U.S. judges seek massive California prisoner release

[x635 4,066]

Scary.

U.S. judges seek massive California prisoner release

By Peter Henderson Peter Henderson – Tue Feb 10, 7:18 am ET

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Federal judges on Monday tentatively ordered California to release tens of thousands of inmates, up to a third of all prisoners, in the next three years to stop dangerous overcrowding.

As many as 57,000 could be let go if the current population were cut by the maximum percentage considered by a three-judge panel. Judges said the move could be done without threatening public safety -- and might improve a public safety hazard.

FULL STORY: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090210/us_nm/...sons_california

[JM15 386]

How is a mass release not going to threaten public safety? What would the qualifications be for the inmates aka. Seriousness of crimes?

[Guest alsfirefighter]

LOL. One word...recidivism!

I'm for proper early release in non violent crimes, but the stats don't lie. Most of them will be coming back and isn't it California that had a slide scale approach to sentencing years ago because of the same issue? Meaning the judge would sentence you to a amount of time, but then according to a scale they had to use, suspended a portion of the sentence due to overcrowding?

I'm also a realist and look into both sides of an argument/opinion....part of the overcrowding issue also involves California's 3 strike rule which they house a immense amount of lifers. This assists in the overcrowding as they still need room for sentenced felons, etc. And also is why California prisons have some of the worst safety/crime stats as the large population of lifers have nothing to lose.

So when street crime goes up, which there is a good chance it will depending on how they funnel the release, it will be on these judges heads. Also to me it could impower the criminal mind as many of them are not ready for the street and are institutionalized and will have no support structure on the outside to assist any even if 1 wants to do the right thing. Wanna say they will have "Parole" supervision. Parole divisions are often one of the biggest understaffed state departments in every state. Now add 57,000 more to the rolls.

So now its not "if you can't do the time don't do the crime." Its "if you do the crime...they don't have room for your time." Great theory.

How about the economic stimulus? Money for infrastructure right? Give some to Cali and build prisons now. NY could use some updates to theirs. Corrections is the largest item in the budget every year and keeps update economies going in many cases.

[Goose 188]

But ALS, they are people too!! Golly, give them a chance!!!

Give them a month and the COs over there will be start seeing some familiar faces.

[COMMANDCHIEF 4]

They should set up tent cities like Joe Arpaio in AZ. It's dry and warm enough most of the time out there. Out up some doubled up fences, and string some wire, and you're good to go. That and some towers. Let the prisoners build the stuff. They are always talking about how they don't get skills training in the prisons to make them be better citizens when they get out. Bet some ditch digging and carpantry will do them all a world of good. That and all that nice fresh air.

PS.. the Judge should be thrown through a wood chipper for even thinking about letting these savages out.

[Guest feraldan]

Tighter gun laws will fix this problem.

[Guest]

Tighter gun laws will fix this problem.

If tighter gun laws fixed these problems then Cali and DC wouldn't have crime...

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Question, how does the federal court system get jurisdiction here? This is almost definitely a violation of the 9th Amendment. The US Government can't dictate policy to the California Government like that. So yeah, its a dumb idea, but even worse, it sets a HORRIBLE precedent about state's rights in relation to the government.

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Question, how does the federal court system get jurisdiction here? This is almost definitely a violation of the 9th Amendment. The US Government can't dictate policy to the California Government like that. So yeah, its a dumb idea, but even worse, it sets a HORRIBLE precedent about state's rights in relation to the government.

What about the eighth amendment? The eighth amendment protects against "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Overcrowding of prisons in a unsafe, unhealthy or otherwise cruel manner can be and just has been considered a violation of the eighth amendment.

[markmets415 524]

Case laws and the Eighth Amendment

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constit...ent08/08.html#1

[Guest alsfirefighter]

Tighter gun laws will fix this problem.

Reeeeally....and just how many gun crimes are comitted with legally owned guns?

Or are you being sarcastic?

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Case laws and the Eighth Amendment<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/08.html#1" target="_blank">

</a>

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constit...ent08/08.html#1

Thank you for posting this for everyone

[Guest alsfirefighter]

What about the eighth amendment? The eighth amendment protects against "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." Overcrowding of prisons in a unsafe, unhealthy or otherwise cruel manner can be and just has been considered a violation of the eighth amendment.

Perhaps if you actually believe that it would fall under the 8th amendment. I for one don't see it as cruel and unusual punishment in the least bit. I wonder how liberal that judge was that found it such and what nice jurisprudence he acts.

[Just a guy 493]

AS was evident in the plate reader topic there seems to be some of us who are completly naive about the ways of the world and how crime works. Letting criminals out of jail WILL increase crime and cause a public safety emergency.. it happens all the time except here we call it parole. Those of you who want to be so concerned about the rights and comforts of prisioners should invite these newly released criminals to stay with you in your houses, in your neighborhoods, but my guess is that you wouldn't, "NIMBY" is what most of you would say.

The eighth ammendment has NOTHING to do with this, excessive bail ? These people are in state prision and are therefore past being elegible for bail. If these people are upset with their prision living conditions, here's a clue - STOP BREAKING THE LAW MORON - and you won't have to be in prision.

Unfortunatly there are those people in society who hide behind the bill of rights, these people are called liberals. There is a saying in Law Enforcement, " a liberal is only a liberal until they or someone they love is the victim of a crime, then they become a conservative."

Let's remember these people are CONVICTED CRIMINALS and are in state prision for a reason, for all of you that are concerned about the bill of rights and prisioners rights, the reason is that they were found guilty by a jury of their peers as is prescribed by the constitution.

Just my 2 cents ......

[10-Buff-4 0]

Question, how does the federal court system get jurisdiction here? This is almost definitely a violation of the 9th Amendment. The US Government can't dictate policy to the California Government like that. So yeah, its a dumb idea, but even worse, it sets a HORRIBLE precedent about state's rights in relation to the government.

Let me say at the outset that I am not going to state an opinion one way or the other about the wiseness of this decision. I would like to clarify some confusion that seems to be occurring here.

The Ninth Amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

On the other hand, The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by ti to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The Tenth Amendment has also interpreted to grant the States "sovereignty", which is a murky legal doctrine that I will not delve into here.

Why isn't this an inherent Tenth Amendment violation? First, the Bill of Rights (Amendments I-X) apply to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ("No State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). That doctrine is known as "incorporation", and was originally articulated in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 1937. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on Cruel and Unusual Punishment has been incorporated against the states in a case called Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 1962. Although the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 requires prisoners to exhaust internal remedies before going to Court, questions of whether prison conditions constitute cruel and unusual punishment are indeed justiciable questions that can be heard in Federal Court, and has been cited earlier in this thread, there is a body of precedent on the subject.

Now, the remedy ordered in this case, judicially-enforced release of prisoners, could be considered intruding on California's "sovereignty" under the Tenth Amendment. But, that's for the trial court or a higher court to decide and for Attorney General Brown to brief and argue accordingly. And California may have a hard time overcoming that question given the prior decision placing the Prison Healthcare System into Federal Receivership.

I hope that this all helps, and like I said, I express no opinion on the wiseness of the decision. Thank you kindly for your time and attention in all of this and Have a Pleasant Day.

-Joe DA BUFF

[Guest feraldan]

Reeeeally....and just how many gun crimes are comitted with legally owned guns?

Or are you being sarcastic?

For the record,

I am being *very* sarcastic.

If tighter gun laws fixed these problems then Cali and DC wouldn't have crime...

You forgot to mention New York and New Jersey in there.

Edited February 11, 2009 by feraldan

[ny10570 745]

There are absolutely people in California prisons who don't need to be there. 3rd strike offenders who have never committed a violent crime, people in on cow manure possession charges, and the precious few who actually learn from being locked up. I don't care how liberal you are, but there is no way a state can release 1/3rd of their prison population and not suffer a surge in crime. Cut cops on top of this and these people are in for some serious guano.

[ex-commish 490]

They should set up tent cities like Joe Arpaio in AZ. It's dry and warm enough most of the time out there. Out up some doubled up fences, and string some wire, and you're good to go. That and some towers. Let the prisoners build the stuff. They are always talking about how they don't get skills training in the prisons to make them be better citizens when they get out. Bet some ditch digging and carpantry will do them all a world of good. That and all that nice fresh air.

Why not labor camps? Barrack style facilities under close supervision where they have to work all day. No programs. They don't work. Feed them c-rations. Our troops have to eat them in the field and they are protecting our freedom. If Joe Arpaio can feed inmates at an estimated cost of $2.00 per inmate per day why can't the rest of the country follow suit?

[Guest]

"Heaven forbid our inmates be productive and efficient in cheaper, useful work camps! That's cruel and unusual"- Anonymous CA bleeding heart liberal