Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

California to release 76k prisoners. To make prisons safer.


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Kal El said:

Then who are they releasing? OP didn’t post any link

They are changing the early release rules and eligibility. It will make most inmates eligible to be released earlier than previously. They are not just releasing 76k criminals tomorrow. It's a very misleading OP. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, tymarsas said:

They are changing the early release rules and eligibility. It will make most inmates eligible to be released earlier than previously. They are not just releasing 76k criminals tomorrow. It's a very misleading OP. 

I already guessed that last sentence, but thank you for the clarification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, tymarsas said:

They are changing the early release rules and eligibility. It will make most inmates eligible to be released earlier than previously. They are not just releasing 76k criminals tomorrow. It's a very misleading OP. 

no way

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, GoBirds said:

What a joke, can we let California break off and be it’s own country. Please. 

How about we just send the problem residents to their favorite Socialist country of choice?  I'd hate to lose a beautiful state like CA.

It's really the lefties that have turned it into a cesspool.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tymarsas said:

They are changing the early release rules and eligibility. It will make most inmates eligible to be released earlier than previously. They are not just releasing 76k criminals tomorrow. It's a very misleading OP. 

It's not a misleading OP. They administratively decided, by fiat, to release violent prisoners with life sentences under the guise of it being an "emergency action" by the state because of COVID. Up to 20,000 prisoners are eligible for this. There was no public notice or comment procedure, which would have been a violation of administrative law but for the emergency designation. It was end-around bull####, and this does not come from a law-and-order conservative, but from somebody (me) who wants to end mass incarceration and the drug war. But this was NOT the way, deciding without a political process, letting an administrative agency try to get by without any publicity or comment, and deciding to release violent offenders and close prisons. Indeed, one of the reasons the head of the admin agency that is promulgating the new rule gave for the releases was that they would make prisons safer. Her words. 

This is as odious as odious gets. Thank God the AP caught this story, because it was going unreported. 

Edited by woodstock
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, joffer said:

no way

He's totally more misleading than the OP. I swear it. I read both the AP report and the LA Times report, and Norville's headline is more accurate than tymarsas. By a long shot. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Apple Jack said:

Way too many people are in prison in this country.

Releasing violent criminals serving life sentences is the exact wrong way to go about decriminalization and mass incarceration. It puts people at risk of life and limb. We just had a parolee/releasee stab an Asian woman to death in a park here in the LA area. She was released because of COVID concerns and promptly got herself a knife and killed a woman. This is unwise, dangerous, and political malpractice. 

I had spoken out against Newsom's recall. Under his watch, this happens? I will no longer vote for him unless this decision changes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right off the bat, bad news. Everybody, even the liberals at the LA Times, can't help but be honest about who we're releasing. 

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-05-01/76-000-california-inmates-now-eligible-for-earlier-releases

SACRAMENTO — 

California is giving 76,000 inmates, including violent and repeat felons, the opportunity to leave prison earlier as the state aims to further trim the population of what once was the nation’s largest state correctional system.

More than 63,000 inmates convicted of violent crimes will be eligible for good behavior credits that shorten their sentences by one-third instead of the one-fifth that had been in place since 2017. That includes nearly 20,000 inmates who are serving life sentences with the possibility of parole.

The changes were approved this week by the state Office of Administrative Law.

“The goal is to increase incentives for the incarcerated population to practice good behavior and follow the rules while serving their time, and participate in rehabilitative and educational programs, which will lead to safer prisons,” department spokeswoman Dana Simas said in a statement.

Edited by woodstock
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, woodstock said:

Right off the bat, bad news. Everybody, even the liberals at the LA Times, can't help but be honest about who we're releasing. 

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-05-01/76-000-california-inmates-now-eligible-for-earlier-releases

SACRAMENTO — 

California is giving 76,000 inmates, including violent and repeat felons, the opportunity to leave prison earlier as the state aims to further trim the population of what once was the nation’s largest state correctional system.

More than 63,000 inmates convicted of violent crimes will be eligible for good behavior credits that shorten their sentences by one-third instead of the one-fifth that had been in place since 2017. That includes nearly 20,000 inmates who are serving life sentences with the possibility of parole.

The changes were approved this week by the state Office of Administrative Law.

“The goal is to increase incentives for the incarcerated population to practice good behavior and follow the rules while serving their time, and participate in rehabilitative and educational programs, which will lead to safer prisons,” department spokeswoman Dana Simas said in a statement.

I mean, I guess I understand a tiny bit what they are getting at with having incentives for behaving,  but I will admit that I was surprised to read what types of inmates would be able to be released under this program.  When I saw the OP and no link, I made an eye roll and was expecting it to be mostly non-violent drug offenders or something.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I mean, I guess I understand a tiny bit what they are getting at with having incentives for behaving,  but I will admit that I was surprised to read what types of inmates would be able to be released under this program.  When I saw the OP and no link, I made an eye roll and was expecting it to be mostly non-violent drug offenders or something.  

Nope. That's exactly what I expected when Fair Warning mentioned it this morning, but it's front and center. There's absolutely no excuse for this not to have gone through some sort of democratic process. This was done under the auspices of an emergency action so it didn't bring public notice and comment guidelines to bear. In administrative law, any regulation promulgated by a state agency has to be open to public notice and public comment, lest the public not have a say in its own governance. That's the trade-off for letting the executive branch have these rulemaking agencies. It's Admin Law 101 (I audited Admin Law as a graduate at UConn in 2011). The agency clearly did not want public comment and tried to hide this from the public. It reeks. It's anti-democratic and stupid. It violates procedural and substantive norms. 

Edited by woodstock
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tymarsas said:

So they are releasing 76k inmates? 

I thank you for adding extra details. My post was a bit too brief to really explain what was happening, just as the OP. 

Not as a flood at once. The LA Times says,

"The new rules take effect Saturday, but it will be months or years before any inmates are eligible for early release." 

It's still definitely something to be concerned with, in my opinion. They're not hitting the streets per se, but once an administrative agency rules, it's awfully tough to put the cat back in the bag. There was absolutely no political process in which the public was involved. It's so far removed from the public that it reeks of dictatorial government. Using an emergency designation because the former budget gives them the right to declare and use said emergencies? I presume it's because of COVID or because of the S. Ct. ruling back in 2011 about California prison crowding somehow, but I think it's COVID, which makes the ruling as borderline criminal as the criminals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I have read nothing about this story so this might be a dumb question but what happens if there is no longer an emergency?

They will make the rules permanent next year at which point there's a public hearing about it, which as you might know from Admin Law, won't mean necessarily a ton. But at least it's some sort of process for the public to be heard. That said, until then, these are the governing rules, and the LA Times said it will only be "months" before prisoners start to be released. Nobody in the public will have gotten their say about it for, I'd guess, at least three quarters of a year. I hope for heaven's sake that they release non-violent offenders and hold on to the violent ones. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, woodstock said:

Not as a flood at once. The LA Times says,

"The new rules take effect Saturday, but it will be months or years before any inmates are eligible for early release." 

It's still definitely something to be concerned with, in my opinion. They're not hitting the streets per se, but once an administrative agency rules, it's awfully tough to put the cat back in the bag. There was absolutely no political process in which the public was involved. It's so far removed from the public that it reeks of dictatorial government. Using an emergency designation because the former budget gives them the right to declare and use said emergencies? I presume it's because of COVID or because of the S. Ct. ruling back in 2011 about California prison crowding somehow, but I think it's COVID, which makes the ruling as borderline criminal as the criminals. 

These are excellent points. And I wish the thread had started with a post of this quality. While I am sympathetic to reducing mass incarceration especially among non violent criminals, I agree with you. If this was done via emergency authority based on covid then that is pretty disgusting. Especially for such a long term change to policy.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, woodstock said:

They will make the rules permanent next year at which point there's a public hearing about it, which as you might know from Admin Law, won't mean necessarily a ton. But at least it's some sort of process for the public to be heard. That said, until then, these are the governing rules, and the LA Times said it will only be "months" before prisoners start to be released. Nobody in the public will have gotten their say about it for, I'd guess, at least three quarters of a year. I hope for heaven's sake that they release non-violent offenders and hold on to the violent ones. 

I guess that really doesn’t sound that terrible to me.  They’re going to be releasing certain prisoners slightly faster for nine months and then there’s a public hearing where at least in theory the policy can be re-examined and changed back to the old way?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tymarsas said:

These are excellent points. And I wish the thread had started with a post of this quality. While I am sympathetic to reducing mass incarceration especially among non violent criminals, I agree with you. If this was done via emergency authority based on covid then that is pretty disgusting. Especially for such a long term change to policy.

I don't know for sure if the "emergency" was COVID. I keep trying to find that out. The emergency authority was somehow granted in the last budget, but the stories are concentrating on the more click-worthy aspects of the story, namely that violent criminals are eligible for reduced sentences, including those serving life sentences. That's understandable. I'm interested in the democratic process of it, though, because that's what is really putting a bur in my saddle right now. I admit I was hot this morning when I read it, and I'm certainly getting worked up again. 

So the answer is that I don't know and probably am speculating about COVID. It could very well be a bureaucratic designation given by the legislature to the administrative agency. That would reek of something that violates the non-delegation doctrine, but non-delegation doctrines are toothless at the federal and state level. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kal El said:

Then who are they releasing? OP didn’t post any link

Hopefully, only some of the thousands incarcerated because of either Biden's racist crime bill or Kamala's wrongful prosecutions?

Edited by Opie
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I guess that really doesn’t sound that terrible to me.  They’re going to be releasing certain prisoners slightly faster for nine months and then there’s a public hearing where at least in theory the policy can be re-examined and changed back to the old way?

Yeah, that's pretty much it. We're not going to have 76,000 people in the streets. That said, once the rules are in place, it's going to be basically cemented but for the administrative process, which I don't hold much hope for. This was an end-around and a dirty one, and it's going to result in violent criminals on the streets, this year or next. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, woodstock said:

it's going to result in violent criminals on the streets, this year or next. 

It will also result in people getting their freedom, in families being reunited, in people in love getting to be together, etc.  It feels like these sorts of discussions always just come down to one guy that gets out and kills someone.  What about all the other people that got out and were able to live happier lives?  Shouldn’t they at least be a part of weighing the pros and cons of this sort of thing?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Opie said:

Hopefully, only some of the thousands incarcerated because of either Biden's racist crime bill or Kamala's wrongful prosecutions?

Don’t know, also don’t care. I work with several guys who have served time, got out, and now are some of the best guys I’ve worked jobs with. If they can find guys who are willing to be productive, I don’t really see a problem with it. We all could use a second chance, why are guys who did something really stupid not allowed to have that chance as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

It will also result in people getting their freedom, in families being reunited, in people in love getting to be together, etc.  It feels like these sorts of discussions always just come down to one guy that gets out and kills someone.  What about all the other people that got out and were able to live happier lives?  Shouldn’t they at least be a part of weighing the pros and cons of this sort of thing?

Because those stories don’t feed the fear monster, and then what would the pearl-clutchers do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good. That's a wrap then. Families and hugging and pearl clutching accusations. Such bull#### that I can't even comment. 

Befitting this board. Wait until there are families torn apart because violent criminals are recidivist. Then you'll see the hugging. And the sobbing over loved ones killed or maimed or otherwise done wrong by somebody who attended graduate school for criminals (jail). 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Kal El said:

Because those stories don’t feed the fear monster, and then what would the pearl-clutchers do?

This is wrongheaded and way out of line. If you think violent criminals being released is a problem only bemoaned by "pearl-clutchers," you probably don't deserve anybody's intelligent ear because you have no sense of reality or how life works. I'll bet you've never been in a serious fight or had a gun pulled on you. 

I have. Right to my head. Pointed and cocked because of a bad drug deal. It's scary when violent criminals get violent. That's when you wish they weren't out on the street. 

Go clutch your own pearls. 

Edited by woodstock
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, woodstock said:

Sounds good. That's a wrap then. Families and hugging and pearl clutching accusations. Such bull#### that I can't even comment. 

Befitting this board. Wait until there are families torn apart because violent criminals are recidivist. Then you'll see the hugging. And the sobbing over loved ones killed or maimed or otherwise done wrong by somebody who attended graduate school for criminals (jail). 

I’m trying to understand your objection. Are you suggesting that violent criminals should NEVER be released? Right now they get time reduced for good behavior. This increases the amount. Are you saying that a few months more in prison is going to make a huge difference? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m trying to understand your objection. Are you suggesting that violent criminals should NEVER be released? Right now they get time reduced for good behavior. This increases the amount. Are you saying that a few months more in prison is going to make a huge difference? 

Violent criminals with life sentences ought serve the majority of them. Chances are they're in there for something bad. They should serve full time. This decreases the amount of time they're in prison, which is not a good thing for the general public. A life sentence is a serious, non-frivolous thing. To whittle away at that by decades is problematic, yes. It's not "a few months more," as you've characterized it. It's likely much longer -- in terms of years. 

Edited by woodstock
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’m trying to understand your objection. Are you suggesting that violent criminals should NEVER be released? Right now they get time reduced for good behavior. This increases the amount. Are you saying that a few months more in prison is going to make a huge difference? 

Tim, please don't call them violent criminals.  Let's try "Rehabilitating People".  

Also CA pays them 30 to 95 cents an hour for work.  Instead of going to Home Depot, if the early release thing gets rolling you might want to hang out at the rehabilitation center and find some guys to heal your couches there.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm honestly not surprised by the tone-deaf response here. They weren't even going to comment on this publicly if they didn't have to. They were just going to do it, democratic process be damned. They declined to talk about the logistics of the program other than the number of people that would be affected. Who knows what standards they are using? Who gets to go free? Why? None of these things were answered. They used the rubric of emergency to do this? 

This is far left, and I don't think anybody who follows politics would say anything different. 

"More than 63,000 inmates convicted of violent crimes will be eligible for good behavior credits that shorten their sentences by one-third instead of the one-fifth that had been in place since 2017." - LA Times 

That's 63,000 violent criminals serving shorter sentences by administrative fiat. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kal El said:

I feel as though this is only a small part of the entire story. I would imagine that the ones getting released are probably nonviolent offenders, because the corrections people are not stupid.

Oh, and you'd be gobsmackingly wrong, like you've been the entire thread. Your tone and your attitude are off, as is your policy understanding. Frankly, you're not very good at this, and you're condescending to boot. Here's a thought in line with your tone: You might want to step aside and let bigger minds than yours play.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...