• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court orders California to release tens of thousands of prison inmates

Because there are more criminals in prison, perhaps? Learn common sense.

Ever hear of a causal relationship error fallacy? We've had prisons as a growth industry for a long time. And all that while, we've had crime. It is possible something else is contributing to lower rates today.
 
what specifically is cruel and unusual about putting a person who breaks the law into prison?

Nothing, as long as their crime warrants it. When we pack our prisons to the gills (when we really don't need to) so much that inmates cannot get the services they need; that is cruel and unusual. Apdst did not refute that. He simply said they should not have broken the law, as if that makes a difference.
 
In that case, they're not worth keeping alive.

Probably not. Yet we have no provision for killing them in our system of laws.

You had to make it a race thing, huh? Couldn't resist.

Everything in prison is a "race thing". No, I didn't make it that way.
 
Last edited:
Nothing, as long as their crime warrants it. When we pack our prisons to the gills (when we really don't need to) so much that inmates cannot get the services they need; that is cruel and unusual. Apdst did not refute that. He simply said they should not have broken the law, as if that makes a difference.

and exactly what "services" do they need?
 
and exactly what "services" do they need?

This was the discussion:

When the inmates outnumber the staff to such a high ratio, inmate care goes out the barred window. Any inmate taking doctor prescribed medicine will have to wait months for the pill testers to get around to their bottle every time that a refill is needed. Then, after the Rx has been certified, the guards will stick it on a shelf somewhere and say that they can't find it when the prisoner asks "where are my pills".
Those that happen to require immediate medical attention will be ignored. If your appendix is busting, that's curtains for you, along with many other preventable deaths.

That is a violation of section 8 of the US Constitution.

When you have 6 men sharing a 5x10 foot cell it's a violation of section 8.

When you have prisoners that are starving to death because a bigger inmate is taking their food everyday it's a violation of section 8.

When you have mentally unstable inmates not being cared for, you guessed it, a violation of section 8.

When you have guards playing Gitmo, it's a violation.

Many, many more, such as prisoners getting shanked in the back and being ignored. Many being murdered, maimed, etc.

The Supremes are right. The violations in any prison system with too few guards, medical staff, and pill testers for the inmate population will result in barbaric medieval conditions every time. The general free population's desire to hear about inmate rape has always puzzled me. It's almost like we think that that should be part of the punishment. Sickening.

The judge doesn't sentence you to Abhorrent misery, only time.

And, it's unfortunate that the SC looks at it that way. If convicts don't like the way they're being treated, then they shouldn't break the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom