CA to Release Inmates, In Order to Cut Costs & Overcrowding (Arnold: sex offenders, crime)

[bayarea-girl]

This morning CNN did a story on CA prisons and that CA is possibly set to release 10's of thousands of inmates.

Federal Judges Tentatively Order CA to Release Inmates « Newstalk1290 KPAY

[majoun]

Originally Posted by bayarea-girl

This morning CNN did a story on CA prisons and that CA is possibly set to release 10's of thousands of inmates.

Federal Judges Tentatively Order CA to Release Inmates « Newstalk1290 KPAY

It wouldn't be a mass release all at once (as is occurring in some other states):

"Relying on expert testimony, the court ruled that the California prison system, the nation’s largest with more than 150,000 inmates, could reduce its population by shortening sentences, diverting nonviolent felons to county programs, giving inmates good behavior credits toward early release, and reforming parole, which they said would have no adverse impact on public safety...

"The court supported its argument by citing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s own support for prison reforms, which he has said would reduce the population by about 40,000 inmates.

“'We cannot believe that such support would exist if the adoption of such measures would adversely affect public safety,” the court ruled."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us...on.html?ref=us

Furthermore, this would be put into effect gradually over a 3 year period.

The court's focus on health care issues in prisons suggests that a disproprortionate amount of those who do get released will be elderly. With obvious exceptions like Charles Manson or whatever founding members of La Eme or Nuestra Familia are still alive, elderly ex-cons don't present as much of a risk. (Not sure what kind of a risk to society Manson would present at his age but considering what he did he should never, ever be released from prison even if it could be determined that he'd present no danger to the public whatsoever).

[bayarea-girl]

Yes this would be a gradual release, but I doubt that more elderly inmates will be released. What offenses did some of these people commit that would be considered less offensive is the biggest question. Sexual offenders are often considered to be less offenders as are people who are domestic abusers, should they be let out too? It is more concerning to me the offenses (increased offenses) of prisoners when they get released. *80% of them go back to jail and or end up committing the same level of crimes and or an increased level of crimes that got them in jail to begin with. In these economical times we just don't need this.

[phloxy]

Some people go back to prison for parole violations, which does not necessarily mean that they committed a new crime or that they were ever violent offenders to begin with. These inmates are probably among those who will be released to other programs.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by phloxy

Some people go back to prison for parole violations, which does not necessarily mean that they committed a new crime or that they were ever violent offenders to begin with. These inmates are probably among those who will be released to other programs.

True. And CA is the ONLY state that sends parolees back to prison for a single dirty drug test - and parole violatiors for nonviolent offenses are the most likely to get released if the decision goes through.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by bayarea-girl

Yes this would be a gradual release, but I doubt that more elderly inmates will be released. What offenses did some of these people commit that would be considered less offensive is the biggest question. Sexual offenders are often considered to be less offenders as are people who are domestic abusers, should they be let out too? It is more concerning to me the offenses (increased offenses) of prisoners when they get released. *80% of them go back to jail and or end up committing the same level of crimes and or an increased level of crimes that got them in jail to begin with. In these economical times we just don't need this.

The category of "sex offenders" includes people who do some rather minor or relatively minor crimes as well as serious criminals. This was brought up when Jessica's Law was on the ballot - it was sold as focusing on violent rapists, molestors, etc. but included some people who were pretty harmless as well in order to pack the prisons and thus create more jobs for CCPA members. In the 2006 elections it was brought up that it would bankrupt the state and also create more homeless as sex offenders, INCLUDING violent sex offenders, would be banned from many communities under it - the latter is why many DA's including Steve Cooley and Terry Hallinan were against it as well as the California Prosecutors' Association and various law enforcement groups. Turned out that the opponents of Jessica's Law were right. CA voters were so preoccupied with ratcheting up sentences for pedos and violent rapists (and rightfully so) that they couldn't grasp the bad aspects of the law. The CA voter, however, often seems to feel that bad law that at most does nothing to resolve a problem and sometimes makes it worse is better than no law (the Founding Fathers would have disagreed)