High court to hear California prison case

People, this is exactly what right wing "drowning government in a bath tub" looks like:

-
"The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an appeal from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and decide whether the state can be forced to release 46,000 inmates -- more than one-fourth of its prison population -- to relieve overcrowding."
-

http://driventotears.com/MainGraphics/Norquist.jpg

I'm curious to know what percentage of the total are nonviolent offenders, and what percentage of those are serving for drug charges.
.
The war on drugs has created a lot of criminals, clogged our prisons and is no closer to a successful end than it was when it began many years ago.
.

* * * * *
Posted by: RoryH | June 14, 2010 12:36 PM
.
I fail to see how this represents an example of “right wing ‘drowning government in a bath tub.’” Governor Schwarzenegger wants to keep the prisoners IN prison; and not release them. Keeping people in prison is an exercise of government, not its absence.
.
The federal courts have ordered California to release the prisoners to ease overcrowding. The federal courts in California do not represent “right wing” small-government types. Maybe you better drop back 10 and punt.

* * * * *
Posted by: Just sayin' | June 14, 2010 1:12 PM
*
California law is weighted against sending non-violent, non-trafficking drug offenders to prison. Under Proposition 36, a convicted drug offender is presumably shunted into a probation and rehabilitation program (unless he or she is also a drug dealer. It’s hard, but even I’ve managed to get drug dealers probation.). Failure to comply with probation and the rehab program almost invariably gets the offender even more probation and more rehab programs. That kind of offender must fail so many times at probation before getting shipped off to the joint that he or she must basically want to go to prison in order to get there.
.
A number of problems exist which contribute to overcrowding in the California prison system.
.
Number One, the state parole system returns an inordinate number of prison parolees back to prison for petty matters like failing to meet with a parole officer or failing a drug test. Parole revocation hearings are bizarre and abrupt, and the presumption appears to be that any violation returns an offender to prison.
.
Number Two, punishment for crimes in California has become quite draconian. The ‘three strikes’ laws now make it possible to send an adult to prison for the rest of his or her life for stealing a candy bar based on that person’s juvenile record. In addition, a number of serious felonies - like kidnapping for ransom, aggravated mayhem, and many felony sex offenses - now carry the same punishment as murder: 15 or 25 years to life. In the case of sex offenses, those punishments can be “stacked,” meaning that a person can rack up a sentence of many hundreds of years to life. The punishment for other violent crimes has gone up as well, as has the punishment for any offense involving the use of a firearm. Add to this mix the numbers of laws that mandate prison terms and make offenders ineligible for probation, and the net result is that the California prison system RETAINS huge numbers of prisoners longer that it used to for the same offense. It takes fewer incoming prisoners to increase a prison population when fewer inmates leave.
.
So, in case you were wondering, that’s what’s going on. Just sayin’.

Forget this overcrowding thing, build more prisons. If they would have build as many prisons as they've interstate highways, we would not have an overcrowding problem.

So, in case you were wondering, that’s what’s going on. Just sayin’.
Posted by: John W. | June 14, 2010 3:50 PM
.
Yes I was wondering. Thanks for the info.
.
OMIGOD! what a mess!
.

5/4, the result will be they can pack them in like sardines.

With this majority, it's a variant on paper/scissors/rock:

If it's a natural person vs. a corporation, the corporation wins.

If it's a natural person against the government, the government wins.

If it's a corporation against the government, the corporation wins.

This is the 5/4 court that gave corporations the right of natural persons to "free speech" after all.

* * * * *
Posted by: ornery | June 14, 2010 10:04 PM
.
Your comments are a tad overly cynical and not very accurate.
.
In the first place, the court, as currently configured, did not give First Amendment rights to Corporations. Had you (and Obama) bothered to read the case dealing with free speech that you found so upsetting, you would have seen that the Court explicitly afforded First Amendment protection to corporate speech in a number of decisions dating back to 1936. In 1978, for instance, the Court decided First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), in which it explicitly held that a state could not abridge corporate speech on important public issues simply because the speech came from a corporation. Adherence to stare decisis foreclosed a different result in the more recent case.
.
In the second place, the Court doesn't always side with the government over natural persons. With Sotomayor as a natural shoe-in for Souter, this is the same Court that trashed large parts of Bush's military commission plans and anti-habeas rules in favor of individual detainees. This is also basically the same Court that gave us Fourth Amendment gems like Florida v. J.L. and Arizona v. Gant (to name only two), both of which resulted in the individual's rights prevailing over the prerogatives of the state. Thus, I think you are suffering from selective amnesia with your cynical remarks.

JW, I agree with your first comment.

As to the second, at my age the only brush I can use is the broad one.....

Many times, however, I think I sketch something recognizable.

* * * * *
Posted by: ornery | June 15, 2010 8:47 PM
.
I believe you underrate yourself. You are a good soul and have a good mind. However, just like me, I think you get caught up in the rhetoric sometimes.
.
Peace