• 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

but it's not. and it never will be

Why not? I fail to see the problem with that. You're given welfare as long as you're taking classes at the local Community College or something similar, and if you fail your classes or drop out, the money shuts off.
 
distributing pot to your underage friends is not the same thing as "being caught with a little weed".

You're playing semantics. Can you show us the cognitive differences between a 19 year old and an 17 year old? I'll give you a clue: there are none. So why is the crime elevated to distribution when somebody a 2 years younger is involved? Why aren't both charged with crimes pertinent to drug transactions if it is in fact distribution? I'll give you a clue, inconsistent people like you make the laws.
 
I'd rather spend $20K per year to keep them in prison than give them $20K per year in welfare. at least in prison they won't be becoming baby daddy to five different women.

since when do men get welfare?
 
Why not? I fail to see the problem with that. You're given welfare as long as you're taking classes at the local Community College or something similar, and if you fail your classes or drop out, the money shuts off.

I have no problem with it. except that it is a pipe dream. the govt will never put that kind of restriction on giving out welfare.
 
I have no problem with it. except that it is a pipe dream. the govt will never put that kind of restriction on giving out welfare.

i don't believe you know very much about how welfare works these days.
 
This makes me glad. This just demonstrates how bloated the justice system is. There are too many laws on the books. How many people are in jail for petty drug possession? Too many. We have so many unjust laws that the prisons cannot hold all those who are convicted.

We're assuming that the people being released are "bad guys" and will cause harm to society. Most of the people who will be released will be petty offenders, and I bet most of them should never have gotten hard time in the first place.
 
You're playing semantics. Can you show us the cognitive differences between a 19 year old and an 17 year old? I'll give you a clue: there are none. So why is the crime elevated to distribution when somebody a 2 years younger is involved? Why aren't both charged with crimes pertinent to drug transactions if it is in fact distribution? I'll give you a clue, inconsistent people like you make the laws.

tell me that when you catch a 19 year old ****ing your 17 y/o daughter. but, of course, you'd probably have no problem with that.

but FWIW, you try to make it sound like they are scooping up random kids off the street and throwing them in prison for having a nickel bag in their pocket. that doesn't happen
 
i don't believe you know very much about how welfare works these days.

:roll: I know enough to know that they don't make you go to school or get training to get a check.
 
Sale or distribution to minors is a felony under Health and Safety Code 11361.

If you have a 17 year old friend and you smoke weed with them, that can be charged as distribution to a minor.

CA NORML Marijuana Laws

(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers or gives or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.

CA NORML Marijuana Laws

(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section or as authorized by law, every person who transports, imports into this state, sells, furnishes, administers, or gives away, or offers to transport import into this state, sell, furnish, administer, or give away, or attempts to import into this state or transport any marijuana shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of two, three or four years.

Senate Votes to Double Fines, Jail Time for Pot Brownies | FDL Action



USC / L.A. Times poll says 49% of California voters favor marijuana legalization | Comments Blog | Los Angeles Times



What were you saying?

Your example is different than the crackpot statement you made about a 19 year old getting caught with some pot. Even with your revised example you got it wrong. You used the example of a 17 year old when the law says 14.

Even then, the courts aren’t sending kids to prison for this crap so your examples are disingenuous.
 
I can understand why people would be worried, but as Deuce said, as long as they are non-violent types it really shouldn't be that much of a problem.

But will they do it that way? I hope so, but I just question things especially when we're talking about Ca. :)

For instance, will they release a non-violent drug/dealer/user who has only served 30 days of 5 yrs over a rapist who has served 10 yrs of a 15 yr sentence?
I say if they release all non-violent offenders, and put them on parol, I wouldn't have much of a problem.
 
Even then, the courts aren’t sending kids to prison for this crap so your examples are disingenuous.

Putting aside ages for the moment, the three strikes law still applies. Drug possession is a felony. You get caught a few times and you get life in prison.

See how stupid the system is?
 
I'd rather spend $20K per year to keep them in prison than give them $20K per year in welfare. at least in prison they won't be becoming baby daddy to five different women.

OK, let's put aside the fairly blatant racism in randomly bringing welfare into a discussion about people in prison for minor crimes, and using the phrase "baby daddy." And let's put aside the appalling human rights violations that take place in prison, where instead of becoming a "baby daddy to five different women," they become a woman to five different prisoners.

What the hell makes you think that people convicted of minor crimes would be on welfare if they weren't in prison? Even if we assume that half of them would, that would still be far cheaper than incarceration.

If you don't want poor people to breed (I say "poor people" even though we both know who you're actually referring to), surely there are more cost-effective ways than locking them in a cage for their 20s for no particular reason. Sex education, for example.
 
:roll: I know enough to know that they don't make you go to school or get training to get a check.

as i posted before, i don't believe men even GET welfare for themselves, do they? i think not.
 

I always find SCOTUS rulings interesting, so went to my favorite site on them to read a bit about this. SCOTUSBlog should be required reading for people interested in how the Supreme Court rules and what those rulings mean.

Partial OK for prisoner release : SCOTUSblog

At the time the District Court issued its order, this release requirement meant that, at the greatest level, somewhere around 46,000 inmates would have to go free to meet the two-year goal. That figure has dropped somewhat, and current estimates are that perhaps 37,000 will have to be released, unless state officials come up with alternatives to outright release.

Although Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the main opinion’s author, anticipated that a massive release of those dimensions could ultimately be avoided, he did concede that some releases could not be avoided. “Absent a reduction in overcrowding, any remedy might prove unattainable and would at the very least require vast expenditures of resources by the state,” Kennedy wrote. And there is nothing in the history of the two prisoner lawsuits decided Monday, Kennedy said, to suggest that the state will come up with the money needed to finance alternatives to reduced populations. (The two cases were decided under the combined titled of Brown v. Plata, et al. (docket 19-1233.)

The decision upheld what clearly is the most sweeping inmate release order in the 15-year history of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a federal law that Congress passed to set new standards to govern when federal courts order prisoners be set free. The Act limits such orders to those that are “truly necessary” to avoid a violation of inmates’ rights, specifies that they can only be issued as a last resort, requires that prior court orders to protect inmates’ rights have been tried and failed, mandates that state officials be given time to pursue alternatives, and allows an actual release order only if overcrowding is the primary cause of the violation. (Before that law was enacted, federal courts for years had used their general powers to remedy wrongs, and did order actual releases.)

What is going from what I can see is that the 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Inadequate access to health care for prisoners is considered a violation of this. The Prison Litigation Reform Act says that the courts can only require prisoner releases as essentially a matter of last resort. SCOTUS rules that in fact this was "the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right".

If prisoners are required to have adequate access to health care under the 8th amendment, and there is no other way to do this that the state can do, then it looks to me as if this is probably a reasonable ruling.
 
distributing pot to your underage friends is not the same thing as "being caught with a little weed".

Yeah...but you see in LA a lot....they send a really hot u/c cop into the high school. She comes onto a bunch of guys and asks them to get weed for her....when they do, they bust them for seilling and/or distributing weed.

You also get teams of cops that regularly target skid row and bust people for crack.....

Really? Is this how tax payers money should be spent?
 
tell me that when you catch a 19 year old ****ing your 17 y/o daughter. but, of course, you'd probably have no problem with that.

Funny enough, most states have closeness laws where a 19 year old won't get in trouble for sleeping with a 17 year old.

I have no problem with it. except that it is a pipe dream. the govt will never put that kind of restriction on giving out welfare.
Except, most states have.
 
as i posted before, i don't believe men even GET welfare for themselves, do they? i think not.

oh and btw.......

Considerations
Excluding exemptions, unemployed welfare recipients must enroll in the Welfare to Work program. The program offers vocational training, job resources, childcare assistance and counseling. You may be exempt from the program if you are in school full time, a caretaker for a CalWORKs recipient but not receiving benefits, caring for a disabled household member, age 60 or older, pregnant, a single parent of an infant less than 12 months old or have a medical excuse.



Read more: California Welfare Requirements | eHow.com California Welfare Requirements | eHow.com
 
I oppose this ruling for a couple of reasons:

I oppose it for the exact same reason I opposed the Feds telling the State of Arizona that it can’t check peoples immigration status. It is just one more example of the federal government usurping more power from the states and from the people.

I oppose it because the 1990 lawsuit under consideration in this case was about the provision of mental health care and the mental patients that aren’t getting the kind of care they need will not be the ones that get released and it won’t change their situation. There will still be a shortage of medical facilities and personnel until California builds some new facilities and hires more medical staff.

The US constitution applies to all states. Since the heart of the release order is the 8th amendment, and the law limiting how prisoners can be released is a federal law, this is clearly not a states rights issue.
 
Putting aside ages for the moment, the three strikes law still applies. Drug possession is a felony. You get caught a few times and you get life in prison.

See how stupid the system is?

yeah, it's nearly as stupid as the person who would violate the same law for a 3rd time. ;)
 
oh and btw.......

Considerations
Excluding exemptions, unemployed welfare recipients must enroll in the Welfare to Work program. The program offers vocational training, job resources, childcare assistance and counseling. You may be exempt from the program if you are in school full time, a caretaker for a CalWORKs recipient but not receiving benefits, caring for a disabled household member, age 60 or older, pregnant, a single parent of an infant less than 12 months old or have a medical excuse.



Read more: California Welfare Requirements | eHow.com California Welfare Requirements | eHow.com

Just to add, you also have to have 32 hours a week of work-related activities.
 
19 years old and in prison cause he decided being a law abiding citizen was less important then getting high
...


Yes, truly someone to have pity for.

I have zero sympathy for some one who breaks the law. If a 19 year old gets busted for pot, well, that is his problem. However, releasing him does not threaten the well being of state residents. I would be more worried about the release of nonviolent thieves which is possible depending on how many prisoners actually do get released.
 
OK, let's put aside the fairly blatant racism in randomly bringing welfare into a discussion about people in prison for minor crimes, and using the phrase "baby daddy." And let's put aside the appalling human rights violations that take place in prison, where instead of becoming a "baby daddy to five different women," they become a woman to five different prisoners.

What the hell makes you think that people convicted of minor crimes would be on welfare if they weren't in prison? Even if we assume that half of them would, that would still be far cheaper than incarceration.

If you don't want poor people to breed (I say "poor people" even though we both know who you're actually referring to), surely there are more cost-effective ways than locking them in a cage for their 20s for no particular reason. Sex education, for example.


your obvious (though I notice you are too much of a coward to come out and say it) attempt to paint me as a racist shows your desperation and the fact that your position is crap.
 
Putting aside ages for the moment, the three strikes law still applies. Drug possession is a felony. You get caught a few times and you get life in prison.

See how stupid the system is?

I am not arguing that the system isn't stupid. I think it is in need of some serious revision. The 3 strikes law is indeed too broad and needs revision but that’s a lot different than trying to paint the prisons here in CA as being full of 19 year olds who got caught with a little pot.


If I get caught with less than an ounce of pot here in CA, the penalty is $100. I got caught by a photo camera turning right on red a few months ago and had to pay $490. Pot isn’t a crime that people are going to prison for here unless there is something else involved.
 
your obvious (though I notice you are too much of a coward to come out and say it) attempt to paint me as a racist shows your desperation and the fact that your position is crap.

you can't deny your words.
 
oh and btw.......

Considerations
Excluding exemptions, unemployed welfare recipients must enroll in the Welfare to Work program. The program offers vocational training, job resources, childcare assistance and counseling. You may be exempt from the program if you are in school full time, a caretaker for a CalWORKs recipient but not receiving benefits, caring for a disabled household member, age 60 or older, pregnant, a single parent of an infant less than 12 months old or have a medical excuse.




Read more: California Welfare Requirements | eHow.com California Welfare Requirements | eHow.com

with emphasis on "YOU MAY BE EXEMPT"
 
Back
Top Bottom