How Old Laws About “Pestilence” Could Protect Prisoners From the Coronavirus

Emergency releases from jails and prisons are already legal in many states.

tzahiV/Getty

The coronavirus is a rapidly developing news story, so some of the content in this article might be out of date. Check out our most recent coverage of the coronavirus crisis, and subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak in the United States, criminal justice experts, health professionals, and prisoners have warned that the virus could easily spread through crowded and dirty jails and prisons. With cases being identified daily among inmates, including in California, Colorado, Georgia, and Illinois, calls are mounting to release the most vulnerable of America’s 2.3 million incarcerated people, including older prisoners and those with underlying medical conditions. 

On Rikers Island in New York City, which locks up more than 5,000 people, the potential toll from coronavirus is already becoming visible: 75 inmates and 37 staff had confirmed COVID-19 cases as of Wednesday. An investigator for the New York City Department of Corrections died last week. Mayor Bill de Blasio announced Tuesday that the city would release 300 people with misdemeanor or nonviolent felony convictions from the jail. 

It may be too late to control the Rikers outbreak, says Aaron Littman, a teaching fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles law school and former litigator for the Southern Center for Human Rights. “But,” he says, “jails and prisons across the country, especially in communities that have not been hit as hard thus far, have a closing window of opportunity to dramatically decrease harm to a lot of people.” Yet they must act now: “If they wait until there are infections in their jails and prison, it will likely be too late.”

As the public health crisis expands, Littman has been scouring state laws to determine exactly what powers officials have to release incarcerated people en masse in times of emergency or pandemic. It turns out that there are many laws that already provide longstanding, if rarely used mechanisms for doing so. I called Littman up to hear more. 

I saw a viral video recently showing hundreds of inmates running away from a semi-open prison in Brazil. I guess that’s one way to decarcerate. But tell me about the legal methods. 

Aaron Littman: I would describe the power to decarcerate as a mosaic. And there are lots of overlapping powers. That ranges from the beat police officer who has the discretion to issue a citation or a summons rather than arresting somebody, to a booking officer in a jail who has the discretion to cite and release somebody rather than incarcerating them, to a range of powers that different officials have to release people due to an outbreak of disease. In California, it is the chief jail physician. In Massachusetts, it is the jail or prison inspector. In Mississippi, there’s a statute that says that if any infectious or contagious disease shall appear in the vicinity of any jail, the board of supervisors of the county [or other officials] “may cause the prisoners confined in such jail to be removed to some suitable place of security, for safe-keeping, until the threatened danger shall be over.” These provisions can be used to release people to home confinement. 

[In at least 13 states, the laws] specifically reference outbreaks of contagious disease—what some of them call “pestilence,” which helps us know that they’re old statutes. But in some cases, they are broader. One California provision just describes an “emergency endangering the lives of inmates.” 

“Pestilence” is a word I’d never use normally. But right now, it feels biblical in a way that’s almost true to what we’re living through.

AL: It does. I’ve looked some into the history of these provisions. And they have, as far as I can tell, not been frequently used. And I think that simply reflects the world-historical nature of what’s happening. This is a moment for an emergency provision to be used—as well as the array of authority that already existed to release people who, frankly, never needed to be in jail in the first place. People who were in jail because they couldn’t make bail because they were too poor. People who have been accused of very low level crimes, urinating in public, that sort of thing. 

What are some examples of authority that exists in normal times—not just in the middle of a pandemic—to release prisoners?

AL: There are a variety of other release provisions that different officials, particularly sheriffs and commissioners of corrections, have in normal times that they can use now to get as many people out of their facilities as possible. In Wisconsin, state law makes clear that a sheriff has the discretion to determine who in his or her jail is placed in home detention. There are also overcrowding release [laws] that exist in many states that allow some constellation of local actors to release people once a population cap has been met. And many of these facilities are overcrowded. In most jurisdictions, governors can grant temporary reprieves from criminal sentences that would allow prisoners to return home, and then be reincarcerated if necessary after the pandemic has passed. 

What have been the most promising developments that you’ve seen so far, as far as actions that public officials have taken to get people out?

AL: The New Jersey Supreme Court’s order [releasing up to 1,000 inmates from jails] was powerful. I think the Los Angeles County Jail has has been taking this seriously and is on the way to making the population reductions that are necessary. I don’t think it’s there yet. There are examples of steps in the right direction, but I don’t think anywhere is where it needs to be. Dramatic population reductions in all facilities need to happen quickly. I think that if they don’t, a lot of people die unnecessarily. 

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate