Posted on 02/21/2007 9:33:19 AM PST by NormsRevenge
PETULANTLY accusing a judge of being a "threat to public safety" will bring California no closer to resolving the state's prison crisis.
Yet, that was how Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's reacted to Sacramento Superior Court Judge Gail Ohanesian's ruling Tuesday blocking the governor's plan to transfer California inmates to private out-of-state prisons.
Hold your rhetorical fire, governor. Even if the judge had given the green light to this transfer plan, the state would still be faced with a prison crisis demanding a more fundamental approach than exporting a fraction of our prison population somewhere else.
It's unacceptable that some 16,000 inmates are housed in triple bunks in gymnasia and day rooms. It's true that exporting 5,000 or so inmates might have relieved the worst aspects of prison overcrowding in some prisons. But our prisons would still be crammed with 169,000 inmates -- more than twice the number of inmates they were built for.
Let's remind ourselves that California didn't become an economic, political and intellectual juggernaut by exporting its problems to other states. It became a great state by seeking the most rational approaches to solving the enormous challenges it has repeatedly faced.
Our prisons are in crisis largely because our "solutions" to crime have been driven by emotion rather than reason.
Our prisons are in crisis largely because our "solutions" to crime have been driven by emotion rather than reason.
----
Yes, it is called a LIBERAL judicial system that ought to be hanging criminals instead of pandering to them. Visit death row lately ???
Many of the prisoners should be transferred to Mexico. Of course that obvious solution is opposed by the most powerful trade union in the world - the California Prison Guards
"California Death Row" is an oxymoron. More than 650 people are currently on California's death row and they have executed about a dozen people since the death penalty was re-instated in 1972. It's a joke. Scotty Peterson will die of old age before he's executed.
> Visit death row lately ???
While California's implementation (or not) of the death penalty is certainly cause for justified scorn, 650 convicts more or less (even if you killed them all tomorrow) isn't going to make a noticeable dent in the 80,000 convicts over capacity cesspool that is the prison "system" here.
"California Death Row" is an oxymoron.
----
Exactly. That was my point. It is a tax-payer funded hotel for the worst felons. Yes, and California wonders why its judicial and prison system has problems...because it is run by liberals who pander to criminals.
The Governor is looking at sending back prisoners to the Counties. Currently, all prisoners with terms 1 year +1 day or more go to the state facility. The Gov. proposes to send back everyone with a term of 3 or less, plus close the state female juvenile facility and send back many of the male juveniles at the CYA.
Currently, our jail runs at about 98% capacity. Newly sentenced offenders must call and "make an appointment" to serve their terms. We are now "taking reservations" for October 2007 and after.
It is estimated that the Gov. plan will at least double our capacity need at the local jail most likely requiring the building of an entirely new facility since the folks around our old jail had their homes declared a national historic district to protect their houses so we couldn't expand. It is expected that the counties would have to contribute 25% of the costs of building new facilities.
This will also require more guards, fiscal staff, probation staff, etc. - all on the County dime.
I hear Trinity Co. is on the verge of closing its doors. If the Gov. continues to devolve fiscal responsibility back to the counties on all these programs while riding our revenues, I image there will be some county fiscal failures on the horizon.
Ohanesian is the same judge who ruled that Jerry Brown can sit as Attorney General, even though he didn't meet the state requirement that he had to have been able to argue before the state Supreme Court in the 5 preceding years. She sounds like one of those judges who have an agenda, regardless of wht the law says. I hope she'll be overturned on appeal on this ruling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.