Posted on 09/01/2013 6:15:51 AM PDT by Kaslin
Why would someone who opposes draconian federal mandatory minimum sentences oppose efforts to cut California's prison population by about 9,600 inmates? Because the federal system and the California system are two different animals.
U.S. prosecutors have been known to throw the full weight of the federal government toward putting low-level, nonviolent offenders away for decades.
In California, the focus has been on violent and serious offenders. In the past several years, Sacramento has reduced the state prison population by about a quarter, or more than 40,000 inmates. Gov. Jerry Brown's 2011 "realignment" plan diverted nonviolent, non-serious and non-sex offenders to county jails or programs.
Now, apparently, Brown has hit his limit. "The proverbial low-hanging fruit, they're gone," California Department of Corrections spokeswoman Terry Thornton noted. "The people who still come to prison are serious and violent and sex offenders."
Now Brown wants to put the brakes on the inmate exodus. Alas, in 2009, a panel of three federal judges ordered the state to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of capacity. Please note that 100 percent capacity means one inmate per cell; by this definition, every prison is overcrowded. No worries: The judges also concluded that overcrowding is "criminogenic" -- or likely to produce criminals. So they ordered the inmate reduction, which Brown clearly fears would be truly criminogenic.
"If you let 10,000 people out, what happens if they decide not to go to church every Sunday and instead commit serious crimes?" Dao Gov noodled during a news conference. They will have earned their way back to prison, but thanks to the judges' inmate cap, there will be no room at the inn. Before freeing inmates, Brown argued, do-gooders should ask, "How many people will pledge not to commit crimes that will get them back in?"
"Politically, (Brown has) been with the releases all the way down the line," observed Kent Scheidegger of the tough-on-crime Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, which opposed Brown's realignment plan. Now that Brown wants to stop an inmate release, he added, "I do think he genuinely believes that releasing another 10,000 would indeed increase crime."
Brown fought the three-judge panel all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. But he lost. (So much for the Roberts court's being conservatively activist.) With a Dec. 31 deadline looming, the Democratic governor has been left with two choices -- free thousands of inmates who are likely to reoffend or find more prison beds. Here "find" means "build them or buy them."
The governor reached out to Assembly Speaker John Perez, Assembly Republican Leader Connie Conway and state Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff to put together a bipartisan package to place state prisoners in privately owned facilities. To pay for the program, Sacramento will have to raid budget reserves to the tune of about $415 million per year.
"I always tell the governor," Conway later quipped, "I love it when he channels his inner Republican." For their part, Conway and Huff had to hold back the temptation to criticize Brown for not spending some of the $7.4 billion in bond funds approved in 2007 to build more prisons.
Perez has the thankless task of standing with Brown and GOP leaders as state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg pushes an alternative plan that screams the sort of soft-on-crime thinking that drove up crime in the Golden State until voters approved a three-strikes ballot measure in 2000. Steinberg proposed spending $200 million per year on drug treatment and mental health programs; in exchange, prison inmate attorney Donald Specter might agree to a legal settlement that would give the state three years to reduce the prison population, not four months.
If an attorney for inmates might agree to keep some 10,000 inmates in prison, that says two things: The prisoner lobby can live with the status quo, and maybe it's afraid of what happens if too many inmates go free. As Scheidegger blogged, "if you release prisoners in order of dangerousness, the danger to the public safety per prisoner released increases as you go along."
Here is an idea that my wife came up with. Execute the 10,000 worst criminals in the system. That would make plenty of room.
Start with illegal immigrant felons. Deport them and enforce the border. If their crime was against another illegal it should count only in mexican law.
Freeing inmates would only be a professional courtesy.
On account of it’s easier to skim that money if the prisoner isn’t there to use it!
Here’s and idea, how about those who are responsible for releasing criminals on society, serve an equal prison sentence for new crimes they commit.
$1,200,000,000 to build new prisons four years ago.......all the money is gone and not one prison.
Some of these “low level” prisoners have been murders and rapist, raping and murdering again within days or even hours of release.
Yet, people who smoke pop are still locked up or behind on child support still locked up.
California already has 700 death row prisoners awaiting execution. There are 700 beds made available right there.
Justice Samuel Alito: In the early 1990s, federal courts enforced a cap on the number of inmates in the Philadelphia prison system, and thousands of inmates were set free. Although efforts were made to release only those prisoners who were least likely to commit violent crimes, that attempt was spectacularly unsuccessful. During an 18-month period, the Philadelphia police rearrested thousands of these prisoners for committing 9,732 new crimes. Those defendants were charged with 79 murders, 90 rapes, 1,113 assaults, 959 robberies, 701 burglaries, and 2,748 thefts, not to mention thousands of drug offenses.
Institute a tent city in the desert like Maricopa in AZ. Joe knows how to keep costs down and the criminals don’t deserve anything better...
I support the tent city idea. It is both very cost effective and conforms to international rules as *not* being either cruel or unusual.
Gerry Brown’s first act was to install draconian gun laws so folks couldn’t protect themselves when he unleashes these criminals on the sheep.
Exactly. Other places the criminals are in fear of the citizens because they will be gunned down. Instead the criminals can gun down the citizens and apparently not be put to death in California, nor kept in prison, nor be killed when attempting their crimes.
“Here’s and idea, how about those who are responsible for releasing criminals on society, serve an equal prison sentence for new crimes they commit.”
Now there’s an idea, let’s start jailing Federal Judges! I don’t think it would do much to change their liberal do good attitudes, but it would be a just payback for their past assaults on society.
The prison guard union is a villain in this story.
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.