• 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

Another worry about prisons, which someone touched on earlier, is criminalization that happens. let's say we have a 20 year old who does some stupid **** like minor theft. He's not a hardened criminal, he's young and stupid. He gets locked up. Now he's in prison, and to survive, he has to join a gang. The gang indoctrinates him in prison, and teaches him how to be a better criminal Now when he's out, he's already well on the path of being a life-long gang member. It's a problem that needs to be reformed some how.
 
OscarB63 said:
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
Click to expand...

You're a racist. There.
 
Last edited:
liblady said:
you can't deny your words.
Click to expand...

please point to where I said anything racist. just because you want it to be, doesn't make it so. did you ever see the movie "baby mama"? everyone involved was white.

your lame, pathetic, bleatings only prove one thing. people who go looking for racism will always find it, whether it actually exists or not.
 
liblady said:
as i posted, oscar doesn't know much about how welfare works. don't know what he bases his assumptions on.
Click to expand...

probably on all the welfare recipients I see sitting on their front steps in the housing projects as I drive to and from work every day. none of them appear to be in any kind of welfare to work program. but, of course, they all could possibly qualify for one of the dozens of exemptions to that requirement ;)
 
GPS_Flex said:
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.
Click to expand...

True....but people do go to prison here in California for sales of weed and cultivation....both of which is silly. I understand....selling to kids should be treated more seriously, but sales or cultivation of weed for adults isn't worth prison.

People go to prison here for possession of cocaine and other drugs. Not everyone in California qualifies for prop 36 program...there are a lot of restrictions that keep a lot of people out of the program.

Judges and prosecutors are quick to throw people in prison here in Los Angeles, because it makes them look tough and wins them votes. They aren't interested in correcting the problem and finding solutions.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Another worry about prisons, which someone touched on earlier, is criminalization that happens. let's say we have a 20 year old who does some stupid **** like minor theft. He's not a hardened criminal, he's young and stupid. He gets locked up. Now he's in prison, and to survive, he has to join a gang. The gang indoctrinates him in prison, and teaches him how to be a better criminal Now when he's out, he's already well on the path of being a life-long gang member. It's a problem that needs to be reformed some how.
Click to expand...

Just to make the point: none of this has anything to do with the court ruling or the case in question.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Another worry about prisons, which someone touched on earlier, is criminalization that happens. let's say we have a 20 year old who does some stupid **** like minor theft. He's not a hardened criminal, he's young and stupid. He gets locked up. Now he's in prison, and to survive, he has to join a gang. The gang indoctrinates him in prison, and teaches him how to be a better criminal Now when he's out, he's already well on the path of being a life-long gang member. It's a problem that needs to be reformed some how.
Click to expand...

that 20 year old who does something stupid is not going to prison for a 1st time offense. that's the part you bleeding heart libs refuse to get. by the time someone ends up in prison, they have already been given several chances.
 
OscarB63 said:
that 20 year old who does something stupid is not going to prison for a 1st time offense.
Click to expand...

Yes he can. You don't know what you are talking about. The people typically given chances are middle class white kids. Do some rudimentary research before trying to come off as an expert.

And if you don't believe me, I can upload my college degrees.
 
OscarB63 said:
that 20 year old who does something stupid is not going to prison for a 1st time offense. that's the part you bleeding heart libs refuse to get. by the time someone ends up in prison, they have already been given several chances.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I've had many cases in which first-time offenders go to prison....its not all that uncommon
 
Redress said:
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



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.
Click to expand...

I can’t disagree with anything you said except to say that I think the court got it wrong because the remedy for the case brought before them does nothing to resolve the problem because the heath care facilities will remain under funded and facilitated even after this ruling.

I agree that the states owe basic healthcare to prisoners but there should be a limit to what is required to be provided.
 
MrVicchio said:
images
Click to expand...


Seems successful. :2wave:

 
Barbbtx said:
Seems successful. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Guess it depends on how you define "success". You can lock every person up and turn us all into a big brother police state and stop a lot of crime. Success?
 
disneydude said:
True....but people do go to prison here in California for sales of weed and cultivation....both of which is silly. I understand....selling to kids should be treated more seriously, but sales or cultivation of weed for adults isn't worth prison.

People go to prison here for possession of cocaine and other drugs. Not everyone in California qualifies for prop 36 program...there are a lot of restrictions that keep a lot of people out of the program.

Judges and prosecutors are quick to throw people in prison here in Los Angeles, because it makes them look tough and wins them votes. They aren't interested in correcting the problem and finding solutions.
Click to expand...

I can’t really disagree with this.
 
Deuce said:
As long as its the non-violent drug use type criminals and not the murderers and rapists...

I would say white collar type crimes like embezzlement, but let's face it those people don't go to prison.
Click to expand...

That's what it was a couple of years ago when they paroled a bunch of people early.

Low level drug and non-violent first offender types (many of whom were supporting drug habits).
 
GPS_Flex said:
I can’t disagree with anything you said except to say that I think the court got it wrong because the remedy for the case brought before them does nothing to resolve the problem because the heath care facilities will remain under funded and facilitated even after this ruling.

I agree that the states owe basic healthcare to prisoners but there should be a limit to what is required to be provided.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. In fact one of the solutions that the state can undertake to avoid releasing prisoners(note that the release is over a 2 year period) is to increase the number of health care providers. In fact, there are a number of remedies that the state can, and has in fact started to do, to avoid the release.
 
OscarB63 said:
that 20 year old who does something stupid is not going to prison for a 1st time offense. that's the part you bleeding heart libs refuse to get. by the time someone ends up in prison, they have already been given several chances.
Click to expand...

Do you have any source on this? Because it quite often doesn't work like that.

OscarB63 said:
probably on all the welfare recipients I see sitting on their front steps in the housing projects as I drive to and from work every day. none of them appear to be in any kind of welfare to work program. but, of course, they all could possibly qualify for one of the dozens of exemptions to that requirement ;)
Click to expand...

I have no idea how they do it in Alabama, but seeing what a low income state it is, I wouldn't be surprised if the state just doesn't have money for work programs. But do you at least accept that you were wrong when you said welfare doesn't work like that?
 
OscarB63 said:
probably on all the welfare recipients I see sitting on their front steps in the housing projects as I drive to and from work every day. none of them appear to be in any kind of welfare to work program. but, of course, they all could possibly qualify for one of the dozens of exemptions to that requirement ;)
Click to expand...

that's just dumb, oscar. men don't get welfare unless they have custody of kids. admit you don't know what know you're talking about.
 
MrVicchio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah! And you should consider it an honor to pay upwards of $30,000 a year to show that kid what happens when he doesn't do as the government says!

Or better yet, let's allow for profit businesses to utilize that criminal labor in more for-profit prisons. More taxpayer money turned into profits! More photo ops for conservative politicians in tent-city jails with pink jumpsuits and outdated baloney. Full of dumbass first offender druggie kids.

Yay!:2wave:
 
Kandahar's Economist links are very informative (and rage-inducing), and I suggest everyone who has not already, to read them.

Indeed, our criminal system is overcomplicated and arbitrary. Look at Al Capone. He was responsible for a great deal of violence, but they were only able to get him on tax evasion. This is often presented as a neat little trick by the Justice Department, but when you think about, how many laws and regulations do we break every day without knowing? Virtually everyone has committed a crime recently, often without knowing it. We need to simplify our laws to make it obvious what the law is, reduce sentencing for non-violent offenders, and make legal positions unelected and remove mandatory sentencing laws to make our judiciary more independent.
 
MrVicchio said:
Maybe he should have thought about that before he lit up. I'd love to give weed a try, just to see what all the hub bub is about. But I won't till it's legalized, if ever. Why? Because breaking the law... for my own gain is, well ya know... ILLEGAL.


Why throw speeders into Jail? And that guy that ONLY had two beers, really, aren't there "worse" criminals out there?

How about that guy that "only" slapped his girlfriend? I mean, it was just a slap, does he really deserve to be in jail?

How about that kdi that stole a couple of snickers bars, I mean it's not liek the store really lost money...
Click to expand...

Beautiful example of the difference between crimes with real or potential victims and victimless crimes.

Victimless means you're only in troyble with the GOVERNMENT for hurting YOURSELF.

Authoritarian by definition.

Crimes of morality are immoral.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom