Supreme Court orders California to free thousands

[mad cow]

Supreme Court orders California to free thousands from crowded prisons


The U.S. Supreme Court refused Friday to let California delay the release of thousands of inmates from state prisons to relieve crowding.
In June, a lower court ordered California to release about 10,000 inmates — nearly 8 percent of all state prisoners — by the end of the year to improve to improve medical and mental health treatment. Gov. Jerry Brown last month asked the Supreme Court to delay the order, arguing that it would jeopardize public safety.
Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, strongly dissented with the high court's 6-3 one-sentence order Friday, predicting a wave of murders and rapes in the streets of California. Justice Samuel Alito also disagreed but didn't join Scalia's dissent.

Brown also blasted the decision Friday, saying, "California must now release upon the public nearly 10,000 inmates convicted of serious crimes, about 1,000 for every city larger than Santa Ana."

Rich Pedroncelli / AP file
California Gov. Jerry Brown, pictured at a news conference in Sacramento in January, called the Supreme Court's order dangerous Friday.

The legal issue was Brown's request for a stay of a ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for Northern California ordering the state to release about 9,600 inmates in the short term as part of larger proceedings requiring it to reduce its prison population by about 30,000.

I wonder if they will have the good sense to release prisoners convicted of victimless crimes?

link:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/02/19837279-supreme-court-orders-california-to-free-thousands-from-crowded-prisons?lite

[Brett85]

I doubt it. They'll probably release the rapists and the murderers and keep the marijuana users locked up.

[aGameOfThrones]

I doubt it. They'll probably release the rapists and the murderers and keep the marijuana users locked up.

http://img8.joyreactor.com/pics/post/funny-pictures-auto-rapist-weapon-381848.jpeg

[pcosmar]

Supreme Court orders California to free thousands from crowded prisons



I wonder if they will have the good sense to release prisoners convicted of victimless crimes?

link:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/02/19837279-supreme-court-orders-california-to-free-thousands-from-crowded-prisons?lite

not the first time.

And it was my observation that those that were likely to repeat were the ones that got released.

job security I suppose. :(

[Pericles]

I doubt it. They'll probably release the rapists and the murderers and keep the marijuana users locked up.
How else would you scare people into supporting more money for cops and prisons?

[alucard13mm]

I doubt it. They'll probably release the rapists and the murderers and keep the marijuana users locked up.

Rand should use that as a talking point.

Why are we jailing and imprisoning non-violent drug users and having our prisons filled over capacity and then when it gets full... some rapist and murderers will get released because of "good behavior" and overcrowding and ends up killing your daughters and sons.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm uncomfortable with this. SCOTUS has no authority to do this, period. Not their job.

And: What TC said, so I don't see it ending well on pragmatic grounds either. I don't really support prisons even for rapists or murderers, I support exile or execution, but I don't support letting them walk the streets.

[mad cow]

I assume they are claiming cruel and unusual punishment gives them jurisdiction.
I wonder what the time-line is on releasing all 30,000?

[Christian Liberty]

The Bill of Rights don't legally apply to the states anyway.

[Pericles]

The Bill of Rights don't legally apply to the states anyway.

Article VI Paragraph 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

[pcosmar]

The Bill of Rights don't legally apply to the states anyway.

Wrong. It is the law of the land.
Every state accepted it as such. It does apply.

[eduardo89]

The Bill of Rights don't legally apply to the states anyway.

Most of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated onto the states. The right to indictment by a grand jury found in the 5th Amendment and the right to jury trial in civil cases found in the 7th have not been incorporated onto the states.

[pcosmar]

Most of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated onto the states. The right to indictment by a grand jury found in the 5th Amendment and the right to jury trial in civil cases found in the 7th have not been incorporated onto the states.

It did not need to be "incorporated" ever. The States ratified (agreed to) the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land.
And most states have similar if not exact provisions in their own constitution.


Which they all conveniently ignore anyway. :(

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

Bet they'll be releasing a lot of these guys
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100222013752/itsalwayssunny/images/b/b2/Dennis_Looks_Like_a_Registered_Sex_Offender.png
(bonus points if you get the It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia reference) ;)

[DamianTV]

Supreme Court orders California to free thousands from crowded prisons



I wonder if they will have the good sense to release prisoners convicted of victimless crimes?

link:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/02/19837279-supreme-court-orders-california-to-free-thousands-from-crowded-prisons?lite

Wouldnt that be most of them?

[mad cow]

Prolly a majority. :)

[better-dead-than-fed]

http://img8.joyreactor.com/pics/post/funny-pictures-auto-rapist-weapon-381848.jpeg

wearing a rape-hoodie and everything.

[better-dead-than-fed]

The Bill of Rights don't legally apply to the states anyway.


SCOTUS has changed its position as to whether the Bill of Rights limits the States. In 1833, SCOTUS ruled that the Bill of Rights does not limit the States.... Throughout the 20th century, SCOTUS gradually ruled that the 14th Amendment prohibits the States from violating [most of] the Bill of Rights.

Just reporting here, not endorsing SCOTUS's opinion.

[better-dead-than-fed]

They'll probably release the rapists and the murderers....

That would function as punishment to society, for mistreating prisoners in the first place; and to the extent that society comprehended the dynamic, it would be deterred from mistreating prisoners in the future. In a comparable context, this reasoning has been used to justify the Exclusionary Rule--the rule prohibiting the government from using unconstitutionally-obtained evidence in trials, even when the evidence is reliable and the defendants are guilty of murder or rape.


It is the proud claim of a democratic society that the people are masters and all officials of the state are servants of the people. That being so, the ancient rule of respondeat superior furnishes us with a simple, direct and reasonable basis for refusing to admit evidence secured in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. Since the policeman is society's servant, his acts in the execution of his duty are attributable to the master or employer. Society as a whole is thus responsible and society is `penalized' by refusing it the benefit of evidence secured by the illegal action. This satisfies me more than the other explanations because it seems to me that society — in a country like ours — is involved in and is responsible for what is done in its name and by its agents. Unlike the Germans of the 1930's and early '40's, we cannot say `it is all The Leader's doing. I am not responsible.' In a representative democracy we are responsible, whether we like it or not. And so each of us is involved and each is in this sense responsible when a police officer breaks rules of law established for our common protection.

J. Burger, quoted by J. Stevens in United States v. Leon, 468 US 897 - Supreme Court 1984 (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12950573209015417232).

[mrsat_98]

Supreme Court orders California to free thousands from crowded prisons



I wonder if they will have the good sense to release prisoners convicted of victimless crimes?

link:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/02/19837279-supreme-court-orders-california-to-free-thousands-from-crowded-prisons?lite

no

[Keith and stuff]

Another benefit to living on the other side of the Continent of California. Northern New England has the lowest crime of any region in the country, anyway.