A disturbing milestone in California

Ugh. my state is pretty stupid.

arnold wants to privatize the lottery. that gave us Bush and harriet myers. hork

If the below link is to be believed (from 2006)
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2006/08/whos_in_prison.html

its only a lowly 21%. They claim it's due to a bill passed in 2000, that pushes non-violent drug offenders to treatment centers instead of jail.

I wonder how effective that money would be spend on healthcare and education of children, you know, so they don't become criminals in the first place. But that's just crazy liberal commie talk, I suppose.

Ahh. More utterly un-sustainable policy brought to you by the US of A.

Making sense is for countries that, you know, want to endure for more than a couple of centuries. What a bunch of commies.

Don't forget the death penalty. That's incredibly wasteful.

phat

Yeah, more California craziness. And I speak as a native.

Teachers unions, Police, Firemen, pffft. They are nothing compared to the Prison Industrial complex. Its the number 1 growth industry in CA. I so want out of SoCal.

I read somewhere that the US has 3.5 million people in the Judicial System . Thats about 1 percent of the population (25 percent of the worlds prison population) . 50 percent of those are there for drug related crimes . Something is screwed up . Prohibition should have taught us better .

Well, I thought my favorite part of the article was this:

"In addition, he (Michael Genest, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's finance director) said, the porous border allowed too many lawbreakers from Mexico to enter the state, where they eventually ended up in prison."

Right. It's the fault of all those goddamn illegal immigrants. Not a ridiculous drug war. Not elected officials who'd rather make political hash out of a "lock 'em up" law and order platform than try to prevent poverty and other causes of crime (that's for sissy liberals). Not even -- warning, tinfoil hat conspiracy rant coming -- a corporate system that profits mightily off of the near-slave-labor wages of the prison population. Nope, it's those darned Mexicans.

I thought that was my favorite part. But then I got to this:

"California is alone among big states in spending so much on prisons. Texas, for instance, will spend $4.5 billion on higher education in 2007 and $2 billion on prisons, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures."

Dear dog in haven. We're worse than Texas.

It is only quick thinking and expeditious use of the death penalty that prevents Texas from spending more on prisons than education. Or maybe it's expeditious thinking and quick use of the death penalty. Remember that when Texas was the first state where deaths from gunshots exceeded deaths on the highways, our legislature raised speed limits to restore the balance. And y'all think we're stupid down here.

Dear dog in haven. We're worse than Texas.

Nahhh. As Tex points out, Texas avoids this ignominy by killing everybody rather than putting them in prison. Comedian Ron White said it best, commenting on a Texas proposal to reduce the number of appeals in certain death penalty cases: "Other states are trying to eliminate the death penalty; my state's puttin' in an express lane!"

Heh. Well, while I believe Texas' record of 1.03 execution per month over the last 30 years does lead the nation, I don't think a dozen fewer inmates per year has much effect on the housing needs of a behind-bars population numbering in the hundreds of thousands. :-p

I wonder if this might be because California spends more money per prisoner, and keeps them in better conditions, than does Texas. Or maybe the cops in California are less lazy and catch more people than the ones in Texas do.

I wonder if this might be because California spends more money per prisoner, and keeps them in better conditions, than does Texas. Or maybe the cops in California are less lazy and catch more people than the ones in Texas do.

I hope Texas keeps them in better conditions than California does. One thing I don't talk about very much: I used to work for the California Department of Corrections (and Rehab; they just added the "and rehab" part, and I left the department in 1994).

Conditions are something else at these places. The main intake is California Institution for Men in Chino. When you arrive, they stick you in a bunk, but you're not in an 8 foot by 8 foot cell; you're in a large room that was meant to be a general assembly area, but because there are far too many inmates for the number of rooms, you're sharing this room with HUNDREDS of other newbies.

Just the thought of that scared me. Just awful. When I visited prisons (I worked in central office, and had only sporadic contact with inmates), I was the most law-abiding citizen for about 2 weeks after my visits. You don't want to end up there.

Administrative Segregation (or, as we call it, Solitary) was pretty scary. Walking around Folsom Prison, you walk past these cells and guys had these little mirrors they'd stick through the hole in the door so they could watch people pass.

Over the course of 5 years, I spend maybe 1 month at institutions, gathering user requirements for computer systems I worked on. That was enough for me.

I ran across this story a while ago:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/05/14/rudolph.taunts.ap/index.html

What do you do in this case? In my opinion, the answer is simple: No more outgoing mail for this guy. Easy.

As far as solitary is concerned, though, if he were in the general population, he'd be assaulted the first week. He'd be asking for it.

One thing these solitary guys did is make urea bombs. Anything that can be fashioned into a bag, they evaporate their own urine to make little bombs they can throw. When you're in the Ad Seg portion of the jail, you have to wear protetive gear (including a vest).

Far, far too many guys are in jail for possession. They should be getting rehab, but they're not. This department does not rehab, period. I don't care what they call themselves.

Meth makers and sellers belong in jail; meth users should be getting treatment.

I'm glad I don't work for them any more.

At least they're treated better in California than in Maricopa County Arizona.

Also, the three strikes law is ridiculous. Last year, there was something on the ballot trying to limit the three strikes law to violent sex offenders, child molestors, ect. And it didn't pass. WTF?!

Also, the three stikes law is ridiculous.

Ok, how many strikes should be permitted?

Or, what is ridiculous about the three strikes law?

Kseniya:

You just had to mess up my (and Tex's) perfectly good snark with reason, didn't you? Thanks a whole freakin' lot!

;^)

Kseniya:

You just had to mess up my (and Tex's) perfectly good snark with reason, didn't you? Thanks a whole freakin' lot!

;^)

Ok, how many strikes should be permitted?

Or, what is ridiculous about the three strikes law?

Three strikes is plenty, provided the definition of a "strike" is reasonable. Any programmer recognizes that unreasonable border cases in an algorithm are a bad thing, and law is especially vulnerable to these issues. You don't want a system that can dump a person in prison for 25 years for shoplifting. Yes, an incorrigible petty thief is seriously irritating, but it's simply isn't worth the resources to lock him up for the rest of his life (not to mention the fact that it would be a pretty evil thing to do).

I'm all for very little leniency when it comes to violent crime, but if you want to institute a "three strikes" type of policy, you'd better thing long and hard about the edge cases or you may end up hanging somebody for stealing a pack of gum.

Honest, I tried hard not to double-post my last, but the software obviously outfoxed me.

what is ridiculous about the three strikes law?

Mostly how the strikes are counted, and what counts as strikes. In principle, I have no objection to separating from society people who have proven through their persistent actions to be a danger to society; in practice, one hears far too many stories of people whose "third strike" is a relatively minor, nonviolent crime or perhaps a technical parole or probation violation. It would be easy to say these people made their own bed, but it ends up appearing to the public that we're imprisoning people for life for trivial offenses. IMHO, laws that generate such apparently ridiculous results have the effect of broadly eroding respect for law in general. If we expect people to respect the law, it behooves us to make the law at least arguably worthy of respect.

Mandatory minimum sentences have pretty much the same problem, it seems to me. In addition, by eliminating discretion in these cases, both three strikes rules and mandatory minimums seem to declare that we don't trust judges and juries very much. How can we ask the people to respect these legal institutions if the law itself does not?

Sorry, Bill. I knew it was a wet-blanket move, but after I'd asked myself the question, "Huh... I wonder how many cells are saved by executions?" I had to answer it and report back to EBISS-HQ. :-)

Actually, one of the tricks that the DAs so is to pile on felony charges. If you are convicted of all three felonies, the three strikes law kicks in. One crime, three strikes. Think of all the felonies you could come up with on a drug bust.

Actually, one of the tricks that the DAs so is to pile on felony charges. If you are convicted of all three felonies, the three strikes law kicks in. One crime, three strikes. Think of all the felonies you could come up with on a drug bust.

A similar trick (not sure if they're still doing it) is to pile on more than one "third strike" which can trigger the "three strikes" provision multiple times. It's actually possible to end up serving consecutive terms for more than one invocation of "three strikes" from a single court date. I imagine that the judge has discretion on that, but given the weird results such laws have produced in the past, I wouldn't put any money on it.

I wonder if this might be because California spends more money per prisoner, and keeps them in better conditions, than does Texas. Or maybe the cops in California are less lazy and catch more people than the ones in Texas do.

I'm surprised nobody considered the massive difference in population sizes and distributions between the two states.

this accounts for the vast majority of the difference.

and about the 3 strikes law; yes, it's been a terrible problem and Judges are often forced into "workaround" situations and early releases because of the preponderance of "felony" repeat offenders that are typically of the stolen car or shoplifting or possession variety.

I seriously doubt you'll hear Arnie brave the shitstorm that would involve even speaking negatively about the 3 strike law, however, let alone even broach the subject of overhauling it.

In fact, I seriously doubt you will EVER hear any governor of CA discuss overhauling that law.

soft on crime doesn't seem to play well in CA any more; maybe not since even before the days of Jerry Brown.

PZ's headline seems quite accurate.

What a shame.