California Ordered to Release ~60,000 Inmates

[sarongsong]

State Attorney General Jerry Brown says he'll take it to the Supreme Court when the federal 3-judge ruling is finalized:February 10, 2009
...California has some of the most overcrowded prisons in the United States, with an estimated 170,000 inmates housed in facilities designed for 100,000 people, according to 2007 figures...
AFP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5is42c5r9AeE5NC4KzuvfGez7tChg)

[Sticks]

This thread for the moment is locked while under discussion by moderators as to whether the No politics rule has been infringed

[HenrikOlsen]

Reopened, but with the caution that if it turns political it'll get locked for good.

Try to be nice.

[jfribrg]

Looks like that warning scared away everyone who might have thought about replying to this thread, so I'll add my two cents:

This type of thing has happened a few times near me, but never to that magnitude. I worry about how safe the communities will be after this, but at the same time, I wonder if all of these people needed to be incarcerated in the first place. I don't know the specifics, but I suspect that electronic monitoring might be appropriate for a large number of convicts. That would save oodles of money. However, if these are 170,000 hardened criminals, then I say let them rot rather than let them out.

[sarongsong]

And defy a federal order, assuming the 3-judge panel's ruling comes to final enforcement, requiring the release of 1/3 of those 170,000?...The reduction in the prison population could be achieved "without adversely affecting public safety," the panel ruled, via a combination of parole reform, diversion of low-risk prisoners and good time credits.
You're right about "oodles of money"; CA spends about $10B/yr on the Dep't. of Corrections (~7% of annual budget (http://govbud.dof.ca.gov/StateAgencyBudgets/5210/agency.html)), not to mention the money already spent to get them in jail.
It's an enormous problem faced by most other states (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/102256/early_release_for_prison_inmates_in.html?cat=37) as well.

[BigDon]

Well the Chinese believe that once we (the United States) get up to 600 million we will have to adopt a more stringent system of dealing with offenders as the resources just won't be there to house the incorrigible.

[HenrikOlsen]

Or alternatively you can redefine incorrigible:)

[korjik]

Texas had this problem big-time a while back. We caught alot of flak for building alot of prisons too. We dont have that problem anywhere near as bad anymore.

'course, Texas is a bit closer to 'a more stringent system' than the rest of the country.

[sarongsong]

Yes, I was surprised to read Texas was where Hawaii was sending some of their overflow. New prison construction in California is ham-strung in its capitol---Governor, "Yes"; Legislators, "No".

[novaderrik]

why don't they just release the non-violent first offender types and put the worst of the worst in tent cities out in the desert?
there is also the George Carlin solution- send them all to those 4 big square states that are adjacent to each other, wall them in, and let them run free?

[nauthiz]

Or alternatively you can redefine incorrigible:)

Judging from what happened with the two people I know who went to prison for what I believe were relatively minor offenses (possession of several ounces of marijuana), the tricky thing about our penal system seems to be that they go in corrigible and come out incorrigible.

My cousin, for example, was just a giant pothead when he went into jail* - maybe not the most productive member of society, but he wasn't really hurting anybody and he was getting an education, and hey, a lot of us were giant potheads at age 19. Somehow, though, by the time he came out he had managed to turn into a car thief. Seemed to have something to do with the friends he made while he was in there. That and jail had put the brakes on his education and his ability to get a decent job.

Similar story for a buddy in college, only for him it was house burglary instead of stealing cars.

Long story short, I think there's good reason to explore the possibility we could get better results from easing up a bit on our use of the justice system than we could from becoming even harsher about it. The US does have both a very high crime rate and a very high incarceration rate, but I'm not quite sure that we've really determined the precise nature of the presumed causative link behind that correlation yet.

* (edited to add) For a marijuana conviction.

[eric_marsh]

Seems to me that it's a good idea to get those who have been convicted of victimless crimes out of jail and keep the dangerous people in.

[RalofTyr]

Prisoner's rights? What about law abiding citizen's right to be free of crime?

Most people that commit victimless crimes also commit victim crimes. I used to work with a guy that used to rob bars and shoplift. He never got caught on those charges, but he did get busted on on drug charges.

[tusenfem]

I guess untill one knows who is going to be released, one cannot say whether or not there there is a real "threat" to "law abiding citizens".

[tdvance]

Yes, I was surprised to read Texas was where Hawaii was sending some of their overflow. New prison construction in California is ham-strung in its capitol---Governor, "Yes"; Legislators, "No".

Well, the governator is a friend of Sly, so maybe Judge Dred could help with the problem.

[tdvance]

Prisoner's rights? What about law abiding citizen's right to be free of crime?

Most people that commit victimless crimes also commit victim crimes. I used to work with a guy that used to rob bars and shoplift. He never got caught on those charges, but he did get busted on on drug charges.

Perhaps this should go to the 2nd class citizen thread--a definition of 1st class citizen would be "no felony convictions" then. The important thing is, everyone then has the choice to be 1st class or 2nd class, so no complaints allowed :)

[BigDon]

Perhaps this should go to the 2nd class citizen thread--a definition of 1st class citizen would be "no felony convictions" then. The important thing is, everyone then has the choice to be 1st class or 2nd class, so no complaints allowed :)

That's already done , bigtime.

I move furniture with a lot of ex-convicts of a reason.

[crosscountry]

this is bad. I agree that laws should be changed to incarcerate fewer people. But we also need to keep in people that are dangerous to others.

Make some go to the military.

Oh, and Texas takes prisoners from many states. It is a money making proposition.

[tdvance]

uh---I know a lot of military people who do NOT want to have criminals in their midst!!!!

[mugaliens]

I believe much of the problem involves personnel mismanagement. Deviant behavior is seen throughout corporations, as well, and dramatically increases when employees are either undervalued, are "babysat," or given "busy work."

It doesn't matter what segment of society you pick - employees, children, citizens, spouses, BAUTizens, etc. - if they're doing something that's a worthwhile contribution to community/society (and this can't be faked, as they'll know the difference), then most (not all) of them will straighten up and fly right. It's along the lines of the "idle hands..." quote.

Similarly, if you don't manage the people well, then expect some mischief. But if you start cracking down on the michief, look out, because here comes the mayhem.

Throwing all who violate the rules under these conditions does absolutely nothing to fix the problem, and merely creates an additional burden on the remainder of society, the ones who've managed not to get into trouble in the first place under the less than ideal conditions. In fact, for every then thrown into prison under these circumstances, there's at least one, possibly up to three more, who'll soon find themselves in prison, too, whether it be because they cannot afford the additional taxes, or that they've lost the family breadwinner to the prison system, or worse.

Welfare isn't the answer, either. While that might temporarily alleviate the hunger and give them a place to live, it does nothing to fix the underlying problems.

To keep this out of the political realm I'll say it again: "personnel mismanagement." It's an HR problem, on a state-wide scale.

I, for one, am glad to hear of the pending release, and am hoping it kick-start's CA into changing the way they do business into a manner that's much more effective.

Best of luck to them all.

[novaderrik]

Cali's gotta release all those inmates so they can afford to pay the medical bills and raise the kids of that woman that decided that she needed 8 more kids to go along with the 6 she already had no way of taking care of on her own.

[Sam5]

why don't they just release the non-violent first offender types and put the worst of the worst in tent cities out in the desert?
there is also the George Carlin solution- send them all to those 4 big square states that are adjacent to each other, wall them in, and let them run free?

Yikes! I live in one of those states!

And guess what? About half the killers in the US drive through our state, either to hide out, or on the way to or from California. Plus we've got them coming from from the southern border too.

[mike alexander]

Here's my plan.

Hold a universal lottery. Half the population is labelled criminals and is locked up by the other half, labelled jailers.

To be fair, there's a new lottery every year. Since everyone is already in a jail, people can just swap places.

[Sticks]

Didn't they try something like that at Stanford?

[RalofTyr]

You know, the Running Man might make a good solution here.

[Larry Jacks]

Even some non-violent offenders deserve to be separated from society. Those who make a living scamming the elderly come to mind although there are others (illegal spammers deserve an especially uncomfortable corner of Hell, IMO). They may not need to be in a hard core prison, though. I think that Arizona sheriff has the right idea - put them in tent cities behind barbed wire. Save the real prisons for the violent offenders.

[mugaliens]

Why not? Every year around 50,000 people gather in the middle of Black Rock Desert, building a desert city, living there for a week, before returning to their cities.

They do this willingly. Voluntarily.

Can't be all that bad....

Then there are our boys who live in Iraq for a year at a stretch.

And people would consider this cruel and unusual punishment for criminals to live in a desert?

[sarongsong]

Didn't they try something like that at Stanford?They tried:Stanford Prison Experiment
...a study of the psychological effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard...was never published in a peer-reviewed journal...it seemed the situation caused the participants' [negative] behaviour, rather than anything inherent in their individual personalities...experiment ended on August 20, 1971, only 6 days after it began instead of the 14 it was supposed to...
wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Conclusions)

[sarongsong]

...And people would consider this cruel and unusual punishment for criminals to live in a desert?Hmmh...England sent theirs to America until the Revolution, thenceforth to Australia.

[tdvance]

You know, the Running Man might make a good solution here.


I'd be surprised it it hadn't crossed Gov. Schwarzenegger's mind.

[Larry Jacks]

As for violent offenders, they can stack them like firewood for all I care. Ever seen the enlisted living quarters on a Navy ship? I resent the claim that prisoners with many times the personal space as a sailor are somehow suffering undue hardship. As to the tents, if they're good enough for soldiers living in places like Iraq, they're good enough for non-violent prisoners.

[crosscountry]

I like tent city. No way they can misbehave or join a gang while "inside"

[nauthiz]

I like tent city. No way they can misbehave or join a gang while "inside"

Yeah. They'd have to do it in the great outdoors instead.

[crosscountry]

I don't think so. no walls, no privacy, no sodomy or drug use. Try having a gang like that.

I think those prisoners will really not want to go back.

By the way, I endorse that sheriff and prison.

[Krel]

For lifers, I like the "No Escape" (1994) solution myself. Find a nice big island with fresh water, and dump em' there. Give them a tent, once a week airdrop rations, and once a year drop fresh clothing. Place buoys around the island with radar and sonar to discourage escape attempts, and use either satellites, or unmanned aircraft using radar, and infrared to keep track of how many are there for rations, and clothing. If you decide to make it co-ed, then sterilize both sexes before dumping them there.

David.

[BigDon]

Krel, nobody responsible for that would be able to seperate themselves from the horror show that would rapidly degenarate to.

[sarongsong]

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR):Third Quarter 2008 Facts and Figures

The Department operates all state prisons, oversees a variety of community correctional facilities, and supervises all parolees during their re-entry into society.

Staff: 61,721

Avg. yearly cost: per inmate, $35,587; per parolee, $4,338

Prisoner Population:
Males: 93.3%
Females: 6.7%...

Average Age: 37
Avg Sentence: 47.2 months
Avg Time Served: 23.9 months...

CDCR (http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Divisions_Boards/Adult_Operations/Facts_and_Figures.html#heading)

[Chuck]

One problem with Arizona's tent city is that's where they also hold suspects who are waiting for trial and can't afford bail. People who haven't been convicted of any crime are being being kept in the 110°F heat just for being suspected.

[crosscountry]

There are problems with any prison system. At least the accused but not yet convicted are safe from weapons and prison rape.

[Sticks]

One problem with Arizona's tent city is that's where they also hold suspects who are waiting for trial and can't afford bail. People who haven't been convicted of any crime are being being kept in the 110°F heat just for being suspected.

So in your system if they are acquitted; the prosecution drops all charges just before the trial or offers no evidence, is there any comeback or is that just "tough get outa here"

Come to think about it if someone is on remand in our system and they get acquitted or the case collapses they get zip.

[RalofTyr]

So in your system if they are acquitted; the prosecution drops all charges just before the trial or offers no evidence, is there any comeback or is that just "tough get outa here"

Come to think about it if someone is on remand in our system and they get acquitted or the case collapses they get zip.

They can be tried again if new evidence surfaces (a big MAYBE) or, most likely, the commit another crime.

What would you do if you committed a crime and got off with no jail time?

You'd think you were unstickable. Nothing would stick to you.

[Gillianren]

They can be tried again if new evidence surfaces (a big MAYBE) or, most likely, the commit another crime.

Upon acquittal? Absolutely not. It's Double Jeopardy, and it's against the Constitution. If the case has been thrown out before trial due to lack of evidence, a new trial may be brought upon acquisition of further evidence, but not if there was an acquittal. Heck, a lot of jurisdictions even limit the number of times you can be tried upon a hung jury.

[RalofTyr]

One problem with Arizona's tent city is that's where they also hold suspects who are waiting for trial and can't afford bail. People who haven't been convicted of any crime are being being kept in the 110°F heat just for being suspected.

You mean, people that choose to live in a desert state where it gets hot like that, especially during summer time, have to go, gasp, outside?

[Krel]

Krel, nobody responsible for that would be able to seperate themselves from the horror show that would rapidly degenarate to.

Oh, I'm quite aware of how the situation would deteriorate, and had taken it into account before I posted. But how much of a horror show it would be, would depend upon the inmates themselves. As they were never going to be released from prison, I see no reason for putting others, Guards, other inmates, ect., into harms way. Let them decide how their future will be, without endangering anyone else.

If I were to make any changes it would have to be, to find some way where medical attention could be arranged.

Quote:
"One problem with Arizona's tent city is that's where they also hold suspects who are waiting for trial and can't afford bail. People who haven't been convicted of any crime are being being kept in the 110°F heat just for being suspected".

The men and women in our military services often operate under worse conditions, and they haven't even been accused of anything. As RalofTyr pointed out, most are most likely from that area, and so have a more than passing familiarity with the environment. Sure it is very unpleasant, but then I seriously doubt that any form of incarceration can be said to be pleasant..

David.

[Sticks]

They can be tried again if new evidence surfaces (a big MAYBE) or, most likely, the commit another crime.

What would you do if you committed a crime and got off with no jail time?

You'd think you were unstickable. Nothing would stick to you.

But what if they are innocent? That was my assumption and sometimes the reason why the prosecution throws in the towel. (New evidence shows that they are not guilty after all)

[novaderrik]

But what if they are innocent? That was my assumption and sometimes the reason why the prosecution throws in the towel. (New evidence shows that they are not guilty after all)
i've heard of people suing and winning a lot of $$$ after they got convicted of a crime, only to be acquitted years or decades later when new evidence or technology comes to light. i've even heard of those people getting compensated without even needing to sue anyone.
but if you are accused of a crime and get found not guilty in a trial or the case gets thrown out for whatever reason, you generally get nothing to compensate you for screwing up your life and reputation.. unless, of course, you have a reason to sue somebody in civil court over the whole ordeal or something like that.

[Sticks]

We have something over here called Malicious prosecution - I am not too sure of the ins and outs of that one.

I do remember one case where a young woman was just walking down a street in outer London, when she was arrested by police who thought she was soliciting. She sued for false arrest because they had tarnished her reputation and to her community she needed to prove she was not involved in any immoral activity.

[RalofTyr]

But what if they are innocent? That was my assumption and sometimes the reason why the prosecution throws in the towel. (New evidence shows that they are not guilty after all)

Prosecutors and judges never declare anyone innocent. It's always Not Guilty, as they don't have enough evidence to prove they are guilty of a crime.

Conviction rates are around 90%, I believe, and D.A.s usually won't go to court unless they have a strong case against the defendant.

In American courts, since the state is assumed to have more resources than the defendant, they have to prove beyond a shred of doubt the defendant committed the crime. If there is any doubt he didn't commit the crime, he will be found Not Guilty.

It's not to say Innocent people don't get locked up. On average, it's around one out of ten or twenty that are actually innocent of the crime they have been charged with (that's not to say they haven't committed other crimes). When ever you watch CSI. Think about one out of every show, they have their facts wrong and the guy they arrest is innocent.

[mugaliens]

Sure it is very unpleasant...

I've lived a total of 7-1/2 years in deserts with daytime summer highs averaging above 100 deg and peaks around 120 degress.

Being in the sun in 100 deg is unpleasant. Being outside in the shade with plenty of water in 100 deg is actually quite relaxing.

When it climbs past 107, though, I'd usually call it quits and head inside with the A/C.

[Doodler]

State Attorney General Jerry Brown says he'll take it to the Supreme Court when the federal 3-judge ruling is finalized:


Fearmongering at its finest.

For starters, I'm pretty sure these will be non-violent offenders. Probably some of the more ridiculous cases of California's three strikes rule that had people serving life sentences for moving violations or some other unrelated malarky. Then followed by people serving mandatory minimum sentences for drug related offenses.

Sometimes, for all the heartblood shed willingly on the left coast, they can turn right on a dime and be some of the most cold-blooded people when their sheltered little worldview is challenged.

Here's hoping for The Big One real soon, accompanied by a massive body count and FEMA still rendered incompetent by Homeland inSecurity.

[Sticks]

Here's hoping for The Big One real soon, accompanied by a massive body count and FEMA still rendered incompetent by Homeland inSecurity.

Comments like this are not acceptable on a family forum like this one, any repetition this kind of posting will result in a suspension

[Gillianren]

We have something over here called Malicious prosecution - I am not too sure of the ins and outs of that one.

Malicious prosecution is a little more complicated than just prosecuting someone innocent. (Or, as the law even over there has it, not guilty.) It's prosecution because they're out to get someone. Often, this will involve finding a crime that they can prosecute the person on. Many, many people commit what are technically crimes, things that are against laws that don't really get enforced very often, for example. Those lists of "dumb laws" you see sometimes? While it's true that a lot of them aren't actually on the books anymore, some of them are. And sometimes, the DA will have someone busted on one of those stupid laws. Or they'll harass a person until they can find something to pin on them. That's malicious prosecution.

[BigDon]

Thanks Doodler!

[novaderrik]

Malicious prosecution is a little more complicated than just prosecuting someone innocent. (Or, as the law even over there has it, not guilty.) It's prosecution because they're out to get someone. Often, this will involve finding a crime that they can prosecute the person on. Many, many people commit what are technically crimes, things that are against laws that don't really get enforced very often, for example. Those lists of "dumb laws" you see sometimes? While it's true that a lot of them aren't actually on the books anymore, some of them are. And sometimes, the DA will have someone busted on one of those stupid laws. Or they'll harass a person until they can find something to pin on them. That's malicious prosecution.

like getting Al Capone for tax evasion or giving me a ticket for having fuzzy dice hanging from my rear view mirror when the cop can't find any other reason to justify pulling me over for no reason other than because i was driving a 76 Vega and had long hair...

[sarongsong]

...heartblood...What's that?

[BigDon]

Hey Doodler, want to hear my rant on the New York Times?

[crosscountry]

Think about one out of every show, they have their facts wrong and the guy they arrest is innocent.

wow, 1:1 - that's terrible:surprised

[Sticks]

Hey Doodler, want to hear my rant on the New York Times?

Best not

[BigDon]

I wouldn't think of it Mr. Sticks. Not here.

[mugaliens]

That's malicious prosecution.

It would also include a prosecutor who is out to win, regardless of what the body of evidence says is the truth about what really happened, or one who goes so far towards stating only the facts that support his position that he crosses the line and begins making false statements.

I dare say it would also include people within law enforcement or even the military chain of command who falsify evidence or overstate events in such a way as to obtain a more harsh action than circumstances actually warrant.

It's an integrity issue, really. While they may not actually break any law, they nevereless violate the spirit of the law, and certainly commit ethical violations, in their misguided and/or misinformed efforts.

Legally/technically correct, but morally and ethically out to lunch.

The result shouldn't be any surprise - it harms not only the individual who is being wronged, but also everyone else involved, many who are not involved, and most who have not yet arrived within that system. It's a warpage, a virus, a "scourage within the system" that corrupts the system inside out.

The crazy thing is that those who're the worst offenders honestly believe they're doing the right thing, thinking they're protecting the system from the bad guys, without having a clue that they've become the bad guys.

[Chuck]

You mean, people that choose to live in a desert state where it gets hot like that, especially during summer time, have to go, gasp, outside?
Only to scurry from one air conditioned building to another.

[captain swoop]

like getting Al Capone for tax evasion

Well, he did evade his taxes, why would it be a malicious prosecution?

[BigDon]

The crazy thing is that those who're the worst offenders honestly believe they're doing the right thing, thinking they're protecting the system from the bad guys, without having a clue that they've become the bad guys.

The Shadow Principle. Fight demons too long and you become one. That's oooold advice.

[BigDon]

Well, he did evade his taxes, why would it be a malicious prosecution?

Yes, but it was illegal income, therefore it shouldn't count on your taxes.

:whistle:

[Doodler]

Hey Doodler, want to hear my rant on the New York Times?
Sure, via PM, if ya don't mind.:)

[Doodler]

Krel, nobody responsible for that would be able to seperate themselves from the horror show that would rapidly degenarate to.


Krel's answer is very typical of people who think (for some reason) that people are rational by default... They believe they're living in a sheltered little world defended by a system of imposed cultural standards brought about by a government elected in a popularity contest conditioned to the old saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". A corallary effect is the view that people who step on their little tootsies are monsters deserving of the worst possible pain that can be inflicted because their behavior makes them sad and afraid for their safety and that's Just Not Righttm.

They whine, government appeases whining in an effort to curry favor, aka "looking tough on crime", and people get the touchy-feelie warm fuzzy sensation of affirmation, and the criminal justice system originally intended to reform individuals goes off the rails when it mutates into a warehousing facility for people incapable of forgiving slights against their sheltered lives.

Now me, I have no problem with declaring negative behavior criminal and seeking punishment for crossing the line, even for very LONG periods of time. That said, I'd just as soon leave open the possibility that these behavior are correctable before feeding them to the lions for the amusement of the sheep.

[Chuck]

Yes, but it was illegal income, therefore it shouldn't count on your taxes.
:whistle:

He probably paid plenty of money to the government in the form of bribes to politicians, so he paid illegal taxes on his illegal income. That seems fair.

[Krel]

Krel's answer is very typical of people who think (for some reason) that people are rational by default... They believe they're living in a sheltered little world defended by a system of imposed cultural standards brought about by a government elected in a popularity contest conditioned to the old saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". A corallary effect is the view that people who step on their little tootsies are monsters deserving of the worst possible pain that can be inflicted because their behavior makes them sad and afraid for their safety and that's Just Not Righttm.

Oh boy, are you wrong. There have always been, and will always be predators that care not one bit for society's rules, or the lives and well being of the law abiding. If a person has demonstrated that they can not abide by society's standards, and thus must be put away for life, then I see no reason why the innocent should be put in harms way even potentially. Personally, I am not afraid for my safety, but anyone that thinks that they have the right, or desire to endanger me, or mine is in for a very unpleasant experience.



They whine, government appeases whining in an effort to curry favor, aka "looking tough on crime", and people get the touchy-feelie warm fuzzy sensation of affirmation, and the criminal justice system originally intended to reform individuals goes off the rails when it mutates into a warehousing facility for people incapable of forgiving slights against their sheltered lives.

Being a Constitutionalist, I am very much in favor of limited, very limited government. The reason for prison has always be punishment first, then reform, and rehabilitation...maybe. It all depended on the convict. Robbery, burglary, home invasion, kidnapping, rape, murder, drug dealing. Yes, I do have some difficulty forgiving these slights.


Now me, I have no problem with declaring negative behavior criminal and seeking punishment for crossing the line, even for very LONG periods of time. That said, I'd just as soon leave open the possibility that these behavior are correctable before feeding them to the lions for the amusement of the sheep.

I don't really get the lions and sheep allusions, I'm not aware of any type of "Running Man" shows, but then I don't like reality tv, so I could be wrong. If, as a society, we are in the 'bread and circuses' phase, then we are truly in trouble, and are circling the drain.

Like you, I have no problem housing those that can be rehabilitated, but as I wrote, I see no reason to endanger others for those that can't/won't change.

David.

[Doodler]

Like you, I have no problem housing those that can be rehabilitated, but as I wrote, I see no reason to endanger others for those that can't/won't change.

Ok then, riddle me this.

Give me a reasonably reliable method of knowing the difference, not so much for the blisteringly obvious cases of hardened criminals, but for the ones who might or might not become hardened.


There's the rub. People want to throw the hard cases to the wolves, but they're not exactly being very exacting in what it is that makes a hard case. As I said, there's the definite loons who should never be allowed out of their steel and concrete boxes, but its the gray areas people don't want to focus on where this kind of selectivity is absolutely critical.

What's the line in the sand that can be equally applied to all cases without disregarding the individual specifics of each case?

[crosscountry]

death penalty?

[sarongsong]

(February's OP was "a preliminary ruling")
August 4, 2009
...a panel of federal judges on Tuesday ordered...Schwarzenegger and legislators deliver...within 45 days...a plan to cut the inmate population from about 150,000 to 110,000 over two years...
mercurynews.com (http://www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_12991912?source=rss)

[mugaliens]

You gotta love this one (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090805/ap_on_re_us/us_paying_for_time)...

I'm glad they added the following: "This concept says if you can afford it, or even some of it, you're going to help the beleaguered taxpayers who play by the rules."

Otherwise, you would be charging criminals who often steal because they're poor!

This does raise some concerns, however, namely, who pays when people are jailed then later cleared of all charges? And if these people get their money back, wouldn't that creat a conflict of interst due to financial pressure to make some kind of conviction, even a small one?

This part, however, I absolutely do NOT agree with: "In some cases, it's prisoners' families who shoulder the financial burden. "It's the spouses, children and parents who pay the fees.

They're already paying enough by the loss of daily contact with their jailed spouse, parent, or child. Furthermore, they did nothing wrong! Charging them is far worse than taxation without representation - it's stealing.

[Doodler]

Hello debtor's prison, its been a while. I wonder how long it will be before the government refuses to release prisoners who can't pay their tab?

[Larry Jacks]

Having seen how Navy sailors live on board ship, I don't have much sympathy for claims of prison overcrowding.

[crosscountry]

chain gang. it worked before. It is neither cruel nor unusual.

In Kentucky inmates get 2 days of sentence reduced for every 1 day of community service. I think that will go a long ways towards cleaning up the streets - both literally and figuratively.

[Gillianren]

chain gang. it worked before. It is neither cruel nor unusual.

Provided it's adminstered correctly; mostly, they were not.

[mugaliens]

chain gang. it worked before. It is neither cruel nor unusual.

In Kentucky inmates get 2 days of sentence reduced for every 1 day of community service. I think that will go a long ways towards cleaning up the streets - both literally and figuratively.

And the repeat rates for those who work on chain gangs is signficantly lower than for those who do not, despite their shortened sentences.

I think there's something about both doing hard work and seeing the results of that work that does something inside a human being. Sense of accomplishment, endorphins, or Vitamin D from getting more sunlight - it really doesn't matter.

What matters is that it works.

[crosscountry]

check.

[sarongsong]

...What matters is that it works.Might be interesting to try in light of California's 70% recidivism rate.