hahahahaha a good time to get the fuck out of California.

In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia called the ruling "staggering" and "absurd."

He said the high court had repeatedly overruled the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals for ordering the release of individual prisoners. Now, he said, the majority were ordering the release of "46,000 happy-go-lucky felons." He added that "terrible things are sure to happen as a consequence of this outrageous order." Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with him.






fox
A sharply divided Supreme Court Monday affirmed a controversial prisoner reduction plan forced on California prison administrators that requires the state to reduce its inmate population by tens-of-thousands to ease overcrowding.

The 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a California native, is a wholesale acceptance of a ruling by a special three-judge panel tasked with resolving chronic overcrowding in the state's penal system. The February 2009 decision orders California to reduce its prison population that has at times run nearly double its capacity. Approximately 37,000 to 46,000 inmates will have to be released in order for the state to comply with the ruling.

"After years of litigation, it became apparent that a remedy for the constitutional violations would not be effective absent a reduction in the prison system population," Kennedy wrote in an opinion joined by the court's more liberal members. In an unusual occurrence, the opinion included an appendix showing three pictures of the overcrowded facilities.

Critics of California's prison system contend the cells are so overrun with inmates that proper care has been obliterated. Kennedy cites examples of prisoners with mental or physical health needs having to wait months for inadequate care. He cites one example of an inmate who was held for nearly 24 hours in a cage and standing in a pool of his own urine. Others died while seeking medical attention that was seemingly delayed because of the backlog of cases.

"If a prison deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, the courts have a responsibility to remedy the resulting Eighth Amendment violation," Kennedy declared noting the Constitution's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The ruling gives the state some flexibility when it comes to how it goes about reducing its prison population even suggesting that three judge panel that originally issued the order could extend a two-year compliance order if it felt the state was making progress in its efforts to reduce the inmate population to 137.5 percent of capacity.

While Kennedy recognized the "grave concern" of releasing prisoners in large numbers he nonetheless supported the premise that the state's prisons have simply become too overcrowded.

"Absent compliance through new construction, out-of-state transfers, or other means ... the state will be required to release some number of prisoners before their full sentences have been served."

Justice Antonin Scalia fired away in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, calling the ruling a judicial travesty. "Today the court affirms what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation's history: an order requiring California to release the staggering number of 46,000 convicted criminals."

Scalia, who read part of his dissent from the bench, expressed concern that the ruling upholds the idea that judges can institute their policy preferences in place of elected lawmakers and that the reach of the decision is simply too broad.

"It is also worth noting the peculiarity that the vast majority of inmates most generously rewarded by the release order -- the 46,000 whose incarceration will be ended -- do not form part of any aggrieved class even under the Court’s expansive notion of constitutional violation," Scalia wrote in dissent. "Most of them will not be prisoners with medical conditions or severe mental illness; and many will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym."

(05-23-2011, 05:01 PM)Lady Cop Wrote: hahahahaha a good time to get the fuck out of California.

Kennedy cites examples of prisoners with mental or physical health needs having to wait months for inadequate care. He cites one example of an inmate who was held for nearly 24 hours in a cage and standing in a pool of his own urine.

Hey . . . at least it wasn't someone else's urine.

Waiting for months for inadequate care?

I didn't realize that ObamaCare was already in beta testing.

WWAD? (What would Arizona do?)

Stop housing all the rival gang members in different pods and this problem would take care of itself.

All personnel leave the building and lock the gate behind them then open all the cell doors, wait 48 hours then go in and clean up the mess.

Ta dah! hundreds of empty prison cells!

How in the world can they get away with doing that? That's awful! It must have been like winning the lottery for those felons.

They're not getting expedient medical care...boo fucking hoo. They were talking about this on the radio and it's not just physical care--apparently there's a lack of room on the prison psychologist's couch too which really tugs at my heart strings.

They're not sure what will happen with the prisoners. I gather the former governor made a deal with some other states to take some prisoners out of our system (too lazy to look it up now) but maybe some of our convicts are actually headed towards some of your prisons. The alternative is to build more prisons. NIMBY. So maybe if we're lucky it will only be 20,000 or so released in to our communities. Fuckers!

Bet Joe Arpiao would be glad to find them some accommodations

[attachment=10670]

Billboards should have pictures of Bubba bending over some perp plastered all over the highways and byways. I liked the scared straight movement and believe that if more people realized what awaits them after getting caught commiting a crime they would think twice about it. Is'nt that what it's all about?

Congratulations to all of the liberals, this is a huge victory.

These fuckers shouldn't have rights.

All rights, to anything, should be lost upon entry into prison.

If forced to release these cock-suckers, wait until August and bus them to the center of Death Valley and leave them without water...whoever makes it out alive is free...whoever doesn't, are really free.

Everyone should have at least one gun in their home & know how to use it. Bang Bang, the felon is dead.

due to computer errors. 450 "high risk for violence " inmates have been mistakenly released in CA.

these will be on purpose:
With California facing a Supreme Court order to reduce its prison population by as many as 46,000 inmates, the cash-strapped state will have plenty of options to consider -- all of them bad.

By any standard, finding a new home for tens of thousands of state prisoners is daunting. Factor in this particular state's structural budget problems and strict sentencing laws, and the task is monumental.

Advocacy groups and officials are looking at a combination of options to relieve the state's overcrowded prisons and comply with the court. But it won't be easy. Local jails will probably receive a slew of new prisoners. Inmates might have to be released ahead of schedule. Concerns about funding and space and public safety hang over the entire debate.

Pat Nolan, vice president of a faith-based group trying to battle recidivism, said there's no "silver bullet" to California's overcrowding. At the same time, he blamed California's lawmakers for putting themselves in this position.

"They tried to do it on the cheap. They voted for long sentences, but refused to provide enough prisons to house the people," said Nolan, a former California lawmaker and ex-inmate himself.

So far, the No. 1 option being pushed by Gov. Jerry Brown is a plan to send new offenders and parole violators accused of minor crimes into the county jails instead of the state system. Officials hope that over the next few years this can reduce the prison population by about 40,000.

The problem is that the state will need to pay the local governments millions of dollars to house its prisoners, and the Legislature has not yet provided Brown the money to implement his plan.

County officials are backing the governor's plan but want to make sure there are legislative and constitutional guarantees so they receive enough funding.

"If they don't (secure the funding), everybody's going to be in a world of hurt," Paul McIntosh, executive director of The California State Association of Counties, told FoxNews.com.

The other challenge is "capacity" at the local level, said McIntosh, whose association is calling on the state to make sure local officials have the resources to "assure an orderly transition."

Other options, which also would involve more state funding, would be to send prisoners out of state or simply build more prisons.

While the Department of Corrections says it does not want to release inmates, the state's three-strikes sentencing laws and high recidivism are working against it.

Nearly 70 percent of felons return to the prison system within three years, according to a 2010 state study. The three-strikes laws keep them in the system longer. The two factors contribute to a revolving door in California, making it that much harder to ease the chronic overcrowding that prompted the court rulings in the first place.

Kent Scheidegger, legal director with the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, expressed concern that the state will end up complying with the court by releasing criminals early -- either setting state prisoners free or releasing inmates at the local jails to make room for those who would otherwise be in the state system.

"Unless there's a massive jail construction project, I can't see how that's going to work without impacting public safety," he said. "Every option has drawbacks."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who read part of his dissent to the ruling from the bench Monday, called the decision "perhaps the most radical injunction" in U.S. history, expressing concern that the state would release dangerous criminals onto the street.

Really glad I don't live there.

(05-26-2011, 07:28 AM)Duchess Wrote:

Really glad I don't live there.

PSA

Greyhound is offering a cross-country special to the East Coast.

Amtrac, too.

I wonder what the hold up is? just open the fucking doors and let thee poor mistreated inmates out.

Just open the doors and let these poor abused and mistreated inmates out.

we all pay a fortune to treat sick and very elderly inmates. yeah, let them out if they are too sick to be a threat.


Three California prisoners received “medical parole” Wednesday including a inmate who has served fewer than four years of a 68-year sentence for a home invasion.

The new law allows the release of medically incapacitated inmates to save the state money. These prisoners have to face “dire” health conditions and can no longer be a threat to their communities.

The inmate Craig Lemke, who tied an elderly couple together after he broke into their home in 2006, is no longer considered a threat to public safety, according to the parole board,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

Under the law, if his condition improves, he would need to return to prison, the Times reported. Prison officials would not comment on the condition of Lemke.

The state, which is struggling financially to support its large prison population, passed the bill in September with the hope of saving the state millions.

The Sacramento Bee reported that Lemke was so ill, he cost taxpayers $750,000 a year and an undetermined amount in medical costs.

Juan Garcia Sandoval, 78, who was sentenced to 27 years in prison, was deemed eligible for release, the Bee reported.

John Joseph Swesey, 72, an inmate at Wasco State Prison serving a 24-year sentence for burglary and making terrorist threats, was also no longer considered a threat to the public, the Bee reported, and was released.

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the state to remove more than 33,000 inmates after the justices ruled easing congestion is the only way to improve unconstitutionally poor inmate medical and mental health care.

Ken Gregory, a lawyer in California, called the California prison overcrowding a complicated issue that requires many changes.

“I think this solves a part of a much bigger problem,” he said.

The board previously denied parole to a paralyzed rapist, the Times reported. The board considered him a threat because he could still speak. Lemke, 48, is the second inmate considered for medical parole.

(06-16-2011, 08:20 PM)Lady Cop Wrote:
The inmate Craig Lemke, who tied an elderly couple together after he broke into their home in 2006, is no longer considered a threat to public safety, according to the parole board,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

The Sacramento Bee reported that Lemke was so ill, he cost taxpayers $750,000 a year and an undetermined amount in medical costs.

$750 K PLUS medical costs?

Why can't you find a physician, like Kevorkian, when you really need one?

Now he's out and will be sucking the tit of the state funded medical system. That is, when he's not home invading and terrorizing Medicare recipients.

(05-24-2011, 01:41 AM)Luke Warmwater Wrote: These fuckers shouldn't have rights.

Please take the line on the right and turn in your liberal card.



Dick is probably having convulsions over your failure to fit his left wing/liberal stereotypes.

(06-17-2011, 12:51 AM)username Wrote:

(05-24-2011, 01:41 AM)Luke Warmwater Wrote: These fuckers shouldn't have rights.

Please take the line on the right and turn in your liberal card.



Dick is probably having convulsions over your failure to fit his left wing/liberal stereotypes.

probably not as badly as 'quackwhore' though...as you've undoubtedly experienced here UN, even Barry Goldwater would be seen as a liberal.