• 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

Redress, it's kinda funny watching you try to keep this train wreck of a thread on the rails.
 
Redress said:
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?
Click to expand...

Maybe if less was spent on other things like buildings and electricty, they could afford healthcare. :)
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what was being challenged. Not all the particular forms of medical treatment but “access” to medical treatment.

BTW, I have done more than read the court ruling; I have followed this case for a very long time. While it is true that this was being challenged under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the case that was given standing was Coleman v. Brown where the District Court found that prisoners with serious mental illness do not receive minimal, adequate care in CA.

If you pointed out where my assertions aren’t applicable in this case, that would have been a valid argument but to summarily dismiss it on the inaccurate assumption that I haven’t read the ruling is in fact a failure on your part to know the facts of which you speak.
 
Who are they throwing out then? We have one of the highest incarceration rates of all the developed countries; that in and of itself should be a sign of what our government does. Merely throwing some people out isn't enough to make me run for the hills since many of whom we imprison probably shouldn't have been sent to prison in the first place.
 
GPS_Flex said:
This is exactly what was being challenged. Not all the particular forms of medical treatment but “access” to medical treatment.

BTW, I have done more than read the court ruling; I have followed this case for a very long time. While it is true that this was being challenged under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the case that was given standing was Coleman v. Brown where the District Court found that prisoners with serious mental illness do not receive minimal, adequate care in CA.

If you pointed out where my assertions aren’t applicable in this case, that would have been a valid argument but to summarily dismiss it on the inaccurate assumption that I haven’t read the ruling is in fact a failure on your part to know the facts of which you speak.
Click to expand...

Let me further qualify my comments with the following.

California goes overboard with every bleeding heart “they have rights” movement that comes along except for those that are explicitly clear in the Constitution (like the 2nd Amendment) so the medical care for each inmate is astronomically expensive and the number of inmates seeking these free medical treatments clogs the system to a near standstill. I gave you some clear examples of why it costs so stinking much to provide medical care to CA inmates.

Building new prisons with medical facilities and hiring more medical staff costs a lot of money but California is by far the most wasteful state in the union because of the kinds of examples I listed above so they are tied together.
 
disneydude said:
Not necessarily. I've had many cases in which first-time offenders go to prison....its not all that uncommon
Click to expand...

1st timers that go to prison usually aren't going because they made a "stupid mistake". that is the point
 
OscarB63 said:
1st timers that go to prison usually aren't going because they made a "stupid mistake". that is the point
Click to expand...

Stupid mistakes is subjective. Lets say people go to prison for having too much pot on them and shop lifting, unless they are middle class white kids.
 
xpiher said:
Stupid mistakes is subjective. Lets say people go to prison for having too much pot on them and shop lifting, unless they are middle class white kids.
Click to expand...

That sounded racist to me.
 
At least California cares about the Constitutional rights of its prisoners. The situation is a lot worse in other states and yet the courts there will likely do nothing. In the last two states I have lived in they have tried privatizing prisons and that has been a disaster since guards are underpaid and under trained and incidents and escapes occur at vastly higher rates in those private institutions.

When are people going to catch on that the war on drugs is a failure? When people are dying in mass in prisons or courts are releasing violent and sexual offenders by the thousands because of the mandatory sentences on drug offenders?
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
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:
Click to expand...

I have less issue with a 17/19 split than say, a 13/15 split. For me, it would depend on the maturity level of my daughter and the character of the young man...FWIW
 
OscarB63 said:
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
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Hatuey is old enough to have a teenage child.
 
American said:
I'm not sure Hatuey is old enough to have a teenage child.
Click to expand...

He must think I'm some 50 year old country baby daddy or something.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I wasn't asking you to admit to being a racist.
Click to expand...

How is it racist to point out that just because middle-class white kids don't always go to prison for stupid mistakes, others may not be so lucky? Our criminal justice system is racist, not the people who call attention to that fact.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I wasn't asking you to admit to being a racist.
Click to expand...

It was not a racist statement, its a general fact. Maybe you need to do some research on our Criminal Justice system. If you are a middle class white kid you are less likely to go to jail for "petty" offenses than if you are poor or black. My GF in high school got caught shoplifting $500 worth of stuff, she was let off. Yes, anecdotes don't mean anything, but its a common example.
 
Last edited:
I came back to California to retire in my home State, and now I wish I had stayed in Arizona where there are more sane people,

California could use Bonds currently available to borough the money needed to house these bad guys, or they could take a page out of Sheriff Joe's book and build an huge tent city in the desert.

I would like to see some brains put to work here but them the idiots just put Brown the clown back in Governors office and I see little hope for the State.
 
CriticalThought said:
At least California cares about the Constitutional rights of its prisoners. The situation is a lot worse in other states and yet the courts there will likely do nothing. In the last two states I have lived in they have tried privatizing prisons and that has been a disaster since guards are underpaid and under trained and incidents and escapes occur at vastly higher rates in those private institutions.

When are people going to catch on that the war on drugs is a failure? When people are dying in mass in prisons or courts are releasing violent and sexual offenders by the thousands because of the mandatory sentences on drug offenders?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, California, defender of progressive, living document, Constitutional rights but denier of explicit rights that the Constitution actually took the time to clarify and preserve therein for the people.

The state is going to need to declare bankruptcy soon but that is a much better alternative than getting serious about wasteful spending isn’t it?
 
Councilman said:
California could use Bonds currently available to borough the money needed to house these bad guys,
Click to expand...

Maybe your state wouldn't be in such dire financial straits if it didn't sell bonds to finance stupid **** like locking up potheads for years at a time.
 
Kandahar said:
Maybe your state wouldn't be in such dire financial straits if it didn't sell bonds to finance stupid **** like locking up potheads for years at a time.
Click to expand...

Come on, locking up potheads isn’t what CA does. That dog won’t hunt.

Don’t get me wrong, the state is stupid but it is laughable to think potheads are serving hard time in CA for being potheads.
 
Last edited:
GPS_Flex said:
Come on, locking up potheads isn’t what CA does. That dog won’t hunt.

Don’t get me wrong, the state is stupid but it is laughable to think potheads are serving hard time in CA for being potheads.
Click to expand...

They lock up druggies.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Ah yes, California, defender of progressive, living document, Constitutional rights but denier of explicit rights that the Constitution actually took the time to clarify and preserve therein for the people.

The state is going to need to declare bankruptcy soon but that is a much better alternative than getting serious about wasteful spending isn’t it?
Click to expand...

That didn't really make much sense. When you have people literally dying in prison and in unhealthy and dangerous conditions, then it falls under cruel and unusual punishment. As a conservative, you should be happy with this decision, not all butthurt about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom