Court orders California to cut inmate population by 40,000

[Darth Wong]

Ship them to other states.

And these other states would happily take on these inmates ... why?

[Uraniun235]

It depends, some places have jail space that they can't use because they don't have the money to staff it, so if California was willing and able to give them the money to hire staff and house and feed the inmates, I could see other places accepting them - that money would mean more local jobs.

However, that likely won't happen as California doesn't have any money - and if they were willing to spend on it, they'd probably just as soon funnel the money into in-state prison construction.

[Ryan Thunder]

Oh well that's just brilliant. Californians totally need an additional 40,000 criminals on the streets.

[loomer]

Yes, and I'm sure they need over-stressed prisons that just had a goddamn riot a couple of days ago, and which thus introduce a new level of violence and gang affiliation to non-violent criminals incarcerated within them, who, on release, are then more likely to commit violent crime or continue with gang affiliation.

[Redleader34]

Oh well that's just brilliant. Californians totally need an additional 40,000 criminals on the streets.

there is no room
the prisons are full
the state is broke
unless you want to bring gulags and have them do mass scale industrial projects until they die there is no good solution besides free them and or mass probation

[Rahvin]

Oh well that's just brilliant. Californians totally need an additional 40,000 criminals on the streets.

Because clearly all criminals are the same, and every inmate released is an obvious danger to society on the level of a rapist or murderer. Of course the state won't intelligently select those individuals to be released; we'll keep the nonviolent drug offender, the petty thief serving life on three strikes who's already served double the usual sentence for his third crime, and the minor embezzler who's only got 1 year left in prison while they release a murderer who was convited last month. Those released will certainly not be faced with alternative incarceration measures like house arrest with tracking devices, and have conditional releases that could see their lucky break taken away if they fuck it up.

After all, they're criminals. Releasing some of them will run the rivers red with blood, and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth as the sky falls around us.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Oh well that's just brilliant. Californians totally need an additional 40,000 criminals on the streets.

Because clearly all criminals are the same, and every inmate released is an obvious danger to society on the level of a rapist or murderer. Of course the state won't intelligently select those individuals to be released; we'll keep the nonviolent drug offender, the petty thief serving life on three strikes who's already served double the usual sentence for his third crime, and the minor embezzler who's only got 1 year left in prison while they release a murderer who was convited last month. Those released will certainly not be faced with alternative incarceration measures like house arrest with tracking devices, and have conditional releases that could see their lucky break taken away if they fuck it up.

After all, they're criminals. Releasing some of them will run the rivers red with blood, and there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth as the sky falls around us.

Would the drama queens shut the fuck up. Ryan never said that at all. While Ryan is guilty of ignoring the reason behind this decision he certainly isn't saying that the apocalypse will be the consequence.

EDIT -
While 40,000 convicted criminals getting a free pass isn't the end of the world it certainly isn't a good thing. This action could have other consequences because it's showing people that for some crimes there's a chance you won't stay long if at all.

[General Zod]

While 40,000 convicted criminals getting a free pass isn't the end of the world it certainly isn't a good thing. This action could have other consequences because it's showing people that for some crimes there's a chance you won't stay long if at all.

I have to wonder how big of a percentage of the population is there because of non-violent offenses thanks to California's retarded three strikes law. They can always put them on parole under minimal supervision instead of necessarily giving them a free pass.

[Erik von Nein]

Well, since they need to remove 40000 prisoners I guess they'll just dump the most violent and dangerous criminals right onto the streets! Yeah, there won't be any kind of review committee or recommendations made about who they'll let free. Nope. No thought will be put into it.

Geez.

[Rahvin]

While 40,000 convicted criminals getting a free pass isn't the end of the world it certainly isn't a good thing. This action could have other consequences because it's showing people that for some crimes there's a chance you won't stay long if at all.

I have to wonder how big of a percentage of the population is there because of non-violent offenses thanks to California's retarded three strikes law. They can always put them on parole under minimal supervision instead of necessarily giving them a free pass.

As I posted on page 1:

As of 2004, there were approximately 42,810 second/third strikers in California. Of those, 24,123 were regarded as "nonserious and nonviolent."

The total of all strikers comprised a little over 25% of the prison population.

[General Zod]

While 40,000 convicted criminals getting a free pass isn't the end of the world it certainly isn't a good thing. This action could have other consequences because it's showing people that for some crimes there's a chance you won't stay long if at all.

I have to wonder how big of a percentage of the population is there because of non-violent offenses thanks to California's retarded three strikes law. They can always put them on parole under minimal supervision instead of necessarily giving them a free pass.

As I posted on page 1:

As of 2004, there were approximately 42,810 second/third strikers in California. Of those, 24,123 were regarded as "nonserious and nonviolent."

The total of all strikers comprised a little over 25% of the prison population.

That answers that question then. Must have missed it.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, since they need to remove 40000 prisoners I guess they'll just dump the most violent and dangerous criminals right onto the streets! Yeah, there won't be any kind of review committee or recommendations made about who they'll let free. Nope. No thought will be put into it.

Geez.

Probably not. I'm sure they will review their records. Still, I'd be pretty pissed off if I learned that the guy who burglarized my house and was caught gets a free pass. Don't let me get in the way of your emotional posting though...because 40,000 non-violent criminals back on the streets is a good thing.

[Kamakazie Sith]

While 40,000 convicted criminals getting a free pass isn't the end of the world it certainly isn't a good thing. This action could have other consequences because it's showing people that for some crimes there's a chance you won't stay long if at all.

I have to wonder how big of a percentage of the population is there because of non-violent offenses thanks to California's retarded three strikes law. They can always put them on parole under minimal supervision instead of necessarily giving them a free pass.

Yes, they absolutely can. Though you'll be dumping a huge load of paperwork onto already overworked AP&P personnel. Look. This is necessary because CA can't afford it. I only jumped in because some people in this thread have acted like idiots in their responses to what Ryan posted.

Also, just because they are non-violent doesn't mean they aren't harmful to people. If your home gets burglarized and you don't have home/renters insurance and they never find your property that kind of sucks...don't you think so?

[Rahvin]

While 40,000 convicted criminals getting a free pass isn't the end of the world it certainly isn't a good thing. This action could have other consequences because it's showing people that for some crimes there's a chance you won't stay long if at all.

I have to wonder how big of a percentage of the population is there because of non-violent offenses thanks to California's retarded three strikes law. They can always put them on parole under minimal supervision instead of necessarily giving them a free pass.

Yes, they absolutely can. Though you'll be dumping a huge load of paperwork onto already overworked AP&P personnel. Look. This is necessary because CA can't afford it. I only jumped in because some people in this thread have acted like idiots in their responses to what Ryan posted.

I made an exaggerated response to Ryan because his "OH NOES, CRIMINALS!" comment painted all criminals in exactly the same light. Lots of people do this - they think that if you break the law, you're a bad guy, period, and put you in the same little mental container with all of the other criminals with no regard for how much time you've served, whether the punishment was actually appropriate for the crime, or whether you're likely to be a danger to society if released.

California's 3 strikes law is one of several examples where there are many inmates who can be considered to have paid sufficient debt to society. For instance, where a 3rd strike may have carried only a 2-year sentence, and the individual has already served 10 years of his 25-to-life 3rd strike sentence, it's easy to say that this guy hasn't gotten off lightly.

In many of the situations of early release, "that's all California needs" is a rather simpleminded and ignorant statement.

Also, just because they are non-violent doesn't mean they aren't harmful to people. If your home gets burglarized and you don't have home/renters insurance and they never find your property that kind of sucks...don't you think so?

I'd say it sucks even if you do have insurance.

But many drug offenders are completely harmless. Many others could be rapidly approaching the end of their sentence anyway - releasing someone 2 years early on a 15 year sentence isn't that big a deal. Others could be 3-strikes inmates whose sentence already is wildly inflated. Some can be released into house-arrest programs, or conditional release. It's a lot of paperwork, but at least they can potentially be productive members of society rather than costing $40,000 per year to incarcerate. How much does it cost to hire another parole officer, and how many parolees can he handle each? How does that compare to the cost of incarceration?

My point was simply that saying "ZOMG CRIMINALS ARE BAD, LOL" is not a thoughtful statement.

[Erik von Nein]

Probably not. I'm sure they will review their records.

"Probably not" as in there will be no thought put into it? If so, why?

Still, I'd be pretty pissed off if I learned that the guy who burglarized my house and was caught gets a free pass. Don't let me get in the way of your emotional posting though...because 40,000 non-violent criminals back on the streets is a good thing.

Cute that you call my post emotional while putting an emotional appeal into your own response.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Rahvin,

Fair enough.

"Probably not" as in there will be no thought put into it? If so, why?

No, I'm sure there will be thought put into this. However, your post implies that we should only be concerned about violent criminals. If that is not accurate then we have nothing to discuss because we probably see eye to eye.

Cute that you call my post emotional while putting an emotional appeal into your own response.

My post was not an emotional appeal. An emotional appeal uses the emotion as the basis of the argument. My post points out that burglary is a harmful non-violent crime.

[Erik von Nein]

No, I'm sure there will be thought put into this. However, your post implies that we should only be concerned about violent criminals. If that is not accurate then we have nothing to discuss because we probably see eye to eye.

Yeah, we do see eye-to-eye. Whoops.

My post was not an emotional appeal. An emotional appeal uses the emotion as the basis of the argument. My post points out that burglary is a harmful non-violent crime.

I meant with saying that you would be mad at someone who burgled your house being released because of this. Never mind, though. Miscommunication.