skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Supreme Court Appears Unmoved by California's Prison Arguments
After a very heated oral argument on Tuesday a slim majority of the Supreme Court justices sided with advocates who said that the state had not provided humane and adequate care for sick and mentally-ill patients. However, despite decades of lawsuits and promises from the governor, the justices decleared that the state has still not reduced the "severe crowding" related to the problem. Yet some members feared, and with good reason, that a mass release would lead to an overall surge in crime. I live in California and the idea of releasing 40,000 prisoners does not really sit too comfortably in my mind; furthermore, there are currently 148,000 inmates so the forced releasal of 1/3 of the state's criminals can not bode too well for our society.
The decision is likely to come in a few months in Schwarzenegger vs. Plata but im curious as to what you guys think of this idea. Surely the releasal of rapists and murderers onto the streets can not be helpful, yet what might some other options be for California if given a decision by the Supreme Court?
14 comments:
I would agree with Bryce on this. Although the state had not provided humane and adequate care for sick and mentally ill patients due to the crowding in prisons, it still shouldn't mean that they have the right to release inmates. These people are put in jail for the crimes they've committed and should definitely not be released as it could have detrimental effects on society. Would you like to have criminals lurking around in your community? Who knows if they'll just resort back to their old ways?
If California could be given another decision by the Supreme Court I hope, first, that they can overturn their original ruling and will realize that having criminals around will not benefit the community. They should make more prisons to reduce overcrowding or try to fund prisons more so people won't get sick as often. It sounds might sound a little absurd to do these things but I think I'd fund the prison system and such more for the safety of the citizens.
There are many negative effects that will occur if we just release 1/3 of the inmates in jails. These newly released inmates will swell the unemployed population even more at a time when over 11% of californians are unemployed. As was noted earlier, if these inmates can't find a job, what will stop them from resorting back to their old behaviors if the state can't adequately fund the parole officers watching over them. There is also the social epidemic as well as few people want to live near these released prisoners knowingly. Since it is unlikely that the state will choose to release prisoners with violent felonies, releasing those without the violent felonies is not necessarily better. If a convict was released after being convicted of identity theft, the person could resort back to their old ways and make it even harder for new victims to get through the recession.
In order to fix the problem, we should build bigger prisons or ask other states to possibly take some Of our prisoners. While this will cost the state and ourselves more money, it will help to ensure our safety a little more.
I have to disagree with the two comments above me. Releasing these inmates is necessary to help alleviate some of our state's budget problems. I think a lot of us are under the impression that these inmates are crazy rapists or murderers. While in reality, a large percentage of the inmates are in jail for drug and property crimes. Additionally, many of the inmates who are being released are largely elderly or ill.
Building more jails would also just extend the problem, we don't need to build more prisons- we need more schools! In fact, since 1984, California has built more than 30 new prisons, while only building 4 new colleges. Prisons also cost more to run than schools, as they require 24 hr supervision and inmates receive free medical care in prison (that the government is required to pay for). Currently, we spend more money on our prison than we do our education system... kinda ridiculous if you ask me.
In addition to Michelle's point, I highly doubt the state government would be releasing rapists and murderers back into society because of the court order. They would probably choose to release those prisoners who have a less serious charge and those who would not pose a serious threat to the safety of the citizens.
Although I am uncomfortable with the idea of releasing so many prisoners, we don't have the money or the time to build more prisons or expand prisons to accommodate for the number of prisoners. California is already in financial mess and it takes years to build a prison, so building more prisons is not really an option, especially when the prisoners are "not provided humane and adequate care."
I have to agree with byrce because i wouldnt want prisoners being released in the community i live in. I am not a politician or a economist but i know for a fact that realeasing prisoners is not a solution for giving adeqate care for mentilly ill people. the state should just find another solution because this is NOT the solution.
i would not want former rapists or murderers in released into my community. Unless it was a less violent criminal with probation perhaps. I definitely agree with Bryce. I think its inhumane to treat prisoners like this but 1. homeless people do not get the luxury of a bunk, a facility (with workout room), daily meals, showers, an outfit and shelter over their head. 2. It's their fault they got there in the first place. People need to be responsible for their actions. All this money taxpayers pay is being used for housing of the prisoners not for the victims who probably need medical and/or psychological help. The system is failing at something and the prisoner numbers are growing. Now the governor is being taken to court because we're not accommodating them well enough. There is something wrong with that picture. Juveniles who go to Juvenile Hall parents/guardians have to pay to have them stay there. What about prisoners?
I have a personal anecdote to share. My cousin is a lawyer for the Public Defender's Office of Santa clara County, and I visited her at work one day. I talked to this one inmate who was telling me about his experiences in the "correctional" system. He says that for most people, it's like a revolving door. He went to jail for using drugs, and he uses drugs in jail to deal with the stress, and it's an endless cycle for most of them. For others, it's a simple possession charge from years back that comes back to haunt them in the three strike system. In any case, it is clear that our justice system is flawed to say the least, and does nothing to rehabilitate the inmates to acclimate back to society. This cannot happen without in-prison/jail services to help break this cycle. Btw, did I mention that the inmate I talked to told me he had no access to rehab/counseling services. He also said that many people take up drug addiction while in jail/prison, contributing more to the revolving door effect.
I am scared about releasing these mentally-ill inmates. There is a reason they are locked up, and we should keep them there. I also think that it is inhumane that their living conditions in jail are horrible because of crowding. If only we had enough money in our budget to support prison crowding, and we would not have to worry about this kind of problem. I also agree with Bryce that if we do start letting some of the inmates out, a lot of crime will spur. This would further hurt California's economy because more crime means more destruction of property and more police officers for duty which will cost a lot more money.
This is an interesting topic, because I can really see both sides. Although their release is a little unsettling, aren't they going to be released at some point anyway? Hopefully their time in jail will have already done as much as it was going to do by the time they are released. However, I think that releasing them will be a HUGE flaw in our court system. First, how are they going to choose which inmates get released? Which inmates will be the ones that get off lucky even though we are supposed to be abiding strictly by the law? If a court sentence to jail is not a for sure thing anymore, then it is going to begin losing its credibility. It worries me when there are technical errors such as this, because it should be these details (the amount of space in a jail) that keep the entire system together. However, if there is not enough room, then I guess we should build more room? It could be a public works program for the government to spend on to give more people jobs... I cannot really think of any other solution, other than giving more money to the jails. It is sad that this is where a lot of funding needs to be put, but it is the reality.
If the state of California has no money to keep prisons organized and provide humane and adequate care for the sick and mentally ill what does that say about the supervisors running California state jails.
If the prisoners are allowed to be dismissed from jail it will clear up the pipeline and allow more funding to be put into California's struggling education system and state and public projects etc. Now of course we should not release those that were charged of serious crimes, but most current prisoners who have committed petty crimes should be of the hook.
I say propose a plan in which first offenders of minor crimes has more leeway in jail time, and if caught again breaking the law impose a stricter jail time policy. This way the serious and repeating offenders will be locked away while those that don't commit crimes ever again will be out of jail.
Besides if you have ever been to jail who wants to ever go back right? Here i have to disagree about the idea of keeping criminals off the streets, I am taking the humane approach and say that everyone has a chance to change their life. By letting people make that choice we may just have money to allocate to public funding.
Despite the issue of severe crowding in state prisons, we can all agree that the best solution for California is to NOT release 1/3 of its criminals back into the streets. I agree with Andrea that releasing 40,000 prisoners at one time would most likely never happen in this lifetime, but California could ease this problem slightly by releasing those with less severe crimes.
However, I doubt that this would happen any time soon because I'm sure there would be an uproar if charges were just lifted from criminals and they could start their lives again as free people. These criminals are in jail for a reason, and they can't just be released because there's an "over crowding" in prison.
I say a probable solution would be to build bigger prisons, but I understand that no one really wants to spend their time making space for a larger prison when they could be using that same space for recreational, educational, or business purposes.
We're human, we make mistakes. So we lock up the people who make mistakes or did what they had to do. And criminals are people too.
But there's not a lot the state can do if it doesn't have the funds to spare to fix it? If you don't like the idea of inmates to be released into your block or in your neighborhood, then vote for more taxes that are directed to reforming the prisons, but if you do not want to put the necessary resources ($$$) down, then well, you're out of reasons to complain.
It's like trying to fix together two pieces of wood with a hammer and no nails... not gonna happen.
-raymond lim
Release the non-violent offenders that have had their lives ruined by our failed justice system and the over-willingness to prosecute individuals for minuscule infractions. The state created their own mess by over prosecuting and not constantly updating their prison system. No one wants "criminals" on their streets, but the discernment between who behind bars is truly a "criminal" or not should be easy enough for the state if they want to release inmates.
Post a Comment