Welcome to the Prison Talk Online Community! Take a Minute and Sign Up Today!






Go Back   Prison Talk > U.S. REGIONAL FORUMS > CALIFORNIA > California Prison News & Events
Register Entertainment FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

Notices

California Prison News & Events Do you have news relating to California's Prison System and related efforts? Post them here!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-18-2013, 10:15 AM
marie8899 marie8899 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: California, U.S.A.
Posts: 664
Thanks: 1,989
Thanked 694 Times in 311 Posts
Default CA prisoners who are out of state

Can someone "translate" this paragraph from the 3-Panel Judges' Order re: out-of-state prisoners?

"If defendants wish to include in the Plan a measure relating to slowingor eliminating the return of inmates being housed in out-of-state prisons, they shall include
an estimate regarding the extent to which this measure would assist defendants in reducing
the prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31, 2013. They shall also
explain the effect on durability of failing to return the number of prisoners anticipated to be
returned in the Blueprint during the current year, and in particular whether those prisoners
and other out-of-state prisoners will be added to the prison population in future years."

Is this a way of trying to preempt a "trick" by Brown to not count prisoners who are out of state? Or are they offering defendants an opportunity to slow down the return of these prisoners?

I was trying to explain this to my son last night and realized I don't exactly get it myself.

Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to marie8899 For This Useful Post:
fanciface (04-20-2013)
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 04-18-2013, 11:13 AM
Sheryl P.'s Avatar
Sheryl P. Sheryl P. is offline
Registered User
Donation Award 
 

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: california
Posts: 4,813
Thanks: 2,559
Thanked 3,598 Times in 1,995 Posts
Default

Sounds like they want to know how Brown intends to work those prisoners into the numbers.Are they coming back and if so,when and how many.That way they can't be excluded from the state count via a slight of hand "Brown" trick.
Good for them!
__________________
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sheryl P. For This Useful Post:
fanciface (04-20-2013), marie8899 (04-18-2013)
  #3  
Old 04-18-2013, 12:04 PM
krc1abc1 krc1abc1 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2012
Location: California USA
Posts: 1,171
Thanks: 168
Thanked 1,755 Times in 657 Posts
Default

I think they are trying to tell Brown that what is going to solve this problem is releasing inmates. That out of state is only a means by which not to add people into the count. In other words don't count on this method to reduce the numbers. It is only a temporary measure
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to krc1abc1 For This Useful Post:
marie8899 (04-18-2013)
  #4  
Old 04-18-2013, 12:18 PM
4ever love's Avatar
4ever love 4ever love is offline
Gone fish'n...NMFA
 

Join Date: May 2012
Location: California
Posts: 1,410
Thanks: 586
Thanked 1,970 Times in 832 Posts
Default

If in the Plan due 5/2/13 the defendants wish (may) decide to slow the return of out of state prisoners, they shall (must) include in the Plan a reason how in doing this it would help defendants get the population down to 137.5% by deadline. They shall (must) explain what durable effects this could have on the Blueprint Plan during this year. In particular (specifically) is CDCR going to count those prisoners due back into the population in future years. (Remember there is a 2016 deadline to return all out of state prisoners)

Out of state prisoners are not counted in the Three Court Judge Order for Plata vs. Gov. Brown (See CDCR website, Three Judge Court updates). Neither are the fire campers or in state private prisoners. But there is an Order, separate case, that required CDCR (See BluePrint) to return out of staters by 2016. So in this Order, the Judges want to know specifically in writing what their plan is. Sounds like yes they may offer the defendants the opportunity to slow down the return of out of state prisoners this year, to accommodate the Dec 2013 deadline; yet return to bringing them back by the 2016 deadline and counting them in the future. That's what the Judge's need to know in writing to set an Order.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to 4ever love For This Useful Post:
fanciface (04-20-2013), marie8899 (04-18-2013), mikeq (04-18-2013)
  #5  
Old 04-18-2013, 10:34 PM
bell-rah bell-rah is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ca
Posts: 228
Thanks: 16
Thanked 415 Times in 148 Posts
Default

I thought the state's "blueprint" plan had them returning back by 2016 but I thought there was a judge order stating they had to be back by the end of 2013 when they gave the extension? to paraphrase I thought the court said yeah you can have till the end of the year to meet the 137.5 % BUT because you complained so much about the cost of out of state you ALSO have till the end of 2013 to bring out of state home... I go back and see if I can find it..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bell-rah For This Useful Post:
fanciface (04-20-2013), marie8899 (04-18-2013)
  #6  
Old 04-19-2013, 02:57 AM
JCsLove1's Avatar
JCsLove1 JCsLove1 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2011
Location: SoCali
Posts: 413
Thanks: 56
Thanked 233 Times in 115 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krc1abc1
In other words don't count on this method to reduce the numbers. It is only a temporary measure
I'm in agreement with your translation. It's like the panel is saying 'don't think we don't know that you have 9000+ California inmates housed out of state'. CDCR has to figure them into the #'s because ultimately they will come back & increase the prison population in state. Besides Cali is in no financial position to be paying $300 million+ a year to line the pockets of private investors by housing inmates. That's about $33,000 per year per inmate. I'm surprised more people aren't pissed about that!
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JCsLove1 For This Useful Post:
fanciface (04-20-2013), SecondDayLeo (05-13-2013)
  #7  
Old 04-19-2013, 04:05 AM
krc1abc1 krc1abc1 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2012
Location: California USA
Posts: 1,171
Thanks: 168
Thanked 1,755 Times in 657 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCsLove1 View Post
I'm in agreement with your translation. It's like the panel is saying 'don't think we don't know that you have 9000+ California inmates housed out of state'. CDCR has to figure them into the #'s because ultimately they will come back & increase the prison population in state. Besides Cali is in no financial position to be paying $300 million+ a year to line the pockets of private investors by housing inmates. That's about $33,000 per year per inmate. I'm surprised more people aren't pissed about that!
They try to keep it quiet. Much of this seems to be kept under wraps so the public just isn't aware. In the Sacramento area more press is given to the potential relocation of the Sacramento Kings. The public can't complain about what they do not know. I just don't think the public knows the price tag of all of this. I also find it interesting that the number of lifers that could be release is almost the same as the number that are stashed out of state. The solution to the problem is there. It is obvious the state just needs to take the appropriate action and get this done. If they just get busy the money they are spending could be put to much better use like education.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to krc1abc1 For This Useful Post:
fanciface (04-20-2013), SecondDayLeo (05-13-2013)
  #8  
Old 04-19-2013, 04:07 AM
bell-rah bell-rah is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ca
Posts: 228
Thanks: 16
Thanked 415 Times in 148 Posts
Default

Here this is court order where I thought I read that the out of state inmates had to be home by dec 2013 , because the state did not submit a plan but submitted a motion to vacate, that the original order to have the out of state home by 2013 is still in effect



Quote:
Additionally, in light of defendants’ stated preference to return nearly 5,000 prisoners from out-of-state facilities before December 27, 2013, the parties shall discuss how other alternatives would timely achieve the required population reduction while allowing the return of all, or a portion, of these inmates."
full copy of the order from 10/11/13
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/docs/Oct...ction-plan.pdf
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bell-rah For This Useful Post:
fanciface (04-20-2013), krc1abc1 (04-19-2013)
  #9  
Old 04-19-2013, 04:24 AM
krc1abc1 krc1abc1 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2012
Location: California USA
Posts: 1,171
Thanks: 168
Thanked 1,755 Times in 657 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bell-rah View Post
Here this is court order where I thought I read that the out of state inmates had to be home by dec 2013 , because the state did not submit a plan but submitted a motion to vacate, that the original order to have the out of state home by 2013 is still in effect





full copy of the order from 10/11/13
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/News/docs/Oct...ction-plan.pdf
It sounds to me like the State screwed themselves on this one. Not only do they have to reduce the population but they are going to have to factor in the return of out of state inmates while reducing the numbers. So they are in a bigger hole. I am beginning to think my husband may really come home after 35 long years of incarceration.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to krc1abc1 For This Useful Post:
fanciface (04-20-2013)
  #10  
Old 04-19-2013, 04:30 AM
krc1abc1 krc1abc1 is offline
Registered User
 

Join Date: May 2012
Location: California USA
Posts: 1,171
Thanks: 168
Thanked 1,755 Times in 657 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krc1abc1 View Post
It sounds to me like the State screwed themselves on this one. Not only do they have to reduce the population but they are going to have to factor in the return of out of state inmates while reducing the numbers. So they are in a bigger hole. I am beginning to think my husband may really come home after 35 long years of incarceration.
In addition the state failed to submit a plan or maybe they considered the motion to vacate as their plan. They apparently did meet with the Plaintiffs expert James Austen. The plaintiffs did submit a plan (or opinion as it is called by James Austen). He very clearly lines out who the state can safely release while bring home the out of state inmates and meet the required numbers. The three panel judges mention his suggestions in their 71 page ruling.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to krc1abc1 For This Useful Post:
fanciface (04-20-2013)
  #11  
Old 04-19-2013, 09:49 AM
4ever love's Avatar
4ever love 4ever love is offline
Gone fish'n...NMFA
 

Join Date: May 2012
Location: California
Posts: 1,410
Thanks: 586
Thanked 1,970 Times in 832 Posts
Default

Translation: In light of defendant's stated (written) preference (preferred choice/thought).....the parties shall (must) discuss alternatives that would acheive the "Ordered" results (137.5%) by December 2013 while allowing the return of all (2016 deadline different case), or a portion of inmates.

Yes the defendants were using their "blueprint" plans to whine that both could not be done. I personally don't think Defendants had anything concrete on returning those 5,000 by Dec. 2013. Well yes both can be done if they follow the Austin Expert Declaration. Defendants were trying to find a loophole and stall tactics. That's why the Judge worded the Order the way he did. Both can be done, even if the return of inmates is "slowed", but completed by deadline of 2016.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:02 PM.
Copyright © 2001- 2013 Prison Talk Online
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Website Design & Custom vBulletin Skins by: Relivo Media
Message Board Statistics