| The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/ |
|
| USSC to California: Cut prison population by 30,000 https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6359 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue May 24, 2011 11:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | USSC to California: Cut prison population by 30,000 |
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24scotus.html Long story short: The USSC has ruled that the overcrowding situation in California state prisons is so bad that the state is violating the "cruel and unusual punishment" requirement, and thus must reduce the prison population by about 1/4 (30,000 inmates) over the next two years. This could be done by prison transfer or by release (or a combination). Thoughts? I say F em. The mismanagement of California continues. As a taxpayer, I expect my tax dollars to fund a reasonable level of security, and those who are caught up in this to be treated humanely. The conditions at these prisons are completely unacceptable from what I have seen. 2 years is plenty of time to solve the problem if they are serious about it. Do your F-ing jobs. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Tue May 24, 2011 11:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Won't this make lots of prison guards and staff go unemployed? Also won't the released criminals lay waste to the country side, loot everywhere, and create havoc? They also might drop more heroin needles in playgrounds that little kids will get AIDS from. |
|
| Author: | Talya [ Tue May 24, 2011 12:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I nominate Lex's new title to be Slippery Sloper. |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue May 24, 2011 12:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Release all those jailed on only drug use, distribution, possession charges. Release all those jailed for harming no person or property. There ya go |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Tue May 24, 2011 12:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Elmarnieh wrote: Release all those jailed on only drug use, distribution, possession charges. Release all those jailed for harming no person or property. There ya go Questions: What about statutory rape convicts? What about people convicted of child pornography but have never interacted with a child? What about people who intended to commit a crime, but never actually damaged persons or property? |
|
| Author: | Elmarnieh [ Tue May 24, 2011 12:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
1. Depends if the individual in question felt harmed. 2. Freed. 3. Caught in the act of trying to murder someone or steal something - not freed as that is harm. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue May 24, 2011 1:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Can't free those on distribution charges. Not if you're going to maintain your drug laws, which they want to do. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Tue May 24, 2011 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
With all of the people in our prison system, you can probably get away just letting go inmates with now-decriminalized marijuana possession charges. |
|
| Author: | Midgen [ Tue May 24, 2011 2:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
/snark on.... Send them (back) to Mexico :p |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Tue May 24, 2011 2:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Midgen wrote: /snark on.... Send them (back) to Fixed, so that it would actually be enough to solve the problem.... |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue May 24, 2011 4:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Lenas wrote: With all of the people in our prison system, you can probably get away just letting go inmates with now-decriminalized marijuana possession charges. Marijuana possession would be a misdemeanor charge, so anyone sentenced for it would be in county jail, not in the state prison system, and this wouldn't apply. You could probably let go some of those with "possession with intent to distribute" though; I'm sure at least some just had a few blunts too many and made the bulk amount. |
|
| Author: | Lenas [ Tue May 24, 2011 4:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yeah, the cutoff for infraction possession here is one ounce, but any card-carrier can have up to 8 ounces at any time. I could see some people being wrongly accused of intent to sell. I was being sarcastic with the original post, btw. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue May 24, 2011 6:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: |
Lenas wrote: Yeah, the cutoff for infraction possession here is one ounce, but any card-carrier can have up to 8 ounces at any time. I could see some people being wrongly accused of intent to sell. I was being sarcastic with the original post, btw. I wasn't entirely sure if you really meant just "possession" or "possession with intent to distribute". |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue May 24, 2011 7:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | USSC to California: Cut prison population by 30,000 |
I don't think opening the flood gates blindly is a good idea. I think we can certainly review every case, especially those kinds Elmo talking about and see if prison is the best place for them. Most Possessors can go to outpatient rehab. Some "dealers" can go on parole with huge restrictions. Why did we get away from prison farms and making license plates? Not all offenders are same. Putting them in the same basic type of punishment is counter productive. |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Tue May 24, 2011 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What the feds really want us to do is build more prisons. Lex, that wouldn't cause the lay-off of even one prison guard. The overtime the guards do would shrink substantially. |
|
| Author: | Diamondeye [ Tue May 24, 2011 10:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Doesn't California still have that "3 strikes" law? That strikes me as the most likely culprit in extreme overcrowding. |
|
| Author: | Micheal [ Tue May 24, 2011 11:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes, since 1994. For some reason its a lot easier to find everyone with enhanced sentencing (second and third strikers - 47,000) than just the third strikers. There was a proposition, 66, that failed by a 53% to 47% result that would have released, or shortened the sentences of, a lot of three strikes prisoners by taking the following crimes off the books for third strike eligibility: Attempted burglary Conspiracy to commit assault Nonresidential arson resulting in no significant injuries Threats to commit criminal acts that would result in significant personal injury Burglary of an unoccupied residence Interference with a trial witness without the use of force or threats and not in furtherance of a conspiracy Participation in felonies committed by a criminal street gang Unintentional infliction of significant personal injury while committing a felony In my opinion, the last two killed it. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Tue May 24, 2011 11:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't like three strikes laws because I'd rather deal with people on a case by case basis. |
|
| Author: | Hannibal [ Wed May 25, 2011 7:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Seems like California has a lot of "tack on " offenses in their system. Unintended consequence I guess. |
|
| Author: | Arathain Kelvar [ Wed May 25, 2011 11:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
It's hard to figure out just from the published data. So, if 47,000 are in for a second and third offense, well, they still should be in for that, because they committed the crime. Just not as long as some of the ridiculous minimum sentences. So you wouldn't release 47,000, because some would still be in for the offense. |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Wed May 25, 2011 12:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Only people who are a danger to others should be locked up. Otherwise it's a waste of money and doesn't help anyone. If I'm ever on a jury I will almost invariably vote not guilty. Do I care more about my bank account or antique notions of enforcing morality? Pretty obvious answer. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Wed May 25, 2011 12:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | USSC to California: Cut prison population by 30,000 |
Define dangerous? Just physically violent? |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Wed May 25, 2011 12:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: USSC to California: Cut prison population by 30,000 |
Rorinthas wrote: Define dangerous? Just physically violent? No, dangerous to another person's well-being. Person might be an abstract sense. For example I wouldn't convict an old Nazi of war crimes because he obviously won't commit more. If someone is on trial for past child abuse committed against their kids, but the kids are all grown up now, then this person doesn't need to be in jail. It's a waste of money and they might be a valuable member of the workforce. |
|
| Author: | Rorinthas [ Wed May 25, 2011 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | USSC to California: Cut prison population by 30,000 |
Then how do we provide justice and closure for that person's victims? |
|
| Author: | Lex Luthor [ Wed May 25, 2011 2:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: USSC to California: Cut prison population by 30,000 |
Rorinthas wrote: Then how do we provide justice and closure for that person's victims? Who cares? They can go play video games and write twitter messages about their refrigerator for all I care. The possible court case isn't about them, it's about the perpetrator and what should happen. They can be witnesses or not. They can take out their sick and twisted revenge fantasies elsewhere if they have them. Btw I'm talking about criminal court and not civil. They should still be able to sue for damages. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|