Michael Hardner Posted May 23, 2011 Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 LA Times 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. I'm wondering what the libertarians think of this ? Is the problem that California is spending too much on prisons, or not enough ? A good source on costs for California prisons: CA Legislative Analyst's Office What Has Three Strikes Cost the State? Analyses in 1994 suggested that the Three Strikes law would result in additional state prison operations costs of a few billion dollars annually by 2003, increasing to $6 billion dollars annually by 2026 as the full impact of the law was realized. There would also be one-time prison construction costs totaling $20 billion by 2026 necessary to house strikers in prison. It now appears that these estimates were high. The budget for CDCR has increased by about $3 billion since 1994-95, but much of this growth can be attributed to costs unrelated to Three Strikes, such as increased medical costs and higher numbers of parole violators returned to prison. In fact, the current cost of housing strikers is approximately $1.5 billion annually. However, many of these offenders would be in prison for their current or a subsequent offense even in the absence of Three Strikes. Taking this into consideration, we estimate that the additional operating costs resulting from the Three Strikes law is about one half billion dollars annually. The primary reasons for the difference between early estimates and the fiscal impact that has actually occurred are (1) the use of judicial discretion to dismiss prior strikes, and (2) variation among counties in how often they prosecute offenders under the Three Strikes law. Both of these factors-discussed in more detail later in this piece-have reduced the number of inmates who have been sentenced under Three Strikes compared to what would have occurred if such judicial and prosecutorial discretion were not allowed. As regards prison construction costs, the state has not built any new prisons specifically for striker inmates. The department has activated seven new prisons (and deactivated another) to accommodate the total growth in the prison population since 1994. The total capital outlay costs for these seven prisons was $1.8 billion. However, it is difficult to identify the portion of these costs that is attributable to Three Strikes. Only a portion of the total growth in the inmate population is attributable to Three Strikes. Also, all of these prison construction projects, with the exception of one (Kern Valley State Prison), were planned even before the passage of Three Strikes. In addition, the department utilizes more double-celling, as well as double- and triple-bunking in dorms, thereby reducing the amount of construction that might otherwise have occurred. In addition to direct prison costs, the Three Strikes law may have also had indirect fiscal impacts on state and local governments. For example, some offenders who are incarcerated for longer periods under Three Strikes are unable to commit additional crimes that result in victim-related government costs (for example, health care costs). Alternatively, there could be foregone tax revenue to the extent that some offenders incarcerated under Three Strikes might have paid some taxes otherwise. The extent and magnitude of these impacts is unknown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 LA Times I'm wondering what the libertarians think of this ? Is the problem that California is spending too much on prisons, or not enough ? A good source on costs for California prisons: CA Legislative Analyst's Office Well, speaking just for myself Michael, I think that California has caused its own problem as a result of poor logic and downright loopy thinking! Significant numbers of prisoners are there as a result of drug laws. It's Prohibition all over again. Those who are there as a result of the "three strike" rule are often there because of minor crimes, committed out of desperation or a sense of disbelief that the State would incarcerate someone for things so trivial. California people seem to be strong examples of "liberal" thinking at its cliched worst! They have caused their own prison problem by implementing ideas that were a result of poor and shallow thinking, like a chess player who can only see one move ahead. Such a player has no hope of winning a game against all but a rank beginner and so too has California's approach to its prison problem had no hope of success. This was obvious from the beginning by any clear thinker but clear thinkers apparently have had little or no influence int California's government for some time now. So they asked for it and now they're paying for it. Looks good on them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 .... Those who are there as a result of the "three strike" rule are often there because of minor crimes, committed out of desperation or a sense of disbelief that the State would incarcerate someone for things so trivial. "Committed out of desperation"? What does that mean, and how can it be consolation for robbin', stealin', breakin' and enterin', check kitin', and drug traffickin'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 LA Times I'm wondering what the libertarians think of this ? Is the problem that California is spending too much on prisons, or not enough Americans all want strict crime laws with long sentences. Americans all want low taxes, and will always vote for whomever promises to lower then further. You don't really need much more information on why prison overcrowding is a national issue south of the border. As to California's budgetary problems. They seem to be the result of a ridiculously inept border control system allowing millions of illegals to flood across the border, and a ridiculously liberal mindset which insists on not only not arresting these illegals but on granting them full educational and hospitalization rights even though they don't pay any taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Americans all want strict crime laws with long sentences. Americans all want low taxes, and will always vote for whomever promises to lower then further. No, there are variety of opinions and desires just as in Canada. You don't really need much more information on why prison overcrowding is a national issue south of the border. The corrections business is booming....so many perps...so little time. As to California's budgetary problems. They seem to be the result of a ridiculously inept border control system allowing millions of illegals to flood across the border, and a ridiculously liberal mindset which insists on not only not arresting these illegals but on granting them full educational and hospitalization rights even though they don't pay any taxes. More misguided generalization...many illegals do pay taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 The corrections business is booming....so many perps...so little time. If business is booming, that may mean that something in the societal system is broken and needs to be fixed. Building more prisons is not going to help. More misguided generalization...many illegals do pay taxes. The illegals pay taxes so the USA can incarcerate other illegals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) This is obviously something that has been building for several years. Blaming the american mindset or the drug laws does not address the issue. At the very least they should have been building more capacity into the system 7 or 8 years ago. (Please notice I said at the very least) No doubt studies and reports warned those in power right up to Arnie that the system was going to get increasingly over populated each year, and the response from said decision makers was to ignore the problem, year after year. What a mess. And the innocent law abiding citizen will be put at risk by the release of these criminals. I saw the NBC news report on this and the anchor and reporter in the field tag teamed the story, defending SCOTUS and downplaying any danger. Typical drivel from the MSM. The reporter even mentioned a study of such a release in another state in the mid 90's documenting the 1000's of resulting crimes and re-arrests. Then the reporter basically said, "but this won't be the same." No evidence, no hard facts to back up her claim, and more spin than actual news reporting. Edited May 24, 2011 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 I'm wondering what the libertarians think of this ? Is the problem that California is spending too much on prisons, or not enough ? I'm somewhat of a Libertarian, I suppose. Although I am more of a classical liberal. In the broad concept of government once it escapes it's shackles and becomes the designer of society instead of the protector of it's citizens it attempts to make criminals out of just about everyone. The level of trust it has in the people is reflected by the people's trust in it. This is a growing problem under State social engineering. Spending on prisons is dependent upon the size of prison population. Actually, in California, government will ignore it's laws, look the other way, bring in cheap labour from the south so it's citizens can toke up, laze around on the beach and soak up the sun. And everyone deserves a piece of Hollywood and it's lifestyle. Because it's laws are ignored or enforced by the whim of the courts (I mean, how many actors have bought off their drug charges with fancy lawyers?) the law itself has become a joke. The Federal government has also become a participant in the erosion of local authority and thus it's own authority - if it should want to exercise any at all. The problem with releasing, or could it be termed "unleashing", these prisoners is that they will now hold even further contempt for the law. Many of them, left with no respect for the law, may cross the line of committing offences that were more against the State to committing offences against their fellow citizens. It's an insane situation. In my view, it is what happens when the rules of society are unclear or are designed to benefit some over others, the rich over the poor as well as the poor over the rich - they are both destructive to the fabric of society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 "Committed out of desperation"? What does that mean, and how can it be consolation for robbin', stealin', breakin' and enterin', check kitin', and drug traffickin'? Most civilized societies have degrees of crime, making a distinction between stealing a loaf of bread and 1st degree murder. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the California 3 strikes rule make no such distinctions? I've read MSM reports of jaywalking landing someone back in prison. As for the other crimes you mention, while felons in general do such crimes individuals likely have a more limited rap sheet. Or are you suggesting that we consider them to all be one amorphous mass and convict them all for each other's collective crimes? As for the last you mentioned, namely "drug traffickin' ", California made its own bed when it instituted a lifestyle law like the Prohibition of drugs. Virtually all of the negative aspects of drug laws against society come from society making such drugs illegal in the first place. No doubt Al Capone is laughing in his grave! By themselves, drugs hurt no one but their users. Users commit crimes to pay for drugs, which they can't afford because criminalization made them so expensive! The adverse health effects are solely born by the user. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn for his health! Just keep him from breaking into my house! Protecting him from himself by making ME his target seems simply stupid and unfair, TO ME! Again, California's approaches made overcrowded prisons inevitable. If their government was that stupid then they deserve whatever happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Most civilized societies have degrees of crime, making a distinction between stealing a loaf of bread and 1st degree murder. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the California 3 strikes rule make no such distinctions? I've read MSM reports of jaywalking landing someone back in prison. Yes and no....a petty misdemeanor remains as such unless elevated by virtue of other priors and conditions of parole. A felony is always a felony unless reduced, but these are the folks the law was intended to incarcerate....repeat serious offenders. As for the other crimes you mention, while felons in general do such crimes individuals likely have a more limited rap sheet. Or are you suggesting that we consider them to all be one amorphous mass and convict them all for each other's collective crimes? No...by definition a felony usually means a crime punishable by more than one year incarceration and/or a large fine. More prison time by virtue of the tree strikes rule is just a bonus, and solves the problem of too lenient judges. As for the last you mentioned, namely "drug traffickin' ", California made its own bed when it instituted a lifestyle law like the Prohibition of drugs. Virtually all of the negative aspects of drug laws against society come from society making such drugs illegal in the first place. No doubt Al Capone is laughing in his grave! Couple of points here...Canada scheduled and banned many drugs (notably cannabis) before most states and the US Feds, and California has been at the forefront of decriminalization and medical use. Canada lags behind in this respect. By themselves, drugs hurt no one but their users. Users commit crimes to pay for drugs, which they can't afford because criminalization made them so expensive! The adverse health effects are solely born by the user. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn for his health! Just keep him from breaking into my house! Protecting him from himself by making ME his target seems simply stupid and unfair, TO ME! This is a specious argument....substitute any other vice and it begins to look silly. Drug trafficking is in and of itself a very destructive enterprise regardless of legality. Again, California's approaches made overcrowded prisons inevitable. If their government was that stupid then they deserve whatever happens. ...and if some guy chops off a relative's head on a nice bus ride in Manitoba and eats his/her eyeballs, then Manitoba "deserves" it if the guy had violent priors. Just sayin.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted May 26, 2011 Report Share Posted May 26, 2011 (edited) Yes and no....a petty misdemeanor remains as such unless elevated by virtue of other priors and conditions of parole. A felony is always a felony unless reduced, but these are the folks the law was intended to incarcerate....repeat serious offenders. Good intentions? In the real world, is it true or not true that people go back to prison for trivial charges, under the 3 strike rule? Intentions are irrelevant. If California is indeed re-incarcerating people for trivial misdemeanors instead of major felonies then again, they are causing their own prison overcrowding problem. Couple of points here...Canada scheduled and banned many drugs (notably cannabis) before most states and the US Feds, and California has been at the forefront of decriminalization and medical use. Canada lags behind in this respect. Hey, when have I ever claimed California had a monopoly on being stupid? Canada has been a bonehead as to lifestyle laws like drugs, too. People should be allowed to go to hell their own way. This is a specious argument....substitute any other vice and it begins to look silly. Drug trafficking is in and of itself a very destructive enterprise regardless of legality. If drugs were legal, why would there be any drug trafficking? I thought organized crime was only interested in making money. If we legalized drugs why would there be any "destructive enterprizes" at all? Where would be the incentive? When I substitute any other vice and I don't see any silliness. If it hurts only the one engaging in the vice then why should anyone else care? ...and if some guy chops off a relative's head on a nice bus ride in Manitoba and eats his/her eyeballs, then Manitoba "deserves" it if the guy had violent priors. Just sayin.... Again, there's no monopoly on stupidity. If idiots let people with violent priors wander around loose then we have a problem. If we KEEP doing it then we deserve any negative consequences. Edited May 26, 2011 by Wild Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 26, 2011 Report Share Posted May 26, 2011 Good intentions? In the real world, is it true or not true that people go back to prison for trivial charges, under the 3 strike rule? Intentions are irrelevant. If California is indeed re-incarcerating people for trivial misdemeanors instead of major felonies then again, they are causing their own prison overcrowding problem. True...as intended by the California legislature and voters. Andrade v. Attorney General (2001) addressed the issue of disproportionate punishment but did not strike down the intended severity of sentences for repeat offenders. Hey, when have I ever claimed California had a monopoly on being stupid? Canada has been a bonehead as to lifestyle laws like drugs, too. People should be allowed to go to hell their own way. Not if they are piloting my airliner or operating a nuclear power plant. If drugs were legal, why would there be any drug trafficking? I thought organized crime was only interested in making money. If we legalized drugs why would there be any "destructive enterprizes" at all? Where would be the incentive? Many drugs are legal, yet there is still illegal trafficking. When I substitute any other vice and I don't see any silliness. If it hurts only the one engaging in the vice then why should anyone else care? See above. Again, there's no monopoly on stupidity. If idiots let people with violent priors wander around loose then we have a problem. If we KEEP doing it then we deserve any negative consequences. But it's not just violent priors that put the public at risk. And they sure as hell shouldn't have to wait for the first violent crime to lock up a perp with a demonstrated disregard for public safety and the rights of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted May 29, 2011 Report Share Posted May 29, 2011 This is essentially a complete failure of the basic responsbility of government. Keeping bad people off of the street. But that's to be expected of a state that's bankrupted itself, thanks mostly to an out of control public service union. $300,000 dollar a year prison guards, $800,000 dollar a year city managers, a university pension plan that hasn't been contributed to by the state or its employees for 20 years, etc, etc, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 29, 2011 Report Share Posted May 29, 2011 (edited) $300,000 dollar a year prison guards, $800,000 dollar a year city managers, a university pension plan that hasn't been contributed to by the state or its employees for 20 years, etc, etc, etc. $300,000 a year for a lousy screw? Who? What? Where? How? You're not referring to that discredited Forbes anecdote about the imaginary "potential" to make $300,000 in California with lots of overtime are you? If so, I can see why you wouldn't cite it. People would laugh at you. Edited May 29, 2011 by BubberMiley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.