California to free 40,000 prisoners

[Ed W]

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

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."

[dbacks fan]

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

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

[Teatownclown]

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?

[dbacks fan]

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.

[Teatownclown]

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.....

[Townsend]

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!"

[Conan71]

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?

[we vs us]

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. 

[Conan71]

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".

[Gaspar]

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! 

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!

[patric]

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.

[we vs us]

It seems endemic that Californians live beyond their means. 

It ain't just California, bub.

[Red Arrow]

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! 

Just don't expect to buy a house, even with the market down.

[nathanm]

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.

[Red Arrow]

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.