« "Pa. lifers seeking clemency in wake of US ruling" | Main | Lots of interesting criminology reading for a long weekend »

September 3, 2009

Three-judge panel refuses to stay order requiring California to reduce its prison population

As detailed in this Los Angeles Times piece, a "panel of federal judges today denied state officials’ request to delay an order that they produce a plan to reduce California's prison population by 40,000 inmates."  Here is more:

Aides to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger have said they would take their request to the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday.

In denying the state’s request, the judges said they had been “more than patient with the state and its officials” and harshly criticized them for “conflicting representations” in court that have forced the cases to drag on.  “Further delays and obstruction will not well serve the people of the state, and will not be tolerated by this court,” wrote U.S. District Judges Thelton Henderson and Lawrence Karlton, and U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt.
 
In their order last month, the judges said overcrowding is the primary cause of substandard healthcare and mental health care in state prisons.  They required the state to produce a plan by Sept. 18 to relieve the overcrowding.

State officials, in requesting a delay, had said they would be wasting taxpayer resources putting together a plan that ultimately might be unnecessary after an appeal of the order. The appeal was filed separately today.

The judges noted that a proposal to reduce prison overcrowding has been approved in the state Senate and part of that plan passed the Assembly.  “Indeed, the state has already completed much of the necessary work to develop a plan that could satisfy much or all of our order,” they wrote.

Some recent related posts:

September 3, 2009 at 09:58 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20120a546a546970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Three-judge panel refuses to stay order requiring California to reduce its prison population:

Comments

Good, California's penal conditions are an abomination.

Posted by: JC | Sep 3, 2009 10:18:36 PM

These officious intermeddlers know nothing about crime, corrections, nor whether crowding is the cause of anything. They are just making things up, and imposing their criminal lover biases on the public. The future crime victims of these released prisoners should either be able to sue these incompetent, oblivious judges, or failing that, to run them out of town.

We need the names and addresses of these criminal lover judges to start setting up halfway houses for released criminals in the houses surrounding their homes, the sides, the front, the back, three deep. At 8 unrelated people allowed by the criminal lover lawyer, put houses in front, the sides, the back, 3 houses deep. Make their residential streets central nodes of unleashed criminality.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 4, 2009 1:05:24 AM

Ha. California hit the trifecta of Carter judges.

Posted by: . | Sep 4, 2009 9:00:07 AM

Supremacy Clause, your last post is getting dangerously close to amounting to threats against federal judges. An aggressive u.s. attorney could indict you for the fun of it. Ironic if you have to hire a criminal-lover, rent-seeking, Commie, pinko lawyer--if one would agree to represent you.

Posted by: anon | Sep 4, 2009 1:09:13 PM

Anon: If you are a student or a civilian, we have no dispute. If you are a lawyer, a chance to be charged is a chance to deter the lawyer and an entire line of criminal cult enterprise. I believe the innocent defendant has a moral duty to destroy the life of the federal thug and all its supervisors, to deter. For a small amount, one can generate government defense costs that will far exceed the value of the thug to government. After a suitable face saving interval, the thug will be working elsewhere. Future employers will wonder, will he generate $millions in defense costs for me. It starts with total e-discovery of the work and personal computers of the cult criminal. The federal computer has the highest likelihood of containing child porn, since the federal government is the biggest subscriber and downloader of child porn in the world. As to the excuse, it was for research or my job, all perps make exactly the same lame excuse.

I have posted this analysis of settled law several times for people who do not know the law.

http://www.legalethicsforum.com/blog/2006/02/what_can_and_sh.html

So you do not have to strain doing any research, here:

"The law has been settled since Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 448 (1969), that anything other than incitement to imminent lawless action is presumptively protected speech." In this forum, nobody does anything imminently except talk.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Sep 5, 2009 1:52:40 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB