Supreme Court backs cuts to CA prison population
Supreme Court backs cuts to CA prison population
The Supreme Court has upheld an order requiring California to cut its prison population by thousands of inmates to improve health care for those who remain behind bars. Supreme Court Rules California Must Free Tens of Thousands of Inmates A sharply divided Supreme Court Monday affirmed a controversial prisoner reduction plan forced on California prison administrators that requires the state to reduce its inmate population by tens-of-thousands to ease overcrowding. The 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a California native, is a wholesale acceptance of a ruling by a special three-judge panel tasked with resolving chronic overcrowding in the state's penal system. The February 2009 decision orders California to reduce its prison population that has at times run nearly double its capacity. Approximately 37,000 to 46,000 inmates will have to be released in order for the state to comply with the ruling. "After years of litigation, it became apparent that a remedy for the constitutional violations would not be effective absent a reduction in the prison system population," Kennedy wrote in an opinion joined by the court's more liberal members. In an unusual occurrence, the opinion included an appendix showing three pictures of the overcrowded facilities. Critics of California's prison system contend the cells are so overrun with inmates that proper care has been obliterated. Kennedy cites examples of prisoners with mental or physical health needs having to wait months for inadequate care. He cites one example of an inmate who was held for nearly 24 hours in a cage and standing in a pool of his own urine. Others died while seeking medical attention that was seemingly delayed because of the backlog of cases. "If a prison deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, the courts have a responsibility to remedy the resulting Eighth Amendment violation," Kennedy declared noting the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling gives the state some flexibility when it comes to how it goes about reducing its prison population even suggesting that three judge panel that originally issued the order could extend a two-year compliance order if it felt the state was making progress in its efforts to reduce the inmate population to 137.5 percent of capacity. While Kennedy recognized the "grave concern" of releasing prisoners in large numbers he nonetheless supported the premise that the state's prisons have simply become too overcrowded. "Absent compliance through new construction, out-of-state transfers, or other means ... the state will be required to release some number of prisoners before their full sentences have been served." Justice Antonin Scalia fired away in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, calling the ruling a judicial travesty. "Today the court affirms what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history: an order requiring California to release the staggering number of 46,000 convicted criminals." Scalia, who read part of his dissent from the bench, expressed concern that the ruling upholds the idea that judges can institute their policy preferences in place of elected lawmakers and that the reach of the decision is simply too broad. "It is also worth noting the peculiarity that the vast majority of inmates most generously rewarded by the release order -- the 46,000 whose incarceration will be ended -- do not form part of any aggrieved class even under the Court’s expansive notion of constitutional violation," Scalia wrote in dissent. "Most of them will not be prisoners with medical conditions or severe mental illness; and many will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym." Chief Justice John Roberts joined a separate dissent written by Justice Samuel Alito that also questioned the wisdom of giving federal judges the authority to run state penal systems. Their dissent also faulted the majority for not taking into greater consideration the recent progress of state officials to improve prison conditions and the concerns about public safety. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...#ixzz1NEBl0Ukp |
The question is, how will they decide which ones are let free?
There's no jobs, so that leaves public assistance, and coincidently, look what else happened today: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/23/364...o-collect.html Quote:
|
One more good reason to end the Drug War. Completely decriminalize simple possession of anything derived from plant products. Remove from prison anyone prosecuted for simple possession. Fines for anyone caught distributing the stuff. Suck the life out of the scum distributing this stuff and especially the quack "medical marijuana" clinics.
|
Quote:
Quote:
And just what sort of drug convictions are we talking about anyway? What is right? Toss someone on the streets with no resources to support himself other than theft of some sort and hope he can get his life together, or run the risk of adding to the number of people on welfare who abuse drugs and alcohol on the public dole? Even though illegals may well suck off the welfare tit, I believe the vast majority of welfare cases involve people with substance abuse problems and mental issues. As I side note, I know someone who attracted the negative attention of a certain police officer and received several DUI arrests. He faced 5 years in jail, but managed to retain an attorney who managed a settlement for a year of home confinement with an ankle bracelet. The local PD department attempted to frame him on a violation of the terms of plea bargain at the end of the year, with the aim that the convicted would spend a full five years in jail, but it didn't fly. He did spend a few months in the local pre trial facility, and upon being released he was in fact destitute. He applied for and received food stamps, and has now been working enough odd jobs to just pay his way and rent a room without resort to food stamps. He now has a bicycle rather than a vehicle, and one thing is for sure - he may ride his bike one way to get a limited number of drinks, but he pushes his bike home if he's had anything at all to drink. By the way, the cop stalked the man's girlfriend as well during that time period, one time having her blow thirteen times on the sidewalk until the officer got what he wanted for probable cause for DUI, then then took her around to the front of the squad car windshield camera and had her blow another three times for documentation, whereupon he cuffed her and took her in. |
Criminal and accused illegal aliens are federal responsibility, local lawmakers say
Quote:
|
Quote:
I also believe the statement that written communication should have been made to a supervisor at the jail is laughable, that it would either not be delivered or ignored if it was. Quote:
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright SaveOurState ©2009 - 2016 All Rights Reserved