« Ohio Supreme Court blesses retoractive application of its response to Blakely | Main | "Neoliberal Penality: A Brief Genealogy" »

July 28, 2009

Reviewing how tough times are resulting in prison releases

This new AP article, headlined "States target prisons for cuts, raising worries," provides a review of the many states being forced to make prison cuts in tough economic times.  Here are snippets:

Nine states are considering closing prisons or cutting staff, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, while others are shedding inmate education programs that researchers say are critical to reducing recidivism.

Kentucky has released more than 2,800 inmates early since last year by allowing prisoners to get more credit than normal for time served. More than 150 violent felons and two dozen sex offenders were initially set free because of a loophole that has since been closed....

And Michigan has thinned its prison population from more than 51,000 to about 47,500 through paroles and commutations and an expanded effort to keep parolees from committing new crimes.  The goal is to get the number below 45,000 and close three state prisons and five prison camps to save $120 million. Gov. Jennifer Granholm's administration says only low-risk offenders are getting early parole.

The cost of running state lockups, including paying guards, offering drug treatment and running probation and parole programs, is among the biggest drains on state budgets, making them vulnerable when states face a cash crunch....

At the Stateville prison in Joliet, guard Ralph Portwood said some watchtowers already go unmanned because of cutbacks, and inmates are double-bunked almost throughout the prison.  "Security has taken the back seat to the budget right now," Portwood said. "I know everyone's got a job to do. But remember, security should supersede everything."...

Several states are considering changing their systems of probation and parole by easing strict requirements that easily trip up newly released convicts.  An expert panel convened by California officials said the state could save more than $800 million a year by not sending parolees back to jail for technical violations and making it easier for convicts to complete classes for early-release credit.

Ian Pulsifer, a policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said states considering early release or easing parole and probation requirements are targeting nonviolent inmates — mostly drug offenders and those not accused of sex crimes. "States are looking at things to cut down corrections costs, but they're not going to be sacrificing public safety for the sake of saving money," he said.

July 28, 2009 at 11:06 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Reviewing how tough times are resulting in prison releases:


123D. As long as the greater North American guild of corrupt enterprise communists run the justice system like their own private co-prosperity sphere, the criminal-loving know-nothing lawyers will always find a way to ensure their continued employment by keeping crime up. There is nothing to talk about. All of you should go home.

Posted by: Redundancy Clause | Jul 29, 2009 8:33:07 AM

"But remember, security should supersede everything."

Really? Let's take that to the logical conclusion and do away with all bail, do away with beyond a reasonable doubt, do away with any jury trial (too expensive and cumbersome), do away with the right to to put on a defense, do away with....

The Constitution should supersede everything, but it doesn't, not anymore.

Posted by: George | Jul 29, 2009 9:41:57 AM

From The Wall Street Journal
July 20, 2009, 12:33 PM ET
Georgia On LB’s Mind: Lying Prosecutor

The goings-on in Georgia sparked LB’s interest this week, but we’re not talking about Saakashvili’s spiffing up before Veep Biden’s visit. Nope, we’re talking ’bout the Down South Georgia, where the tactics of federal prosecutors are again under the microscope–along with the alleged scowling of at least one defense attorney.

The questions about federal prosecutors comes in the trial of criminal defense lawyer J. Mark Shelnutt, who is facing charges that he collected legal fees derived from his clients’ illegal activities. In a pre-trial hearing last week, U.S. District Judge Clay D. Land said he was “shocked” by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason M. Ferguson’s admission that he had lied to Shelnutt as the two prepared for a 2007 meeting about one of Shelnutt’s clients, according to the Fulton County Daily Report. Ferguson said he told Shelnutt, who was then the target of a federal probe, that he did not intend to record the meeting even though he was secretly was doing so already. Ferguson told the judge that his supervisor at the U.S. attorney’s office in Macon gave him permission to lie to Shelnutt.
The judge said the case could proceed, but the prosecutorial ethics issue will likely feature heavily at Shelnutt’s trial in September, according to FCDR.

Anything to win and the judge is "Shocked" Really? Happens routinely and the judges enable it. "Shocked"??????

Posted by: Had Enough | Jul 29, 2009 11:54:44 AM

Had Enough
I'm not shocked, I expect it now. I was shocked, I used to think the justice system worked. But, after watching up close how it works, after a close relative was arrested, and shuffled through the mock maneuvers of cops, SRS workers, magistrate judges, judges, but MOSTLY, the prosecutor, I began to investigate cases on the internet, and I see this is how it goes. Lying by cops, win at all cost by cops and prosecutors, no consideration for justice, anywhere, topped off by a sentence which had been gradually created over the past 30 years to a 24 year sentence to a 40 year old man. I would call that a life sentence. While, murderers, ones who were witnessed by hundreds of people, get 20 years. I don't call that justice. My relative was accused of "touching" somebody. He hadn't done it, but the cops, the SRS, the prosecutor and the judge didn't care about that.

Posted by: DLJ | Jul 29, 2009 12:12:55 PM

DLJ: Thank the feminist lawyer for the "touching somebody" hysteria, combined with immunity for illegal alien, paramilitary, organized gangs that behead people that disrespect them. The law is in utter failure with its 99% false negative, and a massive but unknown false positive rate. The "touching somebody" hysteria is a pretext to go after productive males and an assault on the family. It is part of the business plan of the criminal cult enterprise to replace the family's authority with that of central government. The latter is a wholly owned subsidiary of the criminal cult enterprise that is the lawyer profession. The lawyer makes 99% of the policy decisions of the three branches of government.

The lawyer is in total control of the criminal law. It is doing such a horrible job that it should be fired and permanently excluded from all criminal law policy making. It simultaneously allows massive criminality, and prosecutes a large fraction of innocent people. The lawyer is intelligent. It has to be on purpose. Then it deals itself, unlawful, unjust, unwise immunities, shielding itself from the salutory effects of torts, when lawyer carelessness damages a victim.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 29, 2009 12:56:10 PM

SC. I just want you to know that here at the office we have started a betting pool. Now that you have added "feminist" to the mix, the betting is over whether you will go next in the direction of "lesbian" or whether it will be "homosexual".

Personally, I have my money on "homosexual feminist criminal loving big government lawyer."

Posted by: Daniel | Jul 29, 2009 2:58:06 PM

I think all those lawyer privileged groups are pretextual. The lawyer wants only the rent. When homosexuals refuse to fall for the marriage trap, it will be on to animal civil standing. Those make the perfect clients, actually. Put me down as betting for animal rights, as a vehicle of future rent seeking. And if you bet only cute furry species will get civil standing, I will label you a phyllist and file a complaint with the DOJ Office of Civil Rights.

You need to have a fair hearing with adequate representation, and to get a court order before wiping your kitchen counter with ammonia, wiping out billions of our bacterial brothers in the struggle.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 29, 2009 5:45:57 PM

Dan: I want to show you something, the outfit to which Berman belongs, the Law Profs Blog Network.



The Family Law Prof Blog?

Gay. People who will never have a family, are in charge of following family law in the world of the Law Prof Blog Network. In a million years, they will never be more than friends to each other. No law change will ever change that reality.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jul 29, 2009 11:46:44 PM

Another "non-violent" offender who should have been locked up for good, but wasn't. He will be now.


Posted by: federalist | Jul 30, 2009 12:33:22 AM

Federalist calls suspect "Non Violent" maybe not, his referenced article doesn't say that but read on.
Suspect in Lily Burk's slaying has history of violent crimes, drug problems, police say


I don't disagree that he probably should have been under the jail long ago but Non-Violent??? Don't think so.

Posted by: HadEnough | Jul 30, 2009 11:19:22 AM


I'm fairly sure SC has included homosexuals as part of his rant in the past. So does that mean you can already collect? Or does it have to become a regular part of his invocation?

Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Jul 30, 2009 12:03:43 PM

I stand corrected. Had meant that his violations weren't violent. This guy NEVER should have been on the street. Jeez, why did he have to kill her?

Posted by: federalist | Jul 30, 2009 1:15:50 PM

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