July 1, 2011
"California given strict deadline to reduce prison population"
The title of this post is the headline of this new Los Angeles Times article, which gets started this way:
A three-judge court that has ordered California to reduce its prison population issued strict deadlines Thursday for what will amount to a reduction of 37,000 inmates in two years.
The special panel of federal judges set June 27, 2013, as the deadline for compliance, paying little heed to the U.S. Supreme Court's call for flexibility. In May, the high court cited California's cash crisis in suggesting that officials might need more time to resolve the overcrowding problem.
The three-judge court ruled in August 2009 that conditions in state prisons violated the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The inmate population — then exceeding 160,000 — was twice the number for which the state's 33 prisons were built, the court said, and the crowding resulted in deprivation of medical and mental health care for many inmates. By Dec. 27, the number of prisoners must be at or below 133,600, or 14,400 fewer than were in state custody last week.
Further cuts of 9,600 by next June and 6,400 by December 2012 were also ordered. In two years, the population must be no larger than 111,000. Some reductions have already been accomplished since the original court order.
July 1, 2011 at 11:58 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "California given strict deadline to reduce prison population":
good hold their feet to the fire. the dumb a-wholes have had TWENTY YEARS to deal with the problem. shouldn't have given them more than 6 months. any inconvience to the citizens and govt of calif needs to be weighted against the ILLEGAL UNCONSTUTIONAL conditons these humans have been in for TWENTY YEARS!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jul 1, 2011 1:09:08 PM
The panel is indeed being very generous considering how long and atrociously California's Democratic-controlled legislature has dragged their feet on this. You would think that if you were a responsible public servant and someone (in this case, Prison Law, a non-profit law firm in Berkeley) respectfully pointed out to you in a compelling, well-researched complaint that conditions at most cattle farms were better than those prevailing in your prisons, you would say, "Oh my gosh. That's terrible. I will correct that immediately."
Instead, it became a game to avoid even slightly improving the horrific conditions for as long as possible. Why? The only real reason was because that way as many prison guards as possible could continue to get paid $140,000 a year with huge benefits.
The politicians who did this were mostly Democrats who probably protested against the Vietnam war and complain about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Well, year after year after year, they themselves have not only condoned but indeed insisted upon maintaining their own string of infested torture colonies right here in California. All so they could keep getting campaign contributions from the prison guards union.
Let's call this whole thing what it was: shameful. The legislators in power in CA during the last two decades will forever live with this as their main historical legacy. This scandalous stain on California and the soul of every one of its citizens will be the main feature of how their period of "public service" is described to their grandchildren.
Posted by: Frederick | Jul 1, 2011 8:18:30 PM
Fred: What do you think of 123D, as a remedy for over-crowding? It would eliminate over crowding and 99% of crime because there would be no criminals left alive past the age of 18. Prisons could be run like the Ritz-Carlton with all the money left over, and the higher tax revenues, as the economy goes from moribund to growing at its more natural 10% (after getting rid of the lawyer internal traitor, not just the criminal). The jump in real estate values alone from the elimination of the criminal would add around $20 trillion in wealth, and raise tax revenues proportionally. The beginning would be distressing, killing a million violent criminals, and 15,000 members of the lawyer hierarchy. After that, the numbers would be 10,000 criminals a year (the size of the birth cohort of violent criminals), and 1000 lawyer-traitors a year (the output of the top 5 law schools). The death penalty for the lawyers would stem from their insurrection against the US Constitution in judicial review. To deter.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 2, 2011 2:43:59 PM
well SC maybe if we dumped complete immunity from law enforcment. moved those billiions of dollars we keep shipping overseas to instead go toward citizen defense when accused to they can compete with DA's Maybe we could trust the justice department got it RIGHT when a conviction happens. then we might not hesitate over 123D.
right now the state just screws the pooch too damn often to even consider it!
unless we're gonna start appling it to crookie/lieing cops and DA's as well!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jul 2, 2011 3:05:49 PM
Great Post! I hope the politicians fail and burn. Liars they are and have been for a long time. See the "Runner" family,
You have to realize eventually that 123D causes more harm to the community than most prisoners who will experience 123D.
One on my best friends father survived Treblinka and Auschwitz. We don't need that here. It dehumanized the native population and guards too.
I know Bill, reference to Nazi camp cheapens my arguments as I just exploded in irrationality.
Posted by: albeed | Jul 2, 2011 10:23:44 PM