The Glade 4.0

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.

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.

I nominate Lex's new title to be Slippery Sloper.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Release all those jailed on only drug use, distribution, possession charges.

Release all those jailed for harming no person or property.

There ya go

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

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?

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.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Can't free those on distribution charges. Not if you're going to maintain your drug laws, which they want to do.

With all of the people in our prison system, you can probably get away just letting go inmates with now-decriminalized marijuana possession charges.

/snark on....

Send them (back) to Mexico :p

Fixed, so that it would actually be enough to solve the problem....

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.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

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".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

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.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

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.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Doesn't California still have that "3 strikes" law? That strikes me as the most likely culprit in extreme overcrowding.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

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.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I don't like three strikes laws because I'd rather deal with people on a case by case basis.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Seems like California has a lot of "tack on " offenses in their system. Unintended consequence I guess.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

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.

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.

Define dangerous?

Just physically violent?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

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.

Then how do we provide justice and closure for that person's victims?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

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.