisory Commission 1984).

While the problems of jails are relatively old, Constitutional challenges and court

intervention are quite new.

Since the late 1960s, courts have found conditions of confinement in jails and prisons

to be in violation of constitutional guarantees such

as

the Eighth Amendment (banning

cruel and unusual punishment) and the 14th Amendment (guaranteeing due process

rights). Correctional and government officials have been ordered to make sweeping

changes to comply with court directives: to improve medical care and recreation

services, to reduce chronic overcrowding, to increase staffing levels and improve

training, to make use

of

various pre-trial and post conviction release mechanisms, even to

build new facilities

-

all

under the watchful eye of the court. In 1987,33 percent of the

nation’s large

jails

(i.e., 100 inmates or more) were under court order to reduce

overcrowding or improve general conditions

(U.S.

Dept. of Justice 1988).

Not only has correctional research in general underemphasized the study of jails

(e.g., Mattick 1974), but studies of correctional litigation have similarly overemphasized

state and federal prison systems. The legal issues surrounding jail litigation are different

from prisons (see Rosen, this issue), and the organizational and political environments of

jails are very different (Mattick 1974). Three important differences between jail and

prison litigation are discussed, using California

as

an example: (1) procedural issues,

(2)

funding, and (3) defendants.

Proced

lira1

Issii

es

Although the federal Constitution

is

widely used to support inmate legal claims, legal

arguments against county jails additionally rely upon state statutes, regulations, and

constitutions to frame legal arguments. These standards may vary quite

a

bit from state

to state, but

are

likely to receive careful judicial scrutiny in jail lawsuits.

The California Constitution

is

often used in conjuction with the federal Constitution

to base powerful claims for prisoner rights. The California Constitution contains

a

broad

guarantee of due process rights (Article

I,

Sections 11,21), which

is

often used to mount

claims against mistreatment of pre-trial prisoners; and

a

ban against cruel and unusual

punishment (Article

I,

Section 17), which

is

often used to argue for relief of overcrowding

and poor living conditions (e.g., sanitation, hygiene, medical care, food, recreation).

In California, inmates’ attorneys rely heavily upon the state Minimum Standards for

Local

Jails

(15 CAC Sections

1000

et

seq.), sections of the state Penal Code which specify

jail procedures and policy, and relevant sectionsof the California Health and Safety Code

*Wayne

N.

Welsh is an assistant professor of Criminal Justice at Temple University. This

research was part of his doctoral dissertation at University of California, Irvine, supported

by

a

Doctoral Fellowship awarded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

of

Canada.

-30-