• 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

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.

Are you saying “Not necessarily.” to a limitation on what is provided or concerning the effectiveness of the ordered release?
 
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.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple but generally, yeah, I agree.
 
If it was just "smoking an herb" I'd agree with you.

But it's not. And you know it, but you won't be honest cause you are a pro-drug type.

Here's a little saying we made up back in my druggie days:

This is MY life!

This is MY body!

NOT YOURS!

Not NOW, not EVER!

Any questions?

And in answer to the first obvious response:

Raise your damn kids and stop expecting the government to do it for you.:2wave:
 
I love how some conservatives constantly protest big government, wasteful spending, and any government programs that actually help people. But if you catch someone committing some minor crime? No amount of government spending is too high to lock them up in a cage for years!

Apparently, cost-benefit analysis just goes right out the window when the subject is crime and punishment.

No they're just mouthpieces for the prison guards union!:mrgreen:
 
How likely is it that "non-violent offenders", having been pushed into a system loaded with violent offenders, will come out upon release and be healthy, conscious, productive members of society? What options will they have for work in California when they're released? Is the state going to give them any sort of financial incentive when they're released? What happens if they commit another crime shortly after release? And, like a few have said, what sort of message does it send when we're arbitrarily releasing "minor offenders" because of overcrowding?
 
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?

It does seems that Arpaio's chain gangs, and tent cities are doing better than regular prisons, don't you think? Have there been more successful ways to deal with crime? If so, why aren't we modeling programs after them? Liberals want to cuddle criminals, and that doesn't work.
 
It does seems that Arpaio's chain gangs, and tent cities are doing better than regular prisons, don't you think? Have there been more successful ways to deal with crime? If so, why aren't we modeling programs after them? Liberals want to cuddle criminals, and that doesn't work.

The most successful way to deal with crime is to no subjugate ex-cons to second class citizen status after imprisonment. If a person is able to find a job after being released from prison, and actually gets drug counseling (if needed) the likelihood of re-offending is virtually zero. As research has shown, only about 16% of the criminal population is non-redeemable.

While everyone knows this is the case, its not done because its expensive and criminal have stigma.
 
The most successful way to deal with crime is to no subjugate ex-cons to second class citizen status after imprisonment. If a person is able to find a job after being released from prison, and actually gets drug counseling (if needed) the likelihood of re-offending is virtually zero. As research has shown, only about 16% of the criminal population is non-redeemable.

My old company used to hire recently released offenders through a program started by the city of Dallas. The first one quit and went back to dealing drugs because he couldn't afford to live in a loft in downtown Dallas on 35k/year. The second one tested dirty for drugs twice in 6 months. The third one was discplined for tardiness (a write-up and a conference with his manager and the HR coordinator) and lost control, trashed the HR coordinators office, and punched a hole in the wall. The fourth did really great for the first six months and we thought we'd finally hit the jackpot. Then we found out he was stealing product and selling it online or to metal scrap dealers for cash. He was the last ex-con we hired.

On the other hand, my dad hired an ex-con about 4 months out of his jail sentence. The guy was reliable, always on time, and financial responsible. After three years of working with my dad he bought a new house and a new car. He's getting married next Fall.

So some of 'em probably COULD do well on the outside if given a chance...then there are those who are given a chance and can't shake the bad behavior. They give the rest a bad name.
 
Last edited:
It does seems that Arpaio's chain gangs, and tent cities are doing better than regular prisons, don't you think? Have there been more successful ways to deal with crime? If so, why aren't we modeling programs after them? Liberals want to cuddle criminals, and that doesn't work.

Since the issue in this case has to do with access to health care, what exactly is such a program going to do to solve that?
 
Are you saying “Not necessarily.” to a limitation on what is provided or concerning the effectiveness of the ordered release?

Not necessarily to this not solving the health care problem. It forces the state to look at and select solutions, probably some combination of more health care providers, fewer prisoners, and sending some prisoners out of state to states without the overcrowding.
 
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.

Ya know, I don't know if it WAS racist, but when I read the post in question, my first response was, "Damn he's gonna get flamed for being a racist".
 
My old company used to hire recently released offenders through a program started by the city of Dallas. The first one quit and went back to dealing drugs because he couldn't afford to live in a loft in downtown Dallas on 35k/year. The second one tested dirty for drugs twice in 6 months. The third one was discplined for tardiness (a write-up and a conference with his manager and the HR coordinator) and lost control, trashed the HR coordinators office, and punched a hole in the wall. The fourth did really great for the first six months and we thought we'd finally hit the jackpot. Then we found out he was stealing product and selling it online or to metal scrap dealers for cash. He was the last ex-con we hired.

On the other hand, my dad hired an ex-con about 4 months out of his jail sentence. The guy was reliable, always on time, and financial responsible. After three years of working with my dad he bought a new house and a new car. He's getting married next Fall.

So some of 'em probably COULD do well on the outside if given a chance...then there are those who are given a chance and can't shake the bad behavior. They give the rest a bad name.

The person on drugs likely didn't get proper drug counseling and, IMO, shouldn't of been fired for being on drugs.
The person who went back to dealing drugs is probably in the 16% category
The guy who went nuts had anger issues and probably wasn't in proper counseling for it
The guy who was stealing was also probably in that 16% category.
 
The person on drugs likely didn't get proper drug counseling and, IMO, shouldn't of been fired for being on drugs.
The person who went back to dealing drugs is probably in the 16% category
The guy who went nuts had anger issues and probably wasn't in proper counseling for it
The guy who was stealing was also probably in that 16% category.

Our company's policy was to offer counseling on the first positive drug test. The guy in question went for three weeks, then quit. We decided to give him another shot, tested him again a few months later and he came up dirty. He was given chances and access to counseling.
 
The person on drugs likely didn't get proper drug counseling and, IMO, shouldn't of been fired for being on drugs.
The person who went back to dealing drugs is probably in the 16% category
The guy who went nuts had anger issues and probably wasn't in proper counseling for it
The guy who was stealing was also probably in that 16% category.

I'd also like to know where you're getting 16% from.
 
Coming to a city near you! California relocation program will give them bus tickets and twenty dollars, and send them to other states.

Didn't one area do that with homeless people once? Can't remember who...
 
My old company used to hire recently released offenders through a program started by the city of Dallas. The first one quit and went back to dealing drugs because he couldn't afford to live in a loft in downtown Dallas on 35k/year. The second one tested dirty for drugs twice in 6 months. The third one was discplined for tardiness (a write-up and a conference with his manager and the HR coordinator) and lost control, trashed the HR coordinators office, and punched a hole in the wall. The fourth did really great for the first six months and we thought we'd finally hit the jackpot. Then we found out he was stealing product and selling it online or to metal scrap dealers for cash. He was the last ex-con we hired.

On the other hand, my dad hired an ex-con about 4 months out of his jail sentence. The guy was reliable, always on time, and financial responsible. After three years of working with my dad he bought a new house and a new car. He's getting married next Fall.

So some of 'em probably COULD do well on the outside if given a chance...then there are those who are given a chance and can't shake the bad behavior. They give the rest a bad name.

A distressing number of release programs seem designed to fail. As if making programs harder will increase the likelihood the Inmate will successfully complete the program.
 
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.

Lmao - considering I've advocated against the use of stupid laws that make sex offenders out of 19 year olds sleeping with 17 year olds, I don't really see where you're coming from. Why don't you do us both a favor, pick up a book on California's penal system. When you learn a little bit, get back to us. See, unlike you? I'm pretty consistent in my beliefs. I don't believe that the government should send 19 year olds to jail for sleeping with somebody 2 years younger than them. I also don't believe in the government making criminals out of 19 year old kids with some pot on them or smoking with somebody who is 17. It must hurt you badly that you're called inconsistent. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
It does seems that Arpaio's chain gangs, and tent cities are doing better than regular prisons, don't you think? Have there been more successful ways to deal with crime? If so, why aren't we modeling programs after them? Liberals want to cuddle criminals, and that doesn't work.

"Liberals want to cuddle criminals".....geez.....cut out the cheap shot BS talking points. That is...if you seriously want to discuss the issue and if you really want to find a solution. The reality Barb is that big government/big brother build more prisons mentality doesn't work....what it does is line the pockets of those in the criminal justice cycle. There is big money to be had in the prison industry...and it is easy to sell to an electorate that buys into the "Liberals want to cuddle criminals....get tough on crime crowd". Puttling drug users and non-violent offenders in prison does not make society any safer....at best, it is a false sense of security.

There is a great man who works with gangs in Los Angeles...Father Greg Boyle, who has spent his life helping young men/women get out of the gangs and become productive members of society. He founded Homeboy industries. The wise man that he is....once said...."Give me 1000 fair paying jobs.....and I'll take 1000 gang members off the streets of Los Angeles."

Time and again....studies show that every dollar spent on prevention programs and rehabilitation saves a lot more in incarceration down the road...but the public doesn't want to fund those programs...and so we spend millions building more prisons.

Ever hear the saying...""Pennywise/pound foolish" or "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". We are not working smartly in this country and we are paying the price for it...and this is exactly what is coming to fruition in California and soon across the rest of the country.
 
Not necessarily to this not solving the health care problem. It forces the state to look at and select solutions, probably some combination of more health care providers, fewer prisoners, and sending some prisoners out of state to states without the overcrowding.

Here is the problem. CA spends an annual average of $14,000 per inmate on healthcare. They get joint replacements, organ transplants, dental, vision, psychiatric and even transgender hormone shots with full blown sex change operations on the way.

I have a problem with “cruel and unusual punishment” being interpolated to cover a lot of the crap CA is doing. The Fed should have thrown this particular case out because of the mental therapy that CA will now be providing.

It is getting a bit insane (pun intended) here in CA and SCOTUS just made things astronomically worse.
 
Here is the problem. CA spends an annual average of $14,000 per inmate on healthcare. They get joint replacements, organ transplants, dental, vision, psychiatric and even transgender hormone shots with full blown sex change operations on the way.

I have a problem with “cruel and unusual punishment” being interpolated to cover a lot of the crap CA is doing. The Fed should have thrown this particular case out because of the mental therapy that CA will now be providing.

It is getting a bit insane (pun intended) here in CA and SCOTUS just made things astronomically worse.

That was not part of the case in this instance. You could have a point if that was what was being challenged in this case, but it absolutely is not. What was challenged in this case was the application of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

Edit: this is why people should read about actual court rulings...90 % of the posts in this thread have exactly jack **** to do with the ruling.
 
I wonder how many pot offender they can release to make up this number.

Exactly, that and other minor violations should not include jail time. California, as well as the rest of the Nation, needs to rethink sentencing for minor non-violent crimes, or decriminalize many altogether.
 
Back
Top Bottom