The Supreme Court ordered California to free 38 to 46 thousand prisoners due to health concerns arising from over crowding.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/23/136581033/supreme-court-orders-california-to-release-more-than-38-000-prisoners (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/23/136581033/supreme-court-orders-california-to-release-more-than-38-000-prisoners)
How do conditions in California prisons compare to those in Oklahoma? Imagine the uproar if the Supremes made a similar order here. Or, as one commenter said, "So tax cut madness comes home to roost."
Quote from: Ed W on May 23, 2011, 09:43:32 PM
The Supreme Court ordered California to free 38 to 46 thousand prisoners due to health concerns arising from over crowding.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/23/136581033/supreme-court-orders-california-to-release-more-than-38-000-prisoners (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/05/23/136581033/supreme-court-orders-california-to-release-more-than-38-000-prisoners)
How do conditions in California prisons compare to those in Oklahoma? Imagine the uproar if the Supremes made a similar order here. Or, as one commenter said, "So tax cut madness comes home to roost."
I was reading the LA Times article, and it was mentioned that alot of these inmates would be transfered to county facilities, and all I hear out here is the overcrowding in the county lockups as well. Not just in CA, but in AZ as well. In the article it was mentioned that:
"Administration officials said their plan would keep the public safe by moving offenders into county lockups, drug treatment programs and other types of criminal supervision. But Cate said the Brown administration "cannot act alone" and conceded that release of some prisoners remains a possibility.
He urged the Legislature to immediately fund Brown's $302-million plan, which would shift 32,500 inmates to county jurisdiction by mid-2013. Among those identified for the program are tens of thousands of parole violators sent to costly state prisons every year to serve 90 days or less."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-court-prisons-20110524,0,2973297.story?page=1 (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-court-prisons-20110524,0,2973297.story?page=1)
It happens....
Tim Pawlenty wiped a serial child molester's record clean in 2008
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/23/tim-pawlenty-wiped-a-serial-child-molesters-record-clean-in-2008/
ACLU Lens: Supreme Court Orders California to Reduce its Prison Population to Alleviate Overcrowding
David Fathi, director of the ACLU's National Prison Project, said in a statement today:
"The Supreme Court has done the right thing by acknowledging what even the state itself has not disputed — that the egregious and extreme overcrowding in California's prisons contributes to a failure by the state to keep its prisoners safe by providing the basic levels of medical and mental health care mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Today's decision crystallizes the urgent need for California to invest in meaningful parole and sentencing reforms and alternatives to incarceration, especially for low-level, non-violent offenders. Reducing the number of people in prison not only would save state taxpayers half a billion dollars annually, it would lead to the implementation of truly rehabilitative programs that lower recidivism rates and create safer communities."
That's the entire quote.
Dbacks, don't you think this clarifies the law and will eventually be enforced in Oklahoma? Does Oklahoma invest in alternatives to incarceration of non-violent offenders?
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 23, 2011, 11:27:48 PM
It happens....
Tim Pawlenty wiped a serial child molester's record clean in 2008
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/23/tim-pawlenty-wiped-a-serial-child-molesters-record-clean-in-2008/
ACLU Lens: Supreme Court Orders California to Reduce its Prison Population to Alleviate Overcrowding
David Fathi, director of the ACLU's National Prison Project, said in a statement today:
"The Supreme Court has done the right thing by acknowledging what even the state itself has not disputed — that the egregious and extreme overcrowding in California's prisons contributes to a failure by the state to keep its prisoners safe by providing the basic levels of medical and mental health care mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Today's decision crystallizes the urgent need for California to invest in meaningful parole and sentencing reforms and alternatives to incarceration, especially for low-level, non-violent offenders. Reducing the number of people in prison not only would save state taxpayers half a billion dollars annually, it would lead to the implementation of truly rehabilitative programs that lower recidivism rates and create safer communities."
That's the entire quote.
Dbacks, don't you think this clarifies the law and will eventually be enforced in Oklahoma? Does Oklahoma invest in alternatives to incarceration of non-violent offenders?
Correct me if I am wrong, but theare not programs in place in every state to help change non-violent offenders to keep the recidivism rate down? Intervention programs, rehabilitation, and intervention programs that the taxpayers already pay for? You know the ones for drug addicts, theft and the like? Also don't throw in the issue of Pawlenty to try and cloud the issue, that's a cheesy comment that has no relavence to this. This is refering to low level offenders, that are more apt to repeat their crimes, especially if they know that if they repeat the crime again, they won't suffer any real consequences. So by this reasoning CA will spend $300+ million to save $500million, or a net savings of ~$120million, which does not include the process of dealing with these people again.
The end result is the early intervention does not work with a lot of criminals, so the answer is to put in a revolving door for these people.
Cheesy? In poor taste perhaps. But the point being that the criminal justice system sucks and one of the GOP candidates for President won't be helping it any if elected. Not that O'Bama has done anything about it.....
So has the OK legislature started working on this?
I'm assuming they're going to pass some dumbassed law having to do with this causing multiple lawsuits in federal courts costing us millions to defend.
(In mocking redneck drawl) "The Supremes are making us release our terrorists!"
Oklahoma's prison problem is two-fold:
1) There are plenty of inmates who probably don't belong in the system to start with, or at least should not be in lock-up but rather in some sort of diversion program.
2) Just like our college education system, prisons became some tasty pork for lawmakers to bring jobs to rural counties. Decentralization is expensive. There's no reason we couldn't have six large prisons instead of the 50 or so facilities DOC operates.
Commentators talking about tax cuts coming home to roost are being morons. That's got nothing to do with California's prisons being over-crowded. What they've failed to do is build more facilities. I'm assuming their funding mechanism would be bonds or from whatever taxes come in as state revenues. Did the Governator or Brown cut taxes?
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2011, 09:03:34 AM
Oklahoma's prison problem is two-fold:
1) There are plenty of inmates who probably don't belong in the system to start with, or at least should not be in lock-up but rather in some sort of diversion program.
2) Just like our college education system, prisons became some tasty pork for lawmakers to bring jobs to rural counties. Decentralization is expensive. There's no reason we couldn't have six large prisons instead of the 50 or so facilities DOC operates.
Commentators talking about tax cuts coming home to roost are being morons. That's got nothing to do with California's prisons being over-crowded. What they've failed to do is build more facilities. I'm assuming their funding mechanism would be bonds or from whatever taxes come in as state revenues. Did the Governator or Brown cut taxes?
I think the tax cuts coming home to roost thing was more about CA voters approving stricter war-on-crime/drugs/undesirables (upping the prison population) while simultaneously gutting the revenue mechanisms to successfully deal with that larger population. Kind of, in a microcosm, the Bush strategy of fighting two wars while instituting massive tax cuts.
-- NOT to make this a bash Bush thing, per se, but to point out that that strategy -- of not paying for what you want -- was endemic to city/state/national gov over the last decade at least.
Quote from: we vs us on May 24, 2011, 09:24:50 AM
I think the tax cuts coming home to roost thing was more about CA voters approving stricter war-on-crime/drugs/undesirables (upping the prison population) while simultaneously gutting the revenue mechanisms to successfully deal with that larger population. Kind of, in a microcosm, the Bush strategy of fighting two wars while instituting massive tax cuts.
-- NOT to make this a bash Bush thing, per se, but to point out that that strategy -- of not paying for what you want -- was endemic to city/state/national gov over the last decade at least.
It seems endemic that Californians live beyond their means.
Californians seem to live in la-la land: "Don't kick out the illegals, that's mean. So let's educate their children, provide all social services for them, and house them. We won't worry about how to pay for that because to keep them from coming here would be cruel" "Prisoners have rights, but we don't want run away crime rates in our major cities, but we don't want to spend money on more prisons." "We want our Utopian Californian dream, but we want someone else to pay for it".
According to the LA Examiner the starting salary for a prison guard in California is $71,000. Many make well over $100,000 and some as high as $300,000 according to Forbes. Their retirement pensions are comparable. I wonder if that has anything to do with it?
In looking this up I've decided I'd like to be a cop in San Jose, CA. I can make up to $500,000 as a union police chief(benefits included). As a non-ranking officer I can get $196,269 a year! ;D
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/salary/Default.aspx
http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/how-california-taxpayers-can-save-money-without-releasing-nearly-50-000-felons
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0216/078.html
I think tax cuts are the least of their worries. When Jose is working 3 jobs to make $40,000 and paying his "fair share" of taxes to support the $70,000 salary of the guy who picks up his garbage, works a 6 hour day, and gets to retire at 55 with full pension, there's a problem.
California is indeed a model for the rest of the country. Pay attention!
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 23, 2011, 11:27:48 PM
Does Oklahoma invest in alternatives to incarceration of non-violent offenders?
We just cut funding for prison work programs to keep guards from having to take a day or two of furlough.
That's where our thinking seems to lie.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2011, 09:54:42 AM
It seems endemic that Californians live beyond their means.
It ain't just California, bub.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 24, 2011, 10:19:22 AM
In looking this up I've decided I'd like to be a cop in San Jose, CA. I can make up to $500,000 as a union police chief(benefits included). As a non-ranking officer I can get $196,269 a year! ;D
Just don't expect to buy a house, even with the market down.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2011, 09:54:42 AM
Californians seem to live in la-la land: "Don't kick out the illegals, that's mean. So let's educate their children, provide all social services for them, and house them. We won't worry about how to pay for that because to keep them from coming here would be cruel" "Prisoners have rights, but we don't want run away crime rates in our major cities, but we don't want to spend money on more prisons." "We want our Utopian Californian dream, but we want someone else to pay for it".
That is the stereotype. Of course, Californians seem to believe that prisoners don't have rights, given that it's the Supreme Court telling them they've got to relieve overcrowding. They also strongly believe in kicking out the illegals if they aren't farmers or the stereotypical liberals who don't actually make up most of California's population.
They do want someone else to pay for it, though, and have since the 70s when they voted prop 13 passed and made it nearly impossible to raise revenue. Very redneck conservative, that one.
Like most of the rest of the country, California has a few liberal enclaves surrounded by red state self-destructiveness.
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2011, 10:32:25 AM
They do want someone else to pay for it, though, and have since the 70s when they voted prop 13 passed and made it nearly impossible to raise revenue.
It would have been far better to force everyone on a fixed income to move to another state.
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2011, 10:32:25 AM
Like most of the rest of the country, California has a few mountains of liberal enclaves dependency surrounded by pockets of red state self-destructiveness productivity.
FIFY
On a personal level they live beyond their means, note the high foreclosure rates. California has gone through a binge and purge in their real estate markets every 10-20 years since the 1970's.
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 24, 2011, 12:24:49 AM
Cheesy? In poor taste perhaps. But the point being that the criminal justice system sucks and one of the GOP candidates for President won't be helping it any if elected. Not that O'Bama has done anything about it.....
First thing you ever said that I agree with.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 24, 2011, 11:07:45 AM
FIFY
Well, if you want to talk about dependency, maybe you should be more concerned with which states get more federal money back than they put in in taxes and which ones don't. You seem to like all the pork herded our way, though.
Conan, the high foreclosure rate is more correlated with high unemployment than anything else. You'll note that all of the seriously bad housing markets are in areas that got hit with the worst unemployment. Or are Arizona and Nevada also full of pinko commie bastards?
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2011, 03:06:36 PM
Well, if you want to talk about dependency, maybe you should be more concerned with which states get more federal money back than they put in in taxes and which ones don't. You seem to like all the pork herded our way, though.
Conan, the high foreclosure rate is more correlated with high unemployment than anything else. You'll note that all of the seriously bad housing markets are in areas that got hit with the worst unemployment. Or are Arizona and Nevada also full of pinko commie bastards?
You missed my point entirely. There were a lot of homes foreclosed on where people are still working the same job they always had. As well, if one has proper savings, plans prudently, and doesn't buy more house than they can handle should the fecal matter hit the oscillating ventilation device, they should be able to make payments for six months to a year. As well, it's the usual hyper-inflation of home prices in California which has caused several booms and busts in their housing market since the 1970's.
Some people bought homes thinking the upward trend was infinite, some bought because they were buying a lifestyle and didn't know better, and there were yet others forced into purchasing at the limits of or beyond their means out of necessity.
Depending on inflation and inflation base pay raises to account for the decreasing mortgage interest deduction as the note is paid off is probably a contributing element.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2011, 03:15:30 PM
You missed my point entirely. There were a lot of homes foreclosed on where people are still working the same job they always had. As well, if one has proper savings, plans prudently, and doesn't buy more house than they can handle should the fecal matter hit the oscillating ventilation device, they should be able to make payments for six months to a year. As well, it's the usual hyper-inflation of home prices in California which has caused several booms and busts in their housing market since the 1970's.
Some people bought homes thinking the upward trend was infinite, some bought because they were buying a lifestyle and didn't know better, and there were yet others forced into purchasing at the limits of or beyond their means out of necessity.
Yeah, you missed my point entirely. The same smile happened in other places that have completely different politics and even completely different housing markets. It's mostly driven by unemployment, despite what the criminal banks want you to believe.
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2011, 03:06:36 PM
Conan, the high foreclosure rate is more correlated with high unemployment than anything else. You'll note that all of the seriously bad housing markets are in areas that got hit with the worst unemployment. Or are Arizona and Nevada also full of pinko commie bastards?
Unemployment is a part of the foreclosure issue here, you can blame the borrowers, the appraisers, speculators and the banks. A new house here, 2000 sqft 3 bed 2 bath 2 car garage was selling for $140k to $190k from '98 to about '02. The housing market exploded here and buy '04 that same house was selling for $300k and up. This artificially inflated the value of homes across the Phoenix area, and people rushed out and refied their homes at an inflated value that wasn't real, took out 5 year interest only or adjustables. My house that was purchased in '98 for $158k suddenly had an appraised value of $450k if I wanted to refi for it. From '07 the assessed value went from $370k to $190k in '10. One of my neighbors is $240k upside down, because he took all the false equity out in a refi. So yes, unemployment hurt things but it was not the root cause.
Quote from: dbacks fan on May 24, 2011, 03:31:04 PM
Unemployment is a part of the foreclosure issue here, you can blame the borrowers, the appraisers, speculators and the banks. A new house here, 2000 sqft 3 bed 2 bath 2 car garage was selling for $140k to $190k from '98 to about '02. The housing market exploded here and buy '04 that same house was selling for $300k and up. This artificially inflated the value of homes across the Phoenix area, and people rushed out and refied their homes at an inflated value that wasn't real, took out 5 year interest only or adjustables. My house that was purchased in '98 for $158k suddenly had an appraised value of $450k if I wanted to refi for it. From '07 the assessed value went from $370k to $190k in '10. One of my neighbors is $240k upside down, because he took all the false equity out in a refi. So yes, unemployment hurt things but it was not the root cause.
Were it not for the unemployment situation, those values would be real. People will pay whatever they can for housing in a good school district. It's all dependent on how much they make and thus how much the banks will give them.
The real value of something is whatever someone else is willing to pay for it at a given time. That's capitalism.
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2011, 03:37:25 PM
The real value of something is whatever someone else is willing to pay for it at a given time. That's capitalism.
Nate. . .Nate. . .Nate, you are starting to sound a little freemarketish. Did you not take your pills this morning?
Just kidding. :-*
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2011, 03:37:25 PM
Were it not for the unemployment situation, those values would be real. People will pay whatever they can for housing in a good school district. It's all dependent on how much they make and thus how much the banks will give them.
The real value of something is whatever someone else is willing to pay for it at a given time. That's capitalism.
No one is arguing that unemployment had nothing to do with it, but you seem to be ignoring that greed can only manipulate capitalism for so long before prices get out of the reach of enough people to create any more meaningful upward pressure on prices or to even maintain them at their peak. Even at full employment, overheated housing markets will eventually exceed what people can pay for them. The rates at which values were increasing like Dbacks explained was common in California, the front range of Colorado, etc. For home prices to double in 2-3 years is not sustainable value, it's gambling and the house always wins. ;)
Certainly there has to be income to support upward home values. Consider all the retirement condos being built in the Dade/Broward county areas of Florida in the early/mid '00s and the rapidly escalating values there. Their price went into the shitter and those were targeted at people who ostensibly were no longer depending on a job for income.
Obviously prices can only go as high as people can leverage. The thing is that in the bubble of late the banks were more complicit than usual. It wasn't mainly their money on the line, so they were just doing whatever they could to generate fees that the MBS buyers would have to pay.
The borrower isn't really the expert on home values or even to some degree what they can comfortably afford. Most people have a fairly rosy outlook and presume they're this (--><--) close to getting that raise or getting that new job and becoming a one percenter. Part of the bank's job has historically been to throw cold water on people and make them face reality before lending them such a large sum of money.
(I'm arguing a couple of different points here, one of which is that politics has little to do with the housing market in a given area and the other that home prices are sustainable at whatever level banks will lend at, since almost everyone takes a mortgage)
Quote from: nathanm on May 24, 2011, 04:01:12 PM
Obviously prices can only go as high as people can leverage. The thing is that in the bubble of late the banks were more complicit than usual. It wasn't mainly their money on the line, so they were just doing whatever they could to generate fees that the MBS buyers would have to pay.
The borrower isn't really the expert on home values or even to some degree what they can comfortably afford. Most people have a fairly rosy outlook and presume they're this (--><--) close to getting that raise or getting that new job and becoming a one percenter. Part of the bank's job has historically been to throw cold water on people and make them face reality before lending them such a large sum of money.
(I'm arguing a couple of different points here, one of which is that politics has little to do with the housing market in a given area and the other that home prices are sustainable at whatever level banks will lend at, since almost everyone takes a mortgage)
You mean because of derivatives or government guarantees?
That part was puzzling to me because that actually was not far from what happened in the late 1980's when HUD wound up with record numbers of properties to re-market from failed FHA loans (I think that was where the "HUD homes" came from).
A guy who used to work for me was building a $1.2mm Taj Mahal out in Wagoner County. He lost a contract which represented 1/2 his income. Still had the same job, but he had a few large contracts making him huge bonuses. Lose any one of the three and he'd no longer be a 1%'er. He was building it on a balloon note and also assuming that by the time he was done building, he could sell it for $300K or more than what it cost him to build. When I hired him in 1996, he'd just walked out of bankruptcy court. This second episode happened about 2008. He got overconfident and also repeated some behaviors of the past. Oh, and there aren't that many people looking for Taj Mahals in Wagoner County, Oklahoma it turns out. Certainly not suggesting this is what happened throughout the market, but when you made the 1% comment, this situation came to mind.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2011, 04:14:37 PM
Still had the same job, but he had a few large contracts making him huge bonuses. Lose any one of the three and he'd no longer be a 1%'er.
Same concept happens to the "little guy". I've seen guys buy a car, making payments based on time-and-a-half overtime. The overtime goes away and they lose the car.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 24, 2011, 04:14:37 PM
You mean because of derivatives or government guarantees?
Mortgage backed securities. (the CDO is the derivative) Almost nobody was writing FHA loans during the bubble. It was more profitable for the banks and brokers to herd people into 80/20s, so that's what they did, even though the FHA loan would have had a better interest rate (at the cost of 3% down) and a lower PMI/MIP.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 24, 2011, 04:27:12 PM
Same concept happens to the "little guy". I've seen guys buy a car, making payments based on time-and-a-half overtime. The overtime goes away and they lose the car.
I don't know anyone who works there anymore, but my ex brother in law and another friend were long-timers at Nordam. When things were going along well, you could get 30-40 hours a week overtime if you wanted it. My ex BIL was offered a job at American and had to turn it down because he would have taken a sharp pay cut, due to the massive amounts of O/T he was banking at the time. I'm aware of guys who were making $70-$90K in the bonding dept. at Nordam 10 or so years ago. When there would be a slowdown, no more o/t. And yes, they were all living a lifestyle as if the O/T would never run out.
Here's what prison overcrowding looks like
See the photos used to convince the Supreme Court that California prison living conditions are unconstitutional
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/05/24/california_prison_photos/index.html
California Prison Academy: Better Than a Harvard Degree
Prison guards can retire at the age of 55 and earn 85% of their final year's salary for the rest of their lives. They also continue to receive medical benefits.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285471510530398.html
Get rid of the "for profit" prison system.
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 25, 2011, 12:17:52 AM
Here's what prison overcrowding looks like
See the photos used to convince the Supreme Court that California prison living conditions are unconstitutional
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/05/24/california_prison_photos/index.html
The second picture with the rows of bunk beds reminds me of Navy Boot Camp. I wish I had some pictures of the sleeping accomodations on an Aircraft Carrier. The area where I was on the JFK (for carrier quals) had 3 bunks within about 8 vertical feet. Part of each bunk was a "locker" under the mattress for storage for your clothes and personal belongings. I'm about 5' 10" tall and the bunks were too short for me.
You might guess I have little sympathy for the crowding I see in the pictures.
Quote from: Teatownclown on May 25, 2011, 12:17:52 AM
Here's what prison overcrowding looks like
See the photos used to convince the Supreme Court that California prison living conditions are unconstitutional
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/05/24/california_prison_photos/index.html
California Prison Academy: Better Than a Harvard Degree
Prison guards can retire at the age of 55 and earn 85% of their final year's salary for the rest of their lives. They also continue to receive medical benefits.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285471510530398.html
Get rid of the "for profit" prison system.
I don't disagree it sounds like the California prison guards are over-paid. Question is, would there be enough people to fill the positions at lower salaries? That's a pretty rough occupation.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 25, 2011, 08:40:37 AM
The second picture with the rows of bunk beds reminds me of Navy Boot Camp. I wish I had some pictures of the sleeping accomodations on an Aircraft Carrier. The area where I was on the JFK (for carrier quals) had 3 bunks within about 8 vertical feet. Part of each bunk was a "locker" under the mattress for storage for your clothes and personal belongings. I'm about 5' 10" tall and the bunks were too short for me.
You might guess I have little sympathy for the crowding I see in the pictures.
Are you ready to commit to something like that for a 10 year sentence? How about 20 years? How about life? It ain't your standard 18 month tour.
Quote from: we vs us on May 25, 2011, 09:28:32 AM
Are you ready to commit to something like that for a 10 year sentence? How about 20 years? How about life? It ain't your standard 18 month tour.
I assume that Red probably didn't rape, stab or shoot anyone to get there. I may be wrong.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 25, 2011, 09:44:27 AM
I assume that Red probably didn't rape, stab or shoot anyone to get there. I may be wrong.
No, I was not a troublemaker. There were some "kids" that were ordered into the service rather than send them to jail. For some of them, it was a good deal. It changed their lives in a good way.
I was born on a day that got me a low draft lottery number. Technically I joined the Navy as only the Army and Marines were actually drafting at the time. The Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard benefited from the draft because of people like me that were forced into the service but chose not to be in the Army or Marines.
Quote from: we vs us on May 25, 2011, 09:28:32 AM
Are you ready to commit to something like that for a 10 year sentence? How about 20 years? How about life? It ain't your standard 18 month tour.
You mean like a career in the service? Shore duty after bootcamp and schools wasn't bad, no worse than a dorm at college. I don't remember the usual rotation cycle but the guys on Sea Duty spent a lot of time in crowded conditions.
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 25, 2011, 10:09:17 AM
You mean like a career in the service? Shore duty after bootcamp and schools wasn't bad, no worse than a dorm at college. I don't remember the usual rotation cycle but the guys on Sea Duty spent a lot of time in crowded conditions.
I just meant that a lot of those guys living in bunks might be there for the duration of their sentences -- which could be anywhere from a year or so up to life. It would be a different ballgame IMO if you had to live in a gym for a decade or so.
Quote from: we vs us on May 25, 2011, 10:15:05 AM
I just meant that a lot of those guys living in bunks might be there for the duration of their sentences -- which could be anywhere from a year or so up to life. It would be a different ballgame IMO if you had to live in a gym for a decade or so.
They have a bed, electricity, 3 squares a day, clothing, free healthcare, and they are only a threat to each other. I am also sure that they spend a great deal of time reflecting on the choices that got them there.
I assume that in many cases the living conditions there are far better than the living conditions they came from, or would return to if released.
Sure, it's crowded, so what! The coffins of some of their victims are a bit cramped too, and filled with bugs.
Prison is not supposed to be resort living. It is punishment.
Quote from: we vs us on May 25, 2011, 10:15:05 AM
I just meant that a lot of those guys living in bunks might be there for the duration of their sentences -- which could be anywhere from a year or so up to life. It would be a different ballgame IMO if you had to live in a gym for a decade or so.
One of the many reasons I behave in a manner which will not result in my being a "guest" at such a place.
Quote from: we vs us on May 25, 2011, 10:15:05 AM
I just meant that a lot of those guys living in bunks might be there for the duration of their sentences -- which could be anywhere from a year or so up to life. It would be a different ballgame IMO if you had to live in a gym for a decade or so.
Loss of personal liberties is a part of being a criminal if you get caught.
As far as the conditions they are living in- those are far better than the kinds of lock-ups we had when the forefathers wrote "cruel and unusual" into our Constitutional vernacular. California prisons would be a virtual Hilton to prisoners back then. No heat, no A/C, poor food, rodents, disease, people held in shackles in cells. Somehow we try to relate prison lifestyle with life outside the walls. It shouldn't even come close to comparing.
That said, let's look at what these people are in for. If it's chronic pot use, forged checks, or shoplifting but they held down a job in the outside world and had committed no other crimes, then it's obvious there's no real reason for these people to be in prison. There have got to be better alternatives to incarceration for most drug users.
Googling around, I'm finding some startling statistics. The first being that total inmates in the U.S. was about 500,000 in 1980. That more than doubled by 1990. As of 2009, it was nearly 2.3mm. Only thing I can think of off the top of my head was the war on drugs really ramped up under the Reagan Administration.
Sorry for the Wiki source, but this seems to be a plausible summary, war on drugs and "three strike" laws which have ensnared non-violent offenders:
"Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2011, 10:40:44 AM
Loss of personal liberties is a part of being a criminal if you get caught.
It's part of the job description. The job description also includes the risk of being shot and killed if attempting an armed robbery, police assisted suicide, and other high risk opportunities.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 25, 2011, 10:31:16 AM
They have a bed, electricity, 3 squares a day, clothing, free healthcare, and they are only a threat to each other. I am also sure that they spend a great deal of time reflecting on the choices that got them there.
I assume that in many cases the living conditions there are far better than the living conditions they came from, or would return to if released.
Sure, it's crowded, so what! The coffins of some of their victims are a bit cramped too, and filled with bugs.
Prison is not supposed to be resort living. It is punishment.
And, per the supremes, cruel and unusual at that.
Quote from: we vs us on May 25, 2011, 11:03:33 AM
And, per the supremes, cruel and unusual at that.
I exercise my right to disagree with the "suprimes."
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yAJnDxqfOPQ/SU1tNAB32xI/AAAAAAAAArQ/FJYNqdjasrg/s400/14235__supremes_l.jpg)
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2011, 10:40:44 AM
Loss of personal liberties is a part of being a criminal if you get caught.
As far as the conditions they are living in- those are far better than the kinds of lock-ups we had when the forefathers wrote "cruel and unusual" into our Constitutional vernacular. California prisons would be a virtual Hilton to prisoners back then. No heat, no A/C, poor food, rodents, disease, people held in shackles in cells. Somehow we try to relate prison lifestyle with life outside the walls. It shouldn't even come close to comparing.
That said, let's look at what these people are in for. If it's chronic pot use, forged checks, or shoplifting but they held down a job in the outside world and had committed no other crimes, then it's obvious there's no real reason for these people to be in prison. There have got to be better alternatives to incarceration for most drug users.
Googling around, I'm finding some startling statistics. The first being that total inmates in the U.S. was about 500,000 in 1980. That more than doubled by 1990. As of 2009, it was nearly 2.3mm. Only thing I can think of off the top of my head was the war on drugs really ramped up under the Reagan Administration.
Sorry for the Wiki source, but this seems to be a plausible summary, war on drugs and "three strike" laws which have ensnared non-violent offenders:
"Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. These policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, but instead yielded high rates of confinement for nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
Do you
really want us to use a 250 yr old standard of incarceration as the basis for what our prisons are going to be? And/or what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment? That's, um, kinda silly, dontcha think? I don't even think the Founding Fathers would find that credible.
I will say that you'll get no argument from me, re: laying most of the blame at the doorstep of the war on drugs. We've had a good 3 decades to try out the maximum enforcement strategy and we've essentially thrown billions of dollars and tens of thousands of human lives down a hole with absolutely nothing to show for it. The problem is the same as it's ever been domestically, and might even be worse internationally (look at the evolution of the narco-cartels over time and you essentially see a maturing industry sector, complete with corporate structures, collusion with states -- Mexico! -- and global reach).
Quote from: we vs us on May 25, 2011, 11:17:50 AM
Do you really want us to use a 250 yr old standard of incarceration as the basis for what our prisons are going to be? And/or what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?
What standard would you propose? I believe you said at one time you are in the Hotel/Motel business. I don't think prisoners need to be treated as well as (I hope) you treat your guests.
Quote from: Gaspar on May 25, 2011, 11:15:17 AM
I exercise my right to disagree with the "suprimes."
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yAJnDxqfOPQ/SU1tNAB32xI/AAAAAAAAArQ/FJYNqdjasrg/s400/14235__supremes_l.jpg)
Props
Quote from: we vs us on May 25, 2011, 11:17:50 AM
Do you really want us to use a 250 yr old standard of incarceration as the basis for what our prisons are going to be? And/or what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment? That's, um, kinda silly, dontcha think? I don't even think the Founding Fathers would find that credible.
Just interesting that five people get to personally (some might say politically) decide what constitutes "cruel & unusual". But that's how the process is laid out in the Constitution, so we can say the system is working as intended whether or not I or others agree with this decision.
Looking at the bunk-houses, I really don't see much different than the summer camp I attended as a child or my kids attended, or an Army barracks for that matter. Do we know what health care prisoners have been denied and what the consequences were? If they couldn't see a doctor for constipation, I could care less. If they can't get care for a stab wound or infection, that's entirely another issue. As far as having any right to privacy, no go.
I would personally define cruel and unusual as denying sustenance, direct physical abuse from guards or administration, or purposely exposing them to life-threatening conditions like extreme heat or extreme cold. That doesn't seem to have been at issue in this suit.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2011, 11:48:45 AM
I would personally define cruel and unusual as denying sustenance, direct physical abuse from guards or administration, or purposely exposing them to life-threatening conditions like extreme heat or extreme cold. That doesn't seem to have been at issue in this suit.
At some point overcrowding becomes a health issue, both physical and mental. And it impedes safe administration of the prison.
Gaspar seems to think that there's really a significant chance of murderers going free. I somehow doubt that.
Quote from: nathanm on May 25, 2011, 12:06:20 PM
At some point overcrowding becomes a health issue, both physical and mental.
If you want to see crowded, go visit the Batfish WWII submarine in Muskogee. I will agree that mentally, it takes a special person to do the submarine duty. The rest is mostly personal hygiene.
Quote from: nathanm on May 25, 2011, 12:06:20 PM
At some point overcrowding becomes a health issue, both physical and mental. And it impedes safe administration of the prison.
Gaspar seems to think that there's really a significant chance of murderers going free. I somehow doubt that.
Murderers and rappers!. . .I mean rapists. . .I get the two confused sometimes!
Quote from: Red Arrow on May 25, 2011, 12:41:35 PM
If you want to see crowded, go visit the Batfish WWII submarine in Muskogee. I will agree that mentally, it takes a special person to do the submarine duty. The rest is mostly personal hygiene.
Yeah, there aren't a lot of people that can take that sort of duty, mentally. That's why it's always been volunteer and earns extra pay.
I guess you could argue that prison is also voluntary in a sense. It would even be vaguely reasonable if it weren't for our ridiculous drug laws. A large part of California's overcrowding problem is their three strikes law. If a person's first felony is serious or violent the other two do not have to be.
I'm not at all against locking up repeat violent offenders, but one violent crime (say getting into a bar brawl and kicking someone with your shoes on) combined with a couple of relatively minor drug charges will get you life. Of course, given a good lawyer, the first crime would be plead down to a misdemeanor, but lots of people can't afford to hire a lawyer. It's great that we have public defenders, but they're seriously overworked in nearly every jurisdiction and get paid less than even the prosecutors.
Hell, legal aid attorneys oftentimes get paid more than PDs.
Quote from: nathanm on May 25, 2011, 12:06:20 PM
At some point overcrowding becomes a health issue, both physical and mental. And it impedes safe administration of the prison.
Gaspar seems to think that there's really a significant chance of murderers going free. I somehow doubt that.
Same can be said for solitary confinement. If I had to choose between the two, I'd take the dormitory setting, as I know I'd be bonkers in short order in solitary.
At least the prisoners can socialize, play cards, fondle each other, or whatever floats their boat in the dorm environment.
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2011, 03:42:58 PM
Same can be said for solitary confinement.
That's why time in solitary is (supposedly) limited. I know in the past it wasn't very limited in practice, but I'm not sure about the present use of it.
Quote from: nathanm on May 25, 2011, 03:49:36 PM
That's why time in solitary is (supposedly) limited. I know in the past it wasn't very limited in practice, but I'm not sure about the present use of it.
That's essentially what Death Row at McAlester is. 23 hours lockdown, day after day. Allowed out for an hour of exercise in a tiny fenced in area by themselves, last I heard.
http://www.askmen.com/entertainment/special_feature_400/483_solitary-confinement-5-things-you-didnt-know.html
Quote from: Conan71 on May 25, 2011, 04:36:14 PM
That's essentially what Death Row at McAlester is. 23 hours lockdown, day after day. Allowed out for an hour of exercise in a tiny fenced in area by themselves, last I heard.
http://www.askmen.com/entertainment/special_feature_400/483_solitary-confinement-5-things-you-didnt-know.html
You mean no kids or wife screaming at you from across the house?
Hmmmmm?
Do they offer weekend plans?
Conan, you got it exactly right. Reagan's ramp up (after Nixon's earlier efforts) has led to the current state of affairs. Ridiculous.
And this is after 100 years of failed policy of drug prohibition. Remember the saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Well, that describes the war on drugs exactly. It is insanity.
Wanna save an instant $18 billion per year off the Federal budget? Plus a ton of money on prison population? Eliminate the criminalization of marijuana. And let out the hundreds of thousands who are in prison for just that. Yes...hundreds of thousands.
Speaking of arresting drug smugglers......
http://ktar.com/category/us-news-articles/20110524/3-Ariz.-officers-accused-of-drug,-human-smuggling/ (http://ktar.com/category/us-news-articles/20110524/3-Ariz.-officers-accused-of-drug,-human-smuggling/)