Jail break

A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday backed a lower court decision that could result in the release of more than 30,000 prisoners from the California prison system based on overcrowding that, according to the court, is "incompatible with the concept of human dignity."

Justice Anthony Kennedy, a California native, was joined by the court's four consistent liberals -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- in the potentially dangerous ruling.

"The release of prisoners in large numbers -- assuming the state finds no other way to comply with the order -- is a matter of undoubted, grave concern," Justice Kennedy admitted. "Yet so too is the continuing injury and harm resulting from these serious constitutional violations."

Justice Antonin Scalia, who was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, signaled the extent of his disagreement by reading his dissent from the bench.

He said the justices were affirming "perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history" and warned of "terrible things sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order."

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. also dissented. Justice Alito argued that when federal courts made Philadelphia release thousands of inmates in the 1990s, police re-arrested thousands over 18 months, resulting in 1,113 assault charges, 90 rape charges and 79 murder charges.

The California prison system was designed to hold 80,000 prisoners, one to a cell. An attorney for the inmates said after the ruling that 32,000 inmates should be released.

Acknowledging the possibility that "mistaken or premature release of even one prisoner can cause injury and harm," Justice Kennedy went to lengths to document how prison conditions, in his view, violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

It's true that America has one of the world's highest -- if not the highest -- rates of incarceration, thanks in part to the war on drugs. Combine this with minimum sentencing standards and "three-strikes-you're-out" edicts, and there probably are some inmates in California prisons -- in all our prisons -- who would be unlikely to commit violent offenses if released. But the vast majority of these convicts are just what you'd expect -- violent thugs without much in the way of a conscience.

And even nonviolent criminals can be a massive drain on the economy and the willingness of their neighbors to save and invest. Why buy a new car if you know the professional car thief who lived next door is about to be released?

California should continue ongoing plans to shift some inmates to the jails and prisons of states with room to spare. Laws that clog courts and jails with inmates who have harmed no one but themselves should be reconsidered.

But American crime rates have dropped considerably in recent decades precisely because violent felons are now more likely to be locked away. Justice Alito is correct. Dumping them on the streets en masse is a very bad idea.