Hello:

Yesterday, by a vote that fell along partisan lines, the Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its prison population.. To NOT do so, would be a violation of the Constitutions ban of Cruel and Unusual punishment...

Now, I don't know if cramming 140,000 people into a space with an official capacity of 80,000 is cruel or not. It could be. In fact, I think the evidence says it IS.

But, the "cruel and an usual" Constitutional question wasn't even a factor for the right wing. Their ONLY concern was the risk to society. They have NO concerns for the inmates. Apparently, overcrowding, no matter HOW overcrowded, NEVER constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.

Are they right?

excon

PS> What does "official capacity" mean? It certainly doesn't mean a number that won't be exceeded... My body has an "official capacity" of 165 lbs, and an age of 43. Uhhh, so what?

Right... between the convicted criminals who haven't yet served their time yet... and the rights of citizens to be secure in their homes and property... I'll pick taking the side of law abiding part of society every time.

If they want to whine... they need to check out prisons overseas... and not just third world countries.

No cable TV in your cell in most of them. California prisons are a country club compared to those in Italy.

Hello again, smoothy:

Supporting the Constitution isn't easy. It protects the unpopular. The right wing would rather it didn't - so they pick WHICH parts to support.

I'm not here to support criminals. I'm here to support the Constitution - ALL of it.

excon

Hold on.. this is going to be a long debate that will include issues about which inmates should and shouldn't be released ,and maybe bring in to the debate the fact that the Prison Union bragged about how many politicians they bought in the Legislature and the Governor's office of California. Brown just granted unlimited vacation carry-over as a payout.

Perhaps if they didn't have a strangle hold on Sacramento then more funding would be available in the state to build more prisons. They have very generous salaries and benefits voted them by the legislature they bought.

Here is some of the evidence the minority bought to the table .

Supreme Court's scary ruling on state's prisons

How many Willie Hortons will be among the released this time ?

So yeah ,public safety is a concern .
Now I'm not saying that the majority doesn't have a legitimate argument about the 8th amendment . I just think their remedy is misguided.The best dissent was from Scalia and Thomas who said that the SCOTUS decision is itself a violation of the role of Justices described in Article III (you know... those pesky separation of powers thingys) . In other words SCOTUS' biggest mistakes I 've seen throughout the years have been when they've forced specific remedies on Legislatures and Executives.

But then again ;I don't think Justice Kennedy is under threat of having his person or property or family violated .

California is hoist by it's own petard . They voted in socialism for years and at the same time opened their towns as sanctuary for illegals ,and voted in other nonsense like 3 strikes and you're in.
This will certainly encourage businesses to stick around the Golden State.

Boy I'M glad I don't live in California. DC's bad enough. Not to mention PG County in MD.



APNewsBreak: High-risk Calif parolees unsupervised
AP


By DON THOMPSON, Associated Press –

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California improperly paroled more than 450 dangerous criminals without supervision last year as part of a program designed to reduce prison crowding and cost, the California prison system's independent inspector general said Wednesday in a report.

A faulty computerized risk-assessment program predicted the offenders could be released under the state's non-revocable parole law that took effect in January 2010.

The inspector general found that about 1,500 offenders were improperly left unsupervised, including 450 who "carry a high risk for violence." The offenders otherwise would have been released under traditional parole, which requires them to report in regularly and follow specific rules.

The new law was designed for less serious offenders. Under non-revocable parole, offenders don't report to parole agents and can't be sent back to prison unless they commit new crimes.

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said it relies heavily on a computerized program because it must review the criminal histories of more than 160,000 inmates and more than 100,000 offenders on parole.

Auditors found the risk assessment was wrong for 23.5 percent of more than 10,000 offenders who were considered for non-revocable parole between January and July 2010. Some were scored too high and others too low, with the lower-scoring inmates eligible for unsupervised release.

Even after the computer program was altered, analysts determined it was wrong in 8 percent of cases.

"CDCR should not compromise public safety ... by understating offenders' risk of reoffending and releasing high-risk offenders to unsupervised parole," the report said.

The department disputed the inspector general's analysis and conclusion.

"Alleged `errors' ... have in large part been corrected," Lee Seale, the department's deputy chief of staff, wrote in a rebuttal letter. "We reject the notion that the California Static Risk Assessment is flawed and dispute the evidence the OIG cites in support of this claim."

The version of the assessment reviewed by the inspector general has now been obsolete for over a year, Seale wrote, and the department will keep working to improve the program developed by the University of California, Irvine, Center of Evidence-based Corrections.

Seale said the program has saved money and cut prison overcrowding by keeping many parole violators from returning to prison — important developments given current events.

The report came as the state struggles to safely release less dangerous convicts and parolees to help combat a $10 billion budget deficit. Compounding the pressure, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the state must reduce its prison population by about 33,000 inmates over the next two years to reduce crowding and improve care for mentally and physically ill inmates.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law this year shifting responsibility for tens of thousands of lower-level criminals to the jurisdiction of counties, though the shift can't take place until legislators or voters approve funding for local governments.

Non-revocable parole would end under the new law, but the inspector general's report left state Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, who requested the report, wondering if California can accurately predict which criminals are less dangerous.

"The report, to me, confirms my worst fears," he said. "They have dangerous parolees running around who should not be."

Lieu has repeatedly called for the department to end unsupervised releases, most recently two weeks ago when an ex-convict on non-revocable parole was charged with murdering two people in Southern California. He reiterated his plea based on the inspector general's report.

The report is the latest in a series of reviews questioning California's parole practices. The inspector general previously found the state failed to properly supervise paroled rapist Phillip Garrido, who pleaded guilty last month to kidnapping a young Jaycee Dugard and holding her captive in a backyard compound for 18 years.

Another report said the department should have sent a paroled San Diego County child molester back to prison before he raped and killed two teenage girls.

The inspector general's report cited problems with the non-revocable parole program that were originally reported by The Associated Press last year.

The AP found that because of the way the law was written, the department was releasing some unsupervised parolees who had been convicted of violent or threatening crimes.

The AP also reported there were early problems with the risk-assessment program. The department was forced to return 656 parolees to active supervision after learning that nearly 10 percent of parolees released without supervision had committed more crimes than officials previously believed.

Officials said then that the problem was fixed, though the inspector general's report says the improved assessment program wasn't immediately used at all locations statewide.

Wednesday's report found the high error rate under the computerized program resulted from multiple problems:

• It did not include prior parole violations or some crimes offenders committed as juveniles.

• Some offenders whose risk should have been assessed by human beings were instead left to the computerized assessment. Only about 4 percent of the more than 270,000 risk assessments of inmates and parolees were done by hand.

• The system relies in part on criminal histories compiled by the California Department of Justice. But about half the histories don't reveal what happened to criminal charges, for instance whether suspects were convicted or acquitted, because the information isn't submitted by the court system.

The system relies on 22 factors that are supposed to predict whether offenders are likely to commit new crimes. They include things like age, gender, gang affiliations, previous convictions, disciplinary problems in prison, and previous parole violations. It then uses a mathematical algorithm to assign a risk score.

Only those with low and moderate risk can be placed on non-revocable parole.

However, even a low risk predicts that 48 percent of those parolees are likely to be arrested for a felony, and 18 percent convicted of a felony, within three years. A moderate risk projects that 69 percent of parolees will be arrested and 31 percent convicted of a felony within three years of their release.

The program has been tested and proved scientifically valid, the department said in response. However, researchers found the program is weak in predicting future convictions and weak to moderate in predicting future arrests.

Lieu said state lawmakers were unlikely to have passed the law in 2009 had they known those odds.

Hello again, smoothy:

Yeah, bureaucrats suck... Is THAT why you don't support the Constitution?

excon

Hello:

There might be one or two. We could avoid that if we just kept 'em forever. You know, like Gitmo. Is that what you're suggesting?

excon

Where in the constitution does it give rights to convicted criminals to not serve their sentences?

Seems they can't do anything in California except make more criminals. I wonder how they keep up with child support?

In 2006, there were 1.7
Million open child support
Cases in California.

Guess we see how the money flows in only one direction now.

Hello smoothy:

You're going off track again, smootho... Try to stick to the OP.

excon

Not at all . They should serve their time and that's it . But I will hold SCOTUS responsible for any violent crime committed because a predator was released early by their command.

You are the one that went off track... I just answered your question.

Just like your leaders mentor said (more or less) Californias chickens have come home to roost.

They should have been building more prisons... just like they should have built more power plants... instead of wasting their money on worthless social programs.

Hello again,

Let me sound off on this. I'm sure smoothy will have something to say...

Long ago when I became an offender, I did my time and society was happy about it. They DIDN'T punish me further. They agreed that my DEBT had been PAID. I was NOT denied employment, housing, educational opportunities, or access to capital.

That began to change when the right wing started a drug war. They wanted MANDATORY sentences... They wanted to lock 'em up and throw away the key. They wanted to KEEP people AFTER their time was up. They wanted to TRACK people and keep them on LISTS forever. They told them that they can't live within 500 ft of most anything... They can't get a student loan. They can't do ANY of the things that I was able to do that turned my life around...

Were I to repeat TODAY what I did 50 years ago, I'd be dead meat. While I know that treating prisoners like dirt FEELS good, but doing so comes back to bite you. Unless you plan to keep people FOREVER, keeping them in overcrowded cages, poking them with the proverbial stick, and continue to DENY them ANY opportunity at all, after they've paid their debt, AIN'T going to do YOU any good when the cage doors open, as they surly will.

So, don't look out for prisoners cause you're a bleeding heart liberal. Look out for them because you're afraid for your family. Look out for them because you support the Constitution.

On TOP of that, you really should only lock up the truly dangerous, and keep them for a long time. There's actually PLENTY of room for that. But, somehow, you can't distinguish between the guy who will really HURT you, and the guy who simply engages in activities that are morally repugnant to you.

excon