• 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

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The 5-4 decision represents one of the largest prison release orders in U.S. history. The court majority says overcrowding has caused 'suffering and death.' In a sharp dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia warns 'terrible things are sure to happen.'

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ordered California on Monday to release tens of thousands of its prisoners to relieve overcrowding, saying that "needless suffering and death" had resulted from putting too many inmates into facilities that cannot hold them in decent conditions.

It is one of the largest prison release orders in the nation's history, and it sharply split the high court.
Justices upheld an order from a three-judge panel in California that called for releasing 38,000 to 46,000 prisoners. Since then, the state has transferred about 9,000 state inmates to county jails. As a result, the total prison population is now about 32,000 more than the capacity limit set by the panel.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, speaking for the majority, said California's prisons had "fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements" because of overcrowding. As many as 200 prisoners may live in gymnasium, he said, and as many as 54 prisoners share a single toilet.
California inmates: Supreme Court orders California to release inmates - latimes.com

I'm so glad I don't live in California right now...
 
Depends on who they release, and how they go about it. Lesser crimes will likely have lesser consequences. Home arrest might also be an option. It simply may not be as dire as Justice Scalia fears.
 
*snort*

I'm now having a vague recollection of someone arguing that 'Californias the greatest state . . .' come to my mind.
 
Depends on who they release, and how they go about it. Lesser crimes will likely have lesser consequences. Home arrest might also be an option. It simply may not be as dire as Justice Scalia fears.

Of course not, releasing tens of thousands of criminals back into society because the prisons are over crowded shouldn't be anything to worry about. And of course, since they are releasing this many, that won't make MORE crime likely since ya know... "what are they gonna do, throw me in jail?"
 
One can get six months for a suspended license here in Texas (and they will suspend your license at the drop of a hat and add surcharges that can suspend your license too.) That seems a bit extreme to me as a punishment.
 
Of course not, releasing tens of thousands of criminals back into society because the prisons are over crowded shouldn't be anything to worry about. And of course, since they are releasing this many, that won't make MORE crime likely since ya know... "what are they gonna do, throw me in jail?"

it all depends on the details, the who and how. Some really wouldn't make that much difference at all.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The sad thing is, what else can we do? We simply do not have room for these people, and it's not like we haven't built a lot of prisons. Do you have a better idea?
 
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.


The penalty should fit the crime and I think our penalties are pretty harsh. And we do have a very large incarceration rate per capita.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
You have to have an understanding of California law to really understand the issue. California was one of the first states to implement the new "Get super tough on crime" measures. Its all of political pandering to the electorate. People want to hear that politicians are tough on crime and will vote for pretty much every "get tough on crime" initiative that goes on the ballot. California, like much of the country, has gone off the deep end at sending people to prison. Look at the dramatic increase in California prison population over the last decade. The criminal justice system is a huge money-making ploy for those involved in it...and its much easier to sell "send them to jail" to the public than it is "treatment".....even when there are less expensive and more successful alternatives.

The reality is, the California prisons are bursting at the seams with non-violent offenders due to these "get tough on crime laws". Anyone working in the system knew this and has seen this coming for the last several years. You simply cannot sustain the number of people that you are sending to prison.....

As goes California....so goes the country. You will see similar situations rising in states all over the country as their prisons fill up as a result of these feel good measures.

The good that will come out of this is that it will force the state to actually go to the less costly and more successful alternatives such as drug treatment and other diversionary type programs....at least until the next politically pandering iniative comes along.
 
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.

You know how in Libya, Iraq, Kuwait, and soon to be Syria we went in and took out the regime that abused its citizens? We stated that people have a right to live in an environment that is at least livable. No gov't has a right to kill its own citizens, whether through bullets or bars. Even inmates, this might shock some, have a right to live in an environment that is safe. Once inmates start dying because of living conditions, it is time for the gov't to step in and take charge. No state has a right to kill inmates through horrible and awful living environments.

I fully support this and hope it catches on in other states as well. The cost of keeping an inmate incarcerated is almost 30,000 a year. You want to save money? Release some of these non-violent offenders. Not to mention, that puts more people to work, paying taxes, and not sucking them up as a number in a cell.
 
Last edited:
The sad thing is, what else can we do? We simply do not have room for these people, and it's not like we haven't built a lot of prisons. Do you have a better idea?

images
 
As I said, it depends on who we're speaking of. We imprison too many people, and if we allow those who really shouldn't be in prison in the first place out, I don't see a problem. If we release violent criminals, then there is reason for concern.
 

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, speaking for the majority, said California's prisons had "fallen short of minimum constitutional requirements" because of overcrowding. As many as 200 prisoners may live in gymnasium, he said, and as many as 54 prisoners share a single toilet.

sounds like standard US Army living conditions. ;)
 
sounds like standard US Army living conditions. ;)

Voluntary vs involuntary

You can have a hot woman in a cat suit whip you untill you bleed provided you are volunteering for it ( or paying for it), but you cant whip a person against their will in the US anymore
 

Californians are glad you don't live there too. Mostly because we have enough ignorant people who simply don't know the first thing about California but always feel the need to give an opinion like anybody in California gives a **** about what they think. The Californian penal system is overcrowded with small time felons that are thrown in with far more experienced elements. It's an indoctrination system that turns drug users into murderers. Now, do you have a problem with releasing some 19 year old who got caught with a bit of weed? What's the alternative? Keep him in an overcrowded jail with people who can teach him how to be a real criminal? How big government of you.

We have a system where 10% of the inmate population consists of people convicted of drug possession. Another 10,000 inmate are simply there for carrying a weapon DUIs. Prisons are over extended by 185% and Scalia is deciding whether or not the system should alleviate short-staffing, unsanitary conditions and a decay in basic human decency? This is a good ruling for both California tax payers who pay to keep meth smokers in jail and the system which is overburdened by people who shouldn't even be there. If Texans don't like it they can execute a few retards. Maybe that'll piss off some liberals in Berkley or something.
 
Last edited:
Californians are glad you don't live there too. Mostly because we have enough ignorant people who simply don't know the first thing about California but always feel the need to give an opinion like anybody in California gives a **** about what they think. The Californian penal system is overcrowded with small time felons that are thrown in with far more experienced elements. It's an indoctrination system that turns drug users into murderers. Now, do you have a problem with releasing some 19 year old who got caught with a bit of weed? What's the alternative? Keep him in an overcrowded jail with people who can teach him how to be a real criminal? How big government of you.

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.
 
Voluntary vs involuntary

You can have a hot woman in a cat suit whip you untill you bleed provided you are volunteering for it ( or paying for it), but you cant whip a person against their will in the US anymore

no one forced them to become criminals. they volunteered to go to prison when they chose to become felons
 
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.

Is this really a major crime, gettng high? And is this surprising for a 19 year old? Seems we have more serious crminals to jail than this.
 

Good. California's criminal justice system is truly disgusting, but is merely a more exaggerated version of the problems that plague the criminal justice systems of most states. I am so sick of politicians who want to be "tough on crime" by passing horrible laws like mandatory minimums, three strikes laws, brutally harsh sentences, and of course the war on drugs. It's **** like that which has caused our prisons to be so overcrowded. Locking someone in a cage for years on end should NOT be the default punishment for any crime except the most severe, violent crimes.
 
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.

So you think that it's worth $20,000 per year of the taxpayer's money to keep a 19-year-old pothead locked in prison where he is sodomized daily for the horrible crime of smoking a joint. How conservative of you. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom