California to free 40,000 prisoners

[we vs us]

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).

[Red Arrow]

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.

[Conan71]

I exercise my right to disagree with the "suprimes."

Props

[Conan71]

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.

[nathanm]

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.

[Red Arrow]

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.

[Gaspar]

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!

[nathanm]

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.

[Conan71]

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.

[nathanm]

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.

[Conan71]

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

[Gaspar]

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?

[heironymouspasparagus]

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.

[dbacks fan]

Speaking of arresting drug smugglers......

http://ktar.com/category/us-news-articles/20110524/3-Ariz.-officers-accused-of-drug,-human-smuggling/