Posted on 05/23/2011 11:32:10 AM PDT by docbnj
“To comply with the PLRA, a court must set a population limit at the highest level consistent with an efficacious remedy, and it must order the population reduction to be achieved in the shortest period of time reasonably consistent with public safety.”
(Excerpt) Read more at supremecourt.gov ...
The majority agreed with all the assertions of the lower court, including that the state could not remedy the situation by building new prisons.
I wonder how many of these inmates should be deported back to Mexico? If they did that, CA would fix their problem and let Mexico (not) deal with it.
Does anyone think we could use this as a plausible reason for CCW?
I cannot find anywhere in the decision a consideration of the safety of the public, except in the dissenting opinions by Scalia and Alito.
If I lived in CA, I would be arming myself and taking gun courses as quickly as possible. The number of thugs released under this program could be enormous, and will make the whole country more dangerous.
It is interesting that the majority opinion paints a picture of the conditions in the prisons which unintentionally illustrates the ferocity of these inmates, thousand of whom are to be released.
This imperils the whole nation. These dirtbags are mobile. We know that there is little likelihood that the people of Kalefornia will ever understand what just happened.
Send them all to Hollywood. There is some fine pickens there.
Just renewed my permit.
Fortunately, I live in GA.
You can bet all those drug offenders serving federal mandatory minimums for possession charges won’t be released. They will release the rapist and murderers first.
Or maybe ‘empty out’ the death row crowd to make a little room...
That would make a little more room, but I don’t think they have that many on death row. If they did, I don’t think they could afford to ‘empty out’ that many at once. However, at that point, it would not matter if there were 200 to a room...
How come convicted criminals have MORE rights than the general population/law-abiding citizens? Do the rights of citizens to be protected FROM these criminals not trump the so-called “rights” of convicts to have a comfortable and non-crwoded living environment????
Would this be a target-rich environment the SCOTUS is creating for the law-abiding armed citizen?
If there were no weapons...only drugs and/or money...let them out.
Keep all violent criminals in.
Leave a gate open while the worst of the worst are out on the yard, and note their records “shot dead in escape attempt”. Repeat as necessary.
>only drugs and/or money...let them out.
That covers a huge number gang members since most of the “armed” components of the original charges were removed in plea dealing.
Sorry, that won’t do it.
Those are the state mandatory minimums in CA. It wont affect the federal system. The Feds still have 215,700 inmates and they used to have stats on over crowding but just make it look good on paper.
“Just renewed my permit.
Fortunately, I live in GA.”
I just wish it was feasible here in CA. I guess in the long run it’s better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.