Town Square

Post a New Topic

Court extends deadline for California prison reduction

Original post made on Feb 11, 2014

A federal three-judge panel Monday gave Gov. Jerry Brown's administration a two-year extension of a deadline for reducing the number of inmates in the state's overcrowded prisons.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, February 11, 2014, 7:20 AM

Comments (7)

Posted by Citizen, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 11, 2014 at 8:42 am

Like GITMO!!?


Posted by B. Cayenne Bird, a resident of another community
on Feb 11, 2014 at 7:32 pm

While the remaining prisoners will hopefully be released in three deadlines, it is very important to recognize that Jerry Brown is spending billions of our human services and education budgets to build new prisons and jails. He must be stopped at the ballot box. Brown's indeterminate sentencing laws, which he got passed in the 1970's, are at the core of the entire overcrowding crisis.


On the topic of indeterminate sentencing laws, considering SB 40 which has been delayed under different bill numbers several times from gaining compliance, I wonder how the judges could have missed this unconstitutional sentencing mandated by the Supreme Court. I've tracked SB 40 to July, 2013 where the legislature had a bill underway to delay compliance with fixing California's indeterminate sentencing laws, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 2007. So, apparently they tried here to extend compliance until 2017, after all those unconstitutionally sentenced are not complaining at all because the situation is way over their heads in a legal sense about exactly what transpired.

But there is resistance from the CACJ lawyers. Jeff Adachi inspired them and had their backing when he fought so valiantly for this in 2007. I am checking now to see what became of this bill sb 463. Another trick the lawmakers do is to keep changing bill numbers and have "related" legislation in progress at the same time. Then, as with SB 40, they slam dunk these powerful bills before any opposition can rise. Web Link


Posted by B. Cayenne Bird, a resident of another community
on Feb 11, 2014 at 7:33 pm

Item (a) pg. 3 makes me a bit uncomfortable and that's the "good time" credits. The prison guards and administrators use good time credits as a form of revenge-seeking in order to keep the inmates from filing complaints and lawsuits. I really don't see how this can be a valid path to sentencing reduction when the present system is so flawed. Retribution for no reason is very real, especially against inmate lawyers.


Posted by B. Cayenne Bird, a resident of another community
on Feb 11, 2014 at 7:34 pm

Why does the order specify non-violent SECOND STRIKE prisoners and not mention non-violent THIRD STRIKE prisoners? Is it because they are assuming that the initiative which was already passed covers those inmates? If so, the judges may not realize that even with the watered down passage of the last initiative by the Stanford faculty and students, there is still a provision of "non-serious" as well as "non-violent" final strikes. This new law needs more stipulation than just "non-serious" to be effective. I wonder why the judges just addressed SECOND STRIKES in the order?


Posted by B. Cayenne Bird, a resident of another community
on Feb 11, 2014 at 7:35 pm

While the remaining prisoners will hopefully be released in three deadlines, it is very important to recognize that Jerry Brown is spending billions of our human services and education budgets to build new prisons and jails. He must be stopped at the ballot box. Brown's indeterminate sentencing laws, which he got passed in the 1970's, are at the core of the entire overcrowding crisis.


Posted by Burt, a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Feb 11, 2014 at 10:08 pm

Yo, Bird, you are very very confused. Since the late 1970s, the criminal justice system in California has had a DETERMINATE sentencing policy, not an INDETERMINATE policy as you repeat, erroneously, many times.

Determinate sentencing -- yes, signed into law by Brown in 1977 or thereabouts -- has little to do with prison overcrowding in California. I repeat: Determinate sentencing has little to do with prison overcrowding in California. DETERMINATE sentencing imposes a floor and a ceiling for sentencing -- say, 2-4 years for a specific crime, which might move closer to 4 if guns or violence were involved in the crime, and move closer to 2 where there is no gun or violence involved. This does not contribute to prison overcrowding.

There are many far more serious causes of prison overcrowding. These include: (1) a rather shoddy parole system that returns far too many prisoners to prison for technical/admin/trans.PETTY reasons; (2) three-strikes law, whereby approximately 20-25% of California prison inmates are being held, for life; but, without doubt the most serious contributor to California's insanely overcrowded conditions are arcane and unfair drug laws that put drug users behind bars instead of in rehab programs.

I don't know what your agenda is. But you really need to either go back to the books or get some serious legal assistance. Best of luck to you.


Posted by Lock 'em Up, a resident of Carriage Gardens
on Feb 13, 2014 at 7:17 pm

There is no denying that stricter law enforcement and sentencing guidelines have led to reduction of the crime in our society. Make all the arguments you like about "overcrowding", the point is that prinsons work at lowering crime.

The reason that we have overcrowded prisons is that the Democrats have blocked every effort to build new prinsons. The judge who made this ruling will not even allow California to send any more criminals to prisons in other states. If he really is concerned more about overcrowding than pandering to the prison unions, why not encourage such transfers to uncrowded prisons?

Why must the innocent in our society be made victims of the troubled/violent/perverted just so some Leftis can feel good about "reforming" the unreformable. By the third strike the criminal has done an excellent job of convincing us that he is unreformable. Give him his rightful reward of a permanent residence in a strict California prison.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Circumstances without Pomp
By Roz Rogoff | 3 comments | 1,067 views

‘Much Ado’ or is it Adios for ObamaCare?
By Tom Cushing | 28 comments | 791 views

Political posturing about water
By Tim Hunt | 3 comments | 659 views