What are they thinking?

[Ulmus]

Normally I stay away from the political stuff, but this is nuts!   

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sc-dc-0524-court-prisons-web-20110523,0,5716379.story

[fightingquaker13]

Here's what they were thinking. Blame the "war on drugs", three strikes laws ,and mandatory minimums. Blame the fact that judicical discretion in sentencing has been all but revoked. Blame the fact that the correction's officer's union is one of the most powerful players in Cali politics. Blame the fact that in these times no one wants to raise taxes to pay for prisons, even while they cheerfully vote to increase sentences (gee, might there be a connection )? The bottom line is that a whole lot of folks are in jail who don't need to be there. Because of a lot of grandstanding pols who won't take responsibility, we are left with a mess. A lot of evil SOBs will get out, a lot of low level guys will stay in. End the drug war, give judges back some discretion in setencing, and stop with the bumper sticker crap like "three strikes" and "zero tolerance", and go with solutions that work like drug court diversion programs, and we wouldn't be in this mess. Not to mention securing our borders and deporting criminal illegals upon arrest. If we did these things we'd have plenty of room for the bad guys. Rant over.
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

FQ's opposition to 3 strike laws and Mandatory minimum sentencing is typical liberal stupidity.
But he is right about "War on some drugs BS and no money for more prisons, Ca. would rather spend it on benefits for illegal aliens, and fighting the will of the people on same sex marriage.

[Ichiban]

Don't forget the $200k/year lifeguards.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110520/ap_on_re_us/us_lucrative_lifeguarding

[fightingquaker13]

FQ's opposition to 3 strike laws and Mandatory minimum sentencing is typical liberal stupidity.

I would suggest that you are wrong. It is neither stupid, nor liberal. Rather, supporting those things is pure statism (whether it be liberal or conservative) and an affront to the Constitution. Here's the cliff notes version of why. Taking away judicial discretion concentrates too much power in the executive branch. With judicial discretion, a judge decides on a sentence varying between a minimum and maximum set by the legislature. With "three strikes" and mandatory minimums that discretion (read common sense) is removed. The sentence is set by the charges filed by the DA. Judges are either appointed by the Governor/President and approved by the Senate, or independenlty elected. Either way, they are either accountable to the electorate, or to people who are. DA's are unelected bureacrats accountable to no one, who get promoted on their conviction rates. Do you trust a judge, or a 30 year old DA more to decide a fair sentence for a  crime? Its that simple.
 The sad thing is that before Reagan and Tip O'Neill's drug war in 1986, the feds got it right. They set up the US Sentencing Commision. It laid out a reccomended guideline sentence for federal crimes. You were to get between X and Y years for a given offence. Mitigating and aggravating factors were specified (was it a first offense, did you use violence, etc.). Then the drug war came along and mandatory minimums came into play where the mules got more time than the kingpins, and anyone who called BS was "soft on crime". Review your history Tom, I think you'll find that you are on my side on this one.
FQ13

[Sponsor]

[r_w]

Sorry FQ, but judges lost common sense all by themselves.  Liberal judges are the reason for minimums and three strikes, not the other way around.

[fightingquaker13]

Sorry FQ, but judges lost common sense all by themselves.  Liberal judges are the reason for minimums and three strikes, not the other way around.

And conservatives are that much better? Look, we either have three co-equal branches using checks and balances or we don't. You don't get to say the SC, Congress or the President should have the last word depending on whether they are from your team or not. If that were the case, the only thing seperating us from Somalia would be better guns. The conservatives need to live with Roe, and the Liberals need to live with Heller. Otherwise its the law of the jungle. If all that matters is the last election, you have no right to bitch about BO, or the fact that Gore and Bush let the SC peacefully decide the 2000 election. Its the rules of the game, more than any specific outcome, that preserve a Constitutional Republic.  It is preserving the rules, and the priciples of the Constitution that matter, even if the specific results are scewy, that lets us continue on. You don't emasculate the judiciary because you don't like some rulings. You just pick better judges. Seriously, less than 700 votes seperated Bush from Gore. Their followers hated each other. Was there a single murder? No. They just went to court and accepted the outcome. That alone should be enough reason to preserve an independent judiciary.
FQ13

[crusader rabbit]

Ulmus, with as much kindness as I can muster I feel I must point out the egregious error in your initial question:  It presumes thought was involved.  This so-called solution is based upon political expedience.  When a state government has been so stupid for so long, the only solution is additional stupidity on the monumental level we see here.

But, to add some more kindling to the blazing fire, the drug laws are beyond foolish.  Sentencing someone to hard time for a few ounces of weed makes no sense.  Putting the "mule" in prison until hell freezes makes even less sense.  Sentencing a herion addict to prison makes less sense, yet.  The drug wars have been lost.  We should recognize it and move on.  Become the supplier and tax the sh!t out of it.

And three strikes requires some level of judicial descretion lest you wind up with a guy serving a life sentence for snagging a pizza without paying. It's happened in Ca.

[tombogan03884]

It's called putting the threats where they can't hurt any decent people.
Let the scum kill each other.
Cam Edwards on NRA News has stories every single day about judges letting scumbags walk for violent crimes from assault to rape and murder. Judges can not be trusted to punish those who threaten society because to many of them are stupid liberals or getting paid off.
The number one method of lowering crime is to PUNISH violent criminals.
As for FQ, 5000 years of human experience says he an idiot, but like all liberals HE knows whats best. 

[fightingquaker13]

It's called putting the threats where they can't hurt any decent people.
Let the scum kill each other.
Cam Edwards on NRA News has stories every single day about judges letting scumbags walk for violent crimes from assault to rape and murder. Judges can not be trusted to punish those who threaten society because to many of them are stupid liberals or getting paid off.
The number one method of lowering crime is to PUNISH violent criminals.
As for FQ, 5000 years of human experience says he an idiot, but like all liberals HE knows whats best. 

And this is relevant to the debate how? We agree on punishing violent offenders. Where we part company is sticking some low level toady muling 5 kilos of coke with a life sentence, while the guy who hired him walks with a few years for ratting on his boss under the mandatory minimum frame work we have now. We part company on "three strikes" laws that, as Crusader correctly noted, will send someone up for life for a petty crime without the jury being informed of the consequence of their conviction. I'm fine with sending scumbags away for all day. Where I have issues is when the little people become collateral damage in someone's re-election campaign. The solution is to choose better judges, just as the solution to our larger problems is to elect better leaders. Ultimately, its on us. Shortcuts will always bite you on the ass.
FQ13