RESA Comprehensive Exam Notes
RESA Comprehensive Exam, focusing on legal ethics, licensing, responsibilities, and professional conduct required of real estate practitioners under the Philippine RA 9646 law.
Mason Bennett
Contributor
4.6
49
3 months ago
Preview (2 of 4)
Sign in to access the full document!
The Court affirmed a lower court ruling in the Plata v. Brown case, which mandated that
California reduce its jail population to 137.5% of its design capacity within two years. This
represents a decrease from around 150,000 prisoners to 110,000 inmates. Stated differently,
California has been mandated to eliminate almost the same amount of jail infrastructure as North
Carolina.
The lawsuit represents the conclusion of twenty years of litigation, but it is most likely not the
end. A class of severely mentally ill prisoners fded the case in 1990. Since then, it has resulted in
numerous court-ordered remedial plans, injunctions, the appointment of a special master and
receiver, and, finally, the empanelment of a three-judge court with the authority to order prison
population reductions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). The court issued
the aforementioned population-reduction order following 14 days of testimony. There is "no
realistic possibility that California would be able to build itself out of this crisis," according to
the directive, although the state is not required to fulfill the 137.5% objective in any specific
way.
Reducing the jail population is an unusual remedy, and before such an order may be issued, a
number of prerequisites must be met under the PLRA. The first need is that a judge must have
previously issued an order for less invasive relief that hasn't worked out after a fair amount of
time has passed. Second, only a three-judge court that has been specifically called for that reason
may issue such an order. Third, the three-judge court can only issue a release order if it concludes
that "(i) crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right; and (ii) no other relief
will remedy the violation of the Federal right" based on clear and persuasive evidence. Using the
'least intrusive means necessary," the remedy must be "narrowly drawn" and may "extend no
California reduce its jail population to 137.5% of its design capacity within two years. This
represents a decrease from around 150,000 prisoners to 110,000 inmates. Stated differently,
California has been mandated to eliminate almost the same amount of jail infrastructure as North
Carolina.
The lawsuit represents the conclusion of twenty years of litigation, but it is most likely not the
end. A class of severely mentally ill prisoners fded the case in 1990. Since then, it has resulted in
numerous court-ordered remedial plans, injunctions, the appointment of a special master and
receiver, and, finally, the empanelment of a three-judge court with the authority to order prison
population reductions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). The court issued
the aforementioned population-reduction order following 14 days of testimony. There is "no
realistic possibility that California would be able to build itself out of this crisis," according to
the directive, although the state is not required to fulfill the 137.5% objective in any specific
way.
Reducing the jail population is an unusual remedy, and before such an order may be issued, a
number of prerequisites must be met under the PLRA. The first need is that a judge must have
previously issued an order for less invasive relief that hasn't worked out after a fair amount of
time has passed. Second, only a three-judge court that has been specifically called for that reason
may issue such an order. Third, the three-judge court can only issue a release order if it concludes
that "(i) crowding is the primary cause of the violation of a Federal right; and (ii) no other relief
will remedy the violation of the Federal right" based on clear and persuasive evidence. Using the
'least intrusive means necessary," the remedy must be "narrowly drawn" and may "extend no
further than necessary to correct the violation." The court must "give substantial weight to any
adverse impact on public safety" that any relief issued may have along the road.
The Court concluded that the procedural and substantive requirements of the PLRA had been
satisfied and that a population-reduction order was both authorized and appropriate after
outlining the litigation's history, the unusual level of prison overcrowding in California, and
some of its more unsettling effects, such as high suicide rates, protracted wait times for medical
attention, and inadequate hygiene standards—such as 54 inmates to one toilet. Together with the
four liberal-leaning Justices, Justice Kennedy wrote for the Court in a familiar pattern of difficult
decisions handed down at the close of a term.
A couple of North Carolina ties are worth mentioning. First, although it has been some time and
the most of it predates the PLRA, federal courts have already intervened in North Carolina's jail
system due to overpopulation. The case Small v. Hunt, 98 F.3d 789 (4th Cir. 1996), summarizes a
lot of the history. In summary, the 1980s saw a sharp increase in the number of inmates, which
sparked a number of lawsuits and, ultimately, settlements that were upheld by the courts via
consent decrees.
In North Carolina a major system used to help with the amount of drug offenders in court is the
96-90 which assists first time drug offenders in lessening their convictions resulting in a decrease
of population in jail and prison. Another program that is used very frequently is the
misdemeanors confinement program which helps offenders convicted on misdemeanors to lessen
the time they serve by half as well as be held in a local jail instead of a prison.
Other programs that tend to help juveniles are the Juvenile Court. It presents that a juvenile with
help of a court counselors can see the account of a court and no the punishments they can ecieve
adverse impact on public safety" that any relief issued may have along the road.
The Court concluded that the procedural and substantive requirements of the PLRA had been
satisfied and that a population-reduction order was both authorized and appropriate after
outlining the litigation's history, the unusual level of prison overcrowding in California, and
some of its more unsettling effects, such as high suicide rates, protracted wait times for medical
attention, and inadequate hygiene standards—such as 54 inmates to one toilet. Together with the
four liberal-leaning Justices, Justice Kennedy wrote for the Court in a familiar pattern of difficult
decisions handed down at the close of a term.
A couple of North Carolina ties are worth mentioning. First, although it has been some time and
the most of it predates the PLRA, federal courts have already intervened in North Carolina's jail
system due to overpopulation. The case Small v. Hunt, 98 F.3d 789 (4th Cir. 1996), summarizes a
lot of the history. In summary, the 1980s saw a sharp increase in the number of inmates, which
sparked a number of lawsuits and, ultimately, settlements that were upheld by the courts via
consent decrees.
In North Carolina a major system used to help with the amount of drug offenders in court is the
96-90 which assists first time drug offenders in lessening their convictions resulting in a decrease
of population in jail and prison. Another program that is used very frequently is the
misdemeanors confinement program which helps offenders convicted on misdemeanors to lessen
the time they serve by half as well as be held in a local jail instead of a prison.
Other programs that tend to help juveniles are the Juvenile Court. It presents that a juvenile with
help of a court counselors can see the account of a court and no the punishments they can ecieve
Preview Mode
Sign in to access the full document!
100%