- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,102
- Reaction score
- 1,504
- Location
- Sacramento, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Redress, it's kinda funny watching you try to keep this train wreck of a thread on the rails.
I would say white collar type crimes like embezzlement, but let's face it those people don't go to prison.
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?
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.
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.
Not necessarily. I've had many cases in which first-time offenders go to prison....its not all that uncommon
1st timers that go to prison usually aren't going because they made a "stupid mistake". that is the point
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.
That sounded racist to me.
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:
California inmates: Supreme Court orders California to release inmates - latimes.com
I'm so glad I don't live in California right now...
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
Its a fact.
I'm not sure Hatuey is old enough to have a teenage child.
I wasn't asking you to admit to being a racist.
I wasn't asking you to admit to being a racist.
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?
California could use Bonds currently available to borough the money needed to house these bad guys,
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.
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.
They lock up druggies.
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?