The ongoing flurry of lawsuits have have been filed against California's prisons are causing headaches all throughout the state.

For the past 25 years, inmate advocate groups have argued that the conditions are overcrowded, that medical care is sub-par at best and that because of this, detainees are being subject to cruel and unusual punishment.   They feel their Constitutional rights are being violated.

In 2011, the Supreme Court agreed, and ordered the state to reduce prisoner populations to no more than 137.5 percent of rated capacity.  At that time, the facilities were topping out at about two times the people they were designed to hold, and the Court said that safety and health were being compromised.

The state government needed to come up with a fix.  Phase one reportedly involved shifting certain inmate populations from prisons to county jails. A proverbial passing of the buck, if you will.

Non-violent, non-serious, non-sexual offenders would now become the responsibility of the county they offended in.  This has caused mass overcrowding on the local level, and this has further led to low-level offenders being released before their sentences are up.  In some cases they are only serving half their time before being freed.

Law enforcement officials have said that since the realignment has been implemented, burglaries and crimes against property have been on the rise.  Proponents of the realignment, though, say it is simply too soon to correlate one to the other.

Police and Sheriff's departments would disagree.

The newest problem relates to a Supreme Court order that required California trim an additional 10,000 prisoners before the end of the year.  Gov. Jerry Brown has been a staunch opponent of that order, so much so that the Court said if he fails to comply, he will be found in contempt.

His office has petitioned the Court to get that mandate lifted but on Aug. 2, it was denied.  At least one of the Justices was on his side, writing that terrible things are sure to happen as a result of this outrageous order.  The six others disagreed.

The state continues to argue that this widespread release will place all residents, business owners and visitors in danger.

Others have said this statement is overblown- which is largely due to the state's three-strike law.  First implemented in the 1990s, the mandate was that any person convicted of a third felony would receive a sentence of no less than 25-years to life.

In some cases, these crimes have been so minor that third-time offenders have been put away life for nonviolent, non-serious offenses, such as shoplifting high-ticket items from national retailers.

This policy has since been revised three times and lawmakers are working to ensure that the courts are not tossing these types of offenders behind bars and throwing away the key.  A better focus, they feel, is on programs that reduce recidivism rates, treat drug addiction and focus on reintegrating these offenders into society.

Few will argue that California's prison system continues to rank among the worst of the worst.  Instead of finding ways to make it bigger, more time should be spent on rehabilitating lawbreakers.

Brown's office have already said the best of the worst have been realigned or released.  And although it's agreed that in the future, better decisions need to be made in terms of who is sent away forever and who gets a solid slap on the wrist, the current concern surrounds public safety.