Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, woodstock said:

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. 

I’m not a violent person, and have not had that happen to me. I’ve also actively avoided situations where that would be a feasible outcome. I am abundantly aware that some of these people being released probably have no business being out in the streets again, and thanks in part to our “rehabilitation system” doing anything but that, somebody is likely to get hurt. That said, I don’t live in fear of someone just because of a past they might have, that’s no way to live. I have too many things to do each day to worry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, woodstock said:

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.  

Who are you? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It just really feels like bad risk awareness for some of the same people that are like “Covid’s no big deal, climate change no big deal” to be saying “OMG CALIFORNIA’S LETTING OUT SOME PRISONERS SLIGHTLY EARLY.”   I feel very certain that these prisoners will kill fewer people than Covid.

Edited by fatguyinalittlecoat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone was sentenced to 30 years and jumps through all the hoops and keep their nose clean they can get out after 24 years.  This lowers that to 20.  

 

I don't think this'll be the end of civilized society.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kal El said:

I’m not a violent person, and have not had that happen to me. I’ve also actively avoided situations where that would be a feasible outcome. I am abundantly aware that some of these people being released probably have no business being out in the streets again, and thanks in part to our “rehabilitation system” doing anything but that, somebody is likely to get hurt. That said, I don’t live in fear of someone just because of a past they might have, that’s no way to live. I have too many things to do each day to worry about that.

The sole goal of criminal justice isn't to rehabilitate prisoners. That's one of four standard things the criminal justice system hopes to accomplish, each one of the categories butting up against each other and often not working in concert. The four main things a criminal justice system does when it incarcerates is it hopes to achieve: 

Specific deterrence (that is, the isolation of the prisoner from the community so the community is no longer in danger)
General deterrence (that is, punishments exist to deter everybody from committing crimes)
Rehabilitation (the one you think is the only impetus for our system)
Retribution (the vengeance that is gotten from punishment to the offender)

So there are actually four basic goals that any incarceration attempts to achieve. Balancing these four is a tough act, but it's generally considered the goal of criminal law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

It just really feels like bad risk awareness for some of the same people that are like “Covid’s no big deal, climate change no big deal” to be saying “OMG CALIFORNIA’S LETTING OUF SOME PRISONERS SLIGHTLY EARLY.”   I feel very certain that these prisoners will kill fewer people than Covid.

Yes, that's exactly how I feel about COVID and climate change. You've managed to make a complete straw man out of that. Would you like a straw house to go with it? 

Edited by woodstock
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, woodstock said:

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. 

Who is talking about life sentences here? Did I miss that part? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Who is talking about life sentences here? Did I miss that part? 

Yes, I think you did. Over 20,000 people with life sentences will be eligible for the reduction. Some of them are among the violent criminals to be released. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, woodstock said:

Yes, I think you did. Over 20,000 people with life sentences will be eligible for the reduction. Some of them are among the violent criminals to be released. 

Right I saw that the second time. Thank you. 
 

Well then I need to change my mind a little on this. I’m not against the idea in principle, but it should be situational. Just as I don’t believe in mandatory minimums, but believe that each sentence should be up to the individual judge to decide without forced guidelines, I also think that release from prison should be decided in the same way, based on an examination of the individual prisoner’s performance. 
 

So I can’t really say I’m in favor of this idea as it stands. But I don’t think it’s quite as dramatic as you’ve been making it out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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. 

But yet accurate.  It is no more misleading than your typical headline.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, timschochet said:

@woodstockI presume that your objection is solely based on including violent lifer types? Would you still have a problem with this plan if it was limited to non-violent criminals, or violent criminals of a lesser nature (sentenced to only a few years for example?) 

I would have no problem releasing non-violent offenders in prison because of drug charges. I think the drug war is long past due ending. 

I have a problem releasing violent criminals of any stripe, really. People with violent tendencies, once jailed, don't turn out so good. This would be common sense, it seems. That's not an insult. Just a way of saying violent guys that get thrown in jail become more violent upon release. This is backed up by at least this study, which was easy to find. 

According to the United States Sentencing Commission, to transgress against the body and wind up in federal prison usually leads to higher recidivism rates than non-violent offenders. In addition, these offenses are often more serious crimes than the original offense causing incarceration was. 

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-among-federal-violent-offenders

Edited by woodstock
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“Also as of Saturday, all minimum security inmates in work camps, including those in firefighting camps, will be eligible for the same month of earlier release for every month they spend in the camp, regardless of the severity of their crime.” 

with Fire season starting already, and another dry year in all parts of CA, fewer inmates who could be recruited/incentivized to be a part of this program seems short-sighted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, woodstock said:

People with violent tendencies, once jailed, don't turn out so good. This would be common sense, it seems. That's not an insult. Just a way of saying violent guys that get thrown in jail become more violent upon release. This is backed up by at least this study, which was easy to find. 

 

I agree, and guess what.  I bet these violent offenders who continue their violence streak once incarcerated won't be the kind of model inmate that keeps their record clean and completes the programs necessary to be eligible for the early release being discussed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, woodstock said:

"That includes nearly 20,000 inmates who are serving life sentences with the possibility of parole." - LA Times 

And those inmates still need to meet the requirements of good behavior and meet the standards to be granted parole on a life sentence. It’s not a get out of jail card, it’s a get out of jail sooner if you do all the right things card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

It just really feels like bad risk awareness for some of the same people that are like “Covid’s no big deal, climate change no big deal” to be saying “OMG CALIFORNIA’S LETTING OUT SOME PRISONERS SLIGHTLY EARLY.”   I feel very certain that these prisoners will kill fewer people than Covid.

I would just laugh at this post, but some people get so bent out of shape about that and mash the report button.

And that is really too bad because it is just the most efficient way to respond to such a terrible comparison. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:
8 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

It just really feels like bad risk awareness for some of the same people that are like “Covid’s no big deal, climate change no big deal” to be saying “OMG CALIFORNIA’S LETTING OUT SOME PRISONERS SLIGHTLY EARLY.”   I feel very certain that these prisoners will kill fewer people than Covid.

I would just laugh at this post, but some people get so bent out of shape about that and mash the report button.

And that is really too bad because it is just the most efficient way to respond to such a terrible comparison. 

It might be even more helpful if you explained why you think it's such a terrible comparison.

From what I've read in this thread, the primary concern about this new California policy (other than the procedural concerns expressed by one poster) is that it endangers public safety.  As a result of this decision, it's likely that there will be at least some violent crimes committed that would not otherwise have happened.  This will result in some innocent victims that are injured or will die.  But I think it's kinda important to quantify how much public safety is actually being endangered.  How many additional deaths and injuries will occur?  I think that number is likely to be relatively small.  That doesn't mean it's irrelevant, of course the lives of victims matter.  But in weighing the benefits and detriments of a public policy, it's important to understand how large those factors are so they can be weighed against each other.

In comparison, the decisions of some states to prematurely open bars and restaurants to full capacity endangered public safety much more than this policy will.  MAny more deaths and injuries will result from those decisions.

Now, it might be true that there are other reasons besides public safety to conclude that opening bars is a good idea but releasing prisoners is a bad idea.  But then let's also discuss those things.  Because "this will probably result in some additional violent crime" just seems like a very incomplete analysis.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, timschochet said:

@woodstockI presume that your objection is solely based on including violent lifer types? Would you still have a problem with this plan if it was limited to non-violent criminals, or violent criminals of a lesser nature (sentenced to only a few years for example?) 

What non-violent crimes do you have in mind?    If that person was in jail on a life sentence, a crime to society is just as bad and they shouldn’t be let out earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

It might be even more helpful if you explained why you think it's such a terrible comparison.

From what I've read in this thread, the primary concern about this new California policy (other than the procedural concerns expressed by one poster) is that it endangers public safety.  As a result of this decision, it's likely that there will be at least some violent crimes committed that would not otherwise have happened.  This will result in some innocent victims that are injured or will die.  But I think it's kinda important to quantify how much public safety is actually being endangered.  How many additional deaths and injuries will occur?  I think that number is likely to be relatively small.  That doesn't mean it's irrelevant, of course the lives of victims matter.  But in weighing the benefits and detriments of a public policy, it's important to understand how large those factors are so they can be weighed against each other.

In comparison, the decisions of some states to prematurely open bars and restaurants to full capacity endangered public safety much more than this policy will.  MAny more deaths and injuries will result from those decisions.

Now, it might be true that there are other reasons besides public safety to conclude that opening bars is a good idea but releasing prisoners is a bad idea.  But then let's also discuss those things.  Because "this will probably result in some additional violent crime" just seems like a very incomplete analysis.

 

The states that opened their bars earlier have less of a problem than others.  It is also your choice to go to a germ-ridden bar.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO if they're released early, someone has decided they are no longer a threat to society

IF they commit crimes after they're released .... then whomever decided to let them out early is actually responsible

hold those people accountable is all I ask - there is an accountability for releasing people early who go on to commit crimes - lets start holding that accountability please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

IMO if they're released early, someone has decided they are no longer a threat to society

IF they commit crimes after they're released .... then whomever decided to let them out early is actually responsible

hold those people accountable is all I ask - there is an accountability for releasing people early who go on to commit crimes - lets start holding that accountability please

they will not be held accountable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, shadrap said:

they will not be held accountable.  

I know - but they should be

How many thousands of crimes happen every year by prisoners let out early ?  That's a problem that nobody wants to discuss 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, woodstock said:

I would have no problem releasing non-violent offenders in prison because of drug charges. I think the drug war is long past due ending. 

I have a problem releasing violent criminals of any stripe, really. People with violent tendencies, once jailed, don't turn out so good. This would be common sense, it seems. That's not an insult. Just a way of saying violent guys that get thrown in jail become more violent upon release. This is backed up by at least this study, which was easy to find. 

According to the United States Sentencing Commission, to transgress against the body and wind up in federal prison usually leads to higher recidivism rates than non-violent offenders. In addition, these offenses are often more serious crimes than the original offense causing incarceration was. 

https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/recidivism-among-federal-violent-offenders

The fact that they become more violent in prison does not reflect well on our prison system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

IMO if they're released early, someone has decided they are no longer a threat to society

IF they commit crimes after they're released .... then whomever decided to let them out early is actually responsible

hold those people accountable is all I ask - there is an accountability for releasing people early who go on to commit crimes - lets start holding that accountability please

 

That's not necessarily true. Their sentence may be up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, whoknew said:

 

That's not necessarily true. Their sentence may be up.

that's not an early release then

that's them paying their debt to society ..... as the courts/judicial system decided

 

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2020/04/15/coronavirus-inmate-released-early-due-to-covid-19-accused-of-killing-man/112261820/

https://www.denverpost.com/2020/05/15/colorado-coronavirus-prison-release-murder/

https://wgntv.com/news/man-released-early-from-prison-accused-of-killing-3-including-cutting-neighbors-heart-out/

and on and on and on the above happens

 

and nobody talks about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, whoknew said:

The fact that they become more violent in prison does not reflect well on our prison system.

Believe me, I know. I'm not against prison reform, especially measures designed to stop overcrowding, bringing forth humane conditions, and stopping prison rape. It seems to me that a blind eye and jokes about the latter aren't just in poor taste, they're inhumane. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Sand said:
11 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I feel very certain that these prisoners will kill fewer people than Covid.

Seeing as LA just had a day of zero deaths, I'll take you up on this.

LA County had 319 Covid deaths in the last two weeks.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/los-angeles-california-covid-cases.html

Edited by fatguyinalittlecoat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, djmich said:
16 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.

Guess again

Bro, this thread and it's sensationalism is the very essence of fake news (and false outrage). 

 

The headline should read something like:   Potential 15% off sentence for model prisoners when they become parolees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cockroach said:

Bro, this thread and it's sensationalism is the very essence of fake news (and false outrage). 

 

The headline should read something like:   Potential 15% off sentence for model prisoners when they become parolees. 

Yeah, or: Violent prisoners on life sentences no longer serving life, thirty-forty years less than that.

Seems to me depends on how you want to spin it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, woodstock said:

According to the United States Sentencing Commission, to transgress against the body and wind up in federal prison usually leads to higher recidivism rates than non-violent offenders. In addition, these offenses are often more serious crimes than the original offense causing incarceration was. 

In the 1970s the California death penalty was ruled unconstitutional.  As a result about 160 or so death row inmates had their sentences revert to "life".  At that time there was no such thing in California as "life without parole".  Some of these were notorious guys that were never getting paroled.  A few (about 25%) were.  There were a handful of repeat offenses (about 25%), but these were the exceptions.    This has been a "case study" for decades so I went searching for a link to see if the story is still relatively the same.  The   linked story corrects my numbers a bit (174, 42, and 12) but largely confirms that this was not the feared disaster.  (Though there were a few high profile murders.)

Now I get that you specified "violent offenders" and not a specific crime, but I found this particularly interesting in the story that I linked-

Quote

 

UC Berkeley Death Penalty Clinic Director Elisabth Semel said. "People who've been convicted of murder have a better rate of success, that is a lower recidivism rate, than individuals who commit other types of crimes."

A 2011 Stanford study found the recidivism rate for paroled murderers is less than 1 percent, much lower than the 49 percent rate for California parolees.

 

Not necessarily a counter to what you stated, but I guess that the reasons offered ("Decades of self-help and therapy programs, dealing with addictions and alcoholism from the past and finding support going forward") has something to do with it, but I'd guess just being a lot older factors in more than anything for these guys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bottomfeeder Sports said:

Not necessarily a counter to what you stated, but I guess that the reasons offered ("Decades of self-help and therapy programs, dealing with addictions and alcoholism from the past and finding support going forward") has something to do with it, but I'd guess just being a lot older factors in more than anything for these guys. 

Maybe not completely on track here, but personally I'd like to see petty thieves and drug users rehabilitated and murderers punished.  I'm not too concerned with the recidivism rate for those folks - I'd prefer them to be removed from society for as long as possible (permanently if it is allowed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

It might be even more helpful if you explained why you think it's such a terrible comparison.

From what I've read in this thread, the primary concern about this new California policy (other than the procedural concerns expressed by one poster) is that it endangers public safety.  As a result of this decision, it's likely that there will be at least some violent crimes committed that would not otherwise have happened.  This will result in some innocent victims that are injured or will die.  But I think it's kinda important to quantify how much public safety is actually being endangered.  How many additional deaths and injuries will occur?  I think that number is likely to be relatively small. 

 

My main problem is with the ridiculous justification for it. They're making law abiding citizens less safe in order to make prisons more safe. Not to sound like a broken but once again the left has it backwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, FairWarning said:

What non-violent crimes do you have in mind?    If that person was in jail on a life sentence, a crime to society is just as bad and they shouldn’t be let out earlier.

I'm thinking minor property crimes (not arson nor destruction) and possession crimes. Even crimes that involve charges for dealing drugs because of amount. I'm just not down with the abstract "crime to society" thinking. That view doesn't really encompass one of the goals of criminal law aside from retribution, and even then it's a really abstract violation and category.

I understand why it exists (this sanctity of the law as a moral thing when laws are taken collectively) but it is removed from a pragmatic view of punishment for criminality. It's an argument put forward mainly by legal positivists who believe that the law is sanctified simply because it is law. I do not agree with that. I think all law stems from a moral impetus. While I understand the problem with willy-nilly choosing which laws to follow, I don't think that simply breaking the law is a transgression that deserves serious time. Yes, we have to line-draw to categorize what is serious and what is not-serious, and there's a grey area, but I think as Americans that we have a common fundamental underpinning of what law is and means in the normative and positive sense. Retribution simply because of violation of the law is not an American concept. It's really German and French, actually. It's Continental political philosophy. 

Our tradition is an adherence to natural, or God-given law in the American and English sense. We tend to defer to higher authorities than positive law, and our track record shows it. We even consider certain laws that are passed by legislatures unconstitutional because the things they do not permit are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." We do not call it God's law, because those words are out of our Constitution, but on a practical level, that's what we really mean. That no law should come before a man and his conscience in certain instances. So the concept of punishment for the sake of merely transgressing before the law doesn't hold much weight with me unless the law is abused to the point where liberty suffers. 

Edited by woodstock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sand said:

Maybe not completely on track here, but personally I'd like to see petty thieves and drug users rehabilitated and murderers punished.  I'm not too concerned with the recidivism rate for those folks - I'd prefer them to be removed from society for as long as possible (permanently if it is allowed).

Yeah that is a different argument.  I can't really throw factual tidbits at this preference to change it.  And while I assume we disagree in degrees I don't think I disagree in concept. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Andy wouldn’t have had to crawl through a river of #### to get out and Red could have gotten out earlier?  Well damn that’s a whole different movie then.  Not a fan. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://lao.ca.gov/PolicyAreas/CJ/6_cj_inmatecost

As of 2019, it cost $81,000 a year to house an inmate in California. Part of that is our overpriced healthcare system, but the large expense for security is appalling as well. Actual inmate security is very limited considering how much criminal activity is allowed.  Many of the guards should be inmates themselves.  The environment that they foster in these prisons probably contributes to the high rate of recidivism among violent offenders.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, woodstock said:

I'm thinking minor property crimes (not arson nor destruction) and possession crimes. Even crimes that involve charges for dealing drugs because of amount. I'm just not down with the abstract "crime to society" thinking. That view doesn't really encompass one of the goals of criminal law aside from retribution, and even then it's a really abstract violation and category.

I understand why it exists (this sanctity of the law as a moral thing when laws are taken collectively) but it is removed from a pragmatic view of punishment for criminality. It's an argument put forward mainly by legal positivists who believe that the law is sanctified simply because it is law. I do not agree with that. I think all law stems from a moral impetus. While I understand the problem with willy-nilly choosing which laws to follow, I don't think that simply breaking the law is a transgression that deserves serious time. Yes, we have to line-draw to categorize what is serious and what is not-serious, and there's a grey area, but I think as Americans that we have a common fundamental underpinning of what law is and means in the normative and positive sense. Retribution simply because of violation of the law is not an American concept. It's really German and French, actually. It's Continental political philosophy. 

Our tradition is an adherence to natural, or God-given law in the American and English sense. We tend to defer to higher authorities than positive law, and our track record shows it. We even consider certain laws that are passed by legislatures unconstitutional because the things they do not permit are "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." We do not call it God's law, because those words are out of our Constitution, but on a practical level, that's what we really mean. That no law should come before a man and his conscience in certain instances. So the concept of punishment for the sake of merely transgressing before the law doesn't hold much weight with me unless the law is abused to the point where liberty suffers. 

In reference to a life sentence getting early release, only the drug dealing would apply by me I guess.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2021 at 8:38 PM, woodstock said:

I have a problem releasing violent criminals of any stripe, really. People with violent tendencies, once jailed, don't turn out so good.

I see this as a major problem with our prison system

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/2/2021 at 9:11 PM, woodstock said:

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.

Thanks for pointing out how it’s misleading.

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AAABatteries said:

Thanks for pointing out how it’s misleading.

What are you talking about? The original post was nowhere near misleading. The quote from the administrative agency specifically said that this would "make prisons safer." There's nothing misleading about the OP.  76,000 prisoners, including 20,000 violent ones are up for early release.

And I have no idea why Sea Duck is laughing.

Link to comment
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...