NBC Skips Supreme Court Ruling Freeing Thousands of Criminals and Scalia's Warning of 'Terrible Things'
NBC's Nightly News on Monday and the Today show on Tuesday ignored a controversial, ideologically divided Supreme Court ruling that ordered California to release at least 38,000 prisoners. ABC, over two days, allowed a scant 11 seconds. Only CBS provided a full report.
In a blistering dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that "terrible things are sure to happen" if the action is implemented as a result of overcrowding. On the CBS Evening News, Jan Crawford provided the sole full report, observing the controversial nature of the 5-4 split.
She described, "Now, this case produced an extraordinarily heated debate between the conservatives and liberal justices." Crawford highlighted a separate dissent by Sam Alito. He worried that the majority was "gambling with the safety of the people of California." She repeated Alito's foreboding statement: "I fear that today's decision, like prior prisoner release orders, will lead to a grim roster of victims."
ABC ignored the story on World News. On Good Morning America, guest news anchor Bianna Golodryga dispensed with the subject in 11 seconds: "Well, the Supreme Court has ordered California to reduce its prison population by more than 30,000 inmates because of overcrowding. Justices ruled conditions inside the state's prisons amount to cruel and unusual punishment. "
Given such little coverage, it's unsurprising that the cause of the overcrowding also was ignored. An editorial in the Orange County Register on Tuesday pointed out that California spends $47,000 per inmate:
Partly, the problem stems from meeting pay and benefit demands of the powerful California Correctional Peace Officers Association. Consequently, the cost of keeping prisoners behind bars has soared. California spends $47,000 a year per inmate, compared with $18,000 per inmate in Texas, a direct result of paying California prison guards $71,000 a year, before overtime, compared with $31,000 for Texas guards. A prisoner in California is more costly to taxpayers than a student at California's public universities.
Partly, California's prison crunch results from thousands imprisoned for drug-related offenses, although Proposition 36 in 2000 mitigated that burden somewhat by providing alternative community treatment and supervision for first- and second-time defendants convicted of nonviolent drug possession.
Another contributing factor is the disproportionately large prison population of illegal immigrants, partly the result of ineffectual border control and the lure of the welfare state, where the "free" benefits of health care, education, welfare, food and housing assistance are available for the asking.
Considering the severity of the conservative justices' warnings, one would think that the networks would have some interest.
A transcript of the May 23 Evening News segment can be found below:
6:45 EDT
RUSS MITCHELL: A U.S. Supreme Court decision today could unlock prison doors for tens of thousands of criminals in California. The Supreme Court ruled that crowded conditions like these bunk beds and poor medical care violate inmates' rights. Chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford joins us now from Washington with more. Jan, good evening.
JAN CRAWFORD: Good evening, Russ. I mean, this case deeply divided the justice along ideological lines. It was a 5-4 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy who joined the court's four liberals in saying the drastic remedy was necessary because the overcrowding was causing needless suffering and death. Kennedy wrote "a prison that deprives prisoners of basic sustenance including adequate medical care has no place in civilized society." Now, this case produced an extraordinarily heated debate between the conservatives and liberal justices. In dissent Justice Samuel Alito said the court was, quote, "gambling with the safety of the people of California." He added, "I fear that today's decision, like prior prisoner release orders, will lead to a grim roster of victims." Now justice Alito referenced a smaller release in Philadelphia back in the 1990s that resulted in thousands of re-arrests and almost 10,000 new crimes. But Justice Kennedy downplayed that threat to the public, he said that was overblown. He suggested that the state of California could take up to five years to cut the prison population and could also decide, you know, which inmates they were going to let go. But Kennedy acknowledged that even doing those things still would mean an unprecedented release of prisoners. Russ?
MITCHELL: You mentioned five years, Jan. Give me a timetable. How soon could these prisoners actually be on the street?
CRAWFORD: The court said if they can go back to the lower court and say, "look, we need five years." So this does not mean prisoners will be out on the street tomorrow. They may have some extra time to work something out.
- Scott Whitlock's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
What's truly curious is how
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:52pm.
What's truly curious is how the federal government claims an authority to do this. This is not a matter for the federal courts.
What About ObamaCare?
Submitted by Blue Collar Todd on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:55pm.
Now that the Supreme Court values the lives of criminals so much by wanting to make sure they get good health care, will they find ObamaCare unconstitutional now?
http://www.bluecollarphilosophy.com/2011/05/supreme-court-should-find-ob...
Will the lives of law abiding citizens be as valuable as criminals?
Quandry
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 12:58pm.
While I don't want the harm Alito fears (which I agree with) to befall innocent Kalifornians, I do, in a way, hope he's justified. What will it take for the citizens of these liberal strongholds throughout the country to realize that their policies and overall philoshphy just doesn't work? And the citizens are the ones paying the price - from their paychecks, their freedoms, and even their safety and very lives. Yet they still elect the same morons into office, and still make excuses for the liberal failures. If nothing else, this absolutely confirms that liberalism is indeed a mental illness. We just need to come up with a treatment. Maybe a 200% rise in crime and a 90% tax rate will be a start for them...
90% Non-progressive Tax Rate Gives A Hint To The Clueless
Submitted by Avitar on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:03pm.
The clueless Californians aren't cute but dangerous stupid animals. This is almost the exact opposite of Americans in mush of the country. I do not think that Governor Moonbeam is going to buy a clue any time soon so we are about to have a wreck site on out west coast. Indiana wrecked in the 1850's when they used bond money to build canals just as .trains came in. This can be our template:
Well Scott - the MSM skipped the other pertinent info here also
Submitted by Gary Hall on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:16pm.
Well Scott - the MSM skipped the other pertinent info here also.
Take this little tid-bit, from the SacBee on April 21, 2011:
I might note that the Los Angeles Times has not reported those striking findings. According the LA Times today:
Goodness - now that is shocking (surely headline material); CA has 142,000 inmates (state and local/county jails), and 102,795 of them are criminal illegal aliens. Almost 3/4's of them are illegals, and, our news media (inc, the Los Angeles Times) does not wish to inform their audience - the taxpayers/voters - of this? Surprise.
The source, for the SacBee report, was a just released Government Accounting Office audit, which had been " requested by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose," one of the very progressive liberals. She's been utilizing the information, hand in hand with her friends at the Los Angeles Times (front page news features and the Editorial Board), in a monolith effort to smear and attack a federal program launched in 2008, called Secure Communities, with the stated goal of identifying and deporting more illegal immigrants "convicted of serious crimes."
Note: There's a little difference in the reporting (perhaps the sources) of the cost. The SacBee reported that the average annual cost for each incarcerated criminal here in CA is $34,000 compared to $12,000 in TX.
The math: $34,000 X's 102,795 ='s $3.5 billion annually. Not exactly pocket change.
Also in the news today, in the Los Angeles Times on the SC ruling:
Imagine - It costs 3 times as much to house a criminal in the correctional facilities in CA, as it does in TX, but a Texas Prison authority finds the conditions at the CA Hiltonp prisons to be "appalling" and "inhumane."
Ah, the definition of how inept liberalism is at functioning in the real world.
(:~/ gary
Americans are
Submitted by IRQ Conflict on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:21pm.
Insane.
Americans prosecuted these
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:32pm.
Americans prosecuted these people and locked them up to begin with.
What's your point? or should
Submitted by ant on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 3:49am.
What's your point? or should I even ask?
IRQ tried to take the
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 4:05pm.
IRQ tried to take the decision of a few Americans and paint all Americans as insane, ignoring that other Americans investigated, captured, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated the criminals to begin with. I guarantee you the latter Americans far outweigh the former.
Scalia for President
Submitted by Avitar on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:08pm.
Just kidding sort of.
We currently have four outstanding brilliant men on the Supreme Court and four dangerous idiots. My father was an executive with an insurance company for decades and I got to see their internal proprietary reports on the costs of Crime. It may cost $41,000 a year each to keep the criminals looked up but twenty years ago the internal accounting showed each criminal on the street doing just short of $200,000 damage each year. The cost must be over $200,000 by now. Those 38,000 prisoners are likely to cost California $ 7,600,000,000 dollars in the next year.
When a Criminal breaks into a building he does damage to the building as well as what he steals and usually this costs several times more than the theft. Then there are the losses when a criminal shoots somebody. The worse cost however may just be the loss of habitability of society to the low level crime. I really don't like Mayor Giuliani for a variety of reasons but he proved beyond question that if you take the small time crooks off the streets for little crimes the big time crime falls as well.
Our liberal Supreme Court Justices are conducting a social experiment; Big time crime falls when you prosecute little crimes, will injecting nearly 38,000 small time criminals into society boost big time crime? Aren't the justices because of the form of their ruling engaging in cruel and unusual punishment of the innocent? Shouldn't we impeach these wing nuts?
Utah is ready to ship to California.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 1:57pm.
To bad all the cash has been blown on Entitlements, protecting fish, banning drilling, and 50 dollar light bulbs.
A slow train ain't coming.
Of course some fencing N' tents, could warehouse 'em..
The Tents Jail was begun in 1993 when Sheriff Joe Arpaio was able to obtain some surplus military tents. These tents were set up in an area adjacent to one of the existing Maricopa County Jails in Phoenix, Arizona. Sheriff Arpaio had previously decided that he would not release any inmates due to jail overcrowding, and housing sentenced inmates in the tents seemed a good solution. Funding for the project was minimal, and included the cost for cement necessary for base pads, secure fencing, and electric costs for heating, cooling and lights.
You Didn't Build That.
Let me get this straight...
Submitted by pepperoniprince on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:04pm.
...They have X number of ILLEGALS in custody, in a jail, and they will...what...turn them loose? Can you say "deportation", Dr. Obvious? As for the rest, let them be state employees and finish out their cruel sentences cleaning the highways and maintaining the sewers of LA- that should keep them busy. No love here for these loose nut judges.
Nice to know
Submitted by 10ksnooker on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:25pm.
The American people were taken into consideration ... I am sure it's a civil rights for criminals issue, none for you.
Thank the SC for the next car jacking robbery or murder.
Nice to know -- ex-criminals can vote in CA.
the upside
Submitted by Rackie on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:30pm.
a big demand for guns
Sounds good to me!
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 2:35pm.
Turn em loose, Bruce! What are they going to do now-work for the Black Panthers, I mean one of O'Bozos "czarist-run committees?
This is not just a Black and White decision
Submitted by gopcongress on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 3:18pm.
Unfortunately, the fact that the suit made it this far underscores the serious problems that the criminal justice system AS A WHOLE is handled by BOTH republicans and democrats. For instance, we focus more on creating longer sentences without taking into account the COSTS of such sentencing. (Sentencing includes both incarceration costs and probation costs).
The fact that it came to a split decision between conservatives and socialists screams that we need to reform the criminal justice system in a way that is not "business as usual." The biggest change is to transform the entire correctional system cycle, from the time the crime is committed, until the time the offender is A) Put to death, B)Sentenced to life without the possibility release, C) Sentenced to incarceration and lifetime parole, or C) COMPLETELY reintegrated with society. Please understand that there is no choice E, F, or higher: Only one of the four choices above can be done.
For practical purposes, A) (Capital punishment) is a separate issue as it pertains to very few people now. Therefore, B and C should be looked at.
B)-Life without the possibility of release: If a criminal commits an act when he's 20 that requires lifetime sentencing, that means that we have to provide him with basic medical care, food, protection, access to legal services, and other assorted sundries for at least 50 years. Medical care triples after 50, quintuples after 60, quadruples after 70 per annum. This is the COSTLIEST choice, and should only be accorded to murderers and second-strike sex offenders, in my opinion.
C)-Incarceration plus lifetime parole: I believe this option should be phazed out completely. The problem with constantly maintaining vigilance over individuals in the community without an effective "reintegration" plan is paradoxical. We cannot have it both ways.
D-COMPLETELY reintegrated into society: In my opinion, this is the choice in we must fucus our resources. At some point, an offender will most likely get out of prison; therefore, it is incumbant to ensure the offender does not reoffend. This process must be done a WHOLE lot more differently than now. Keep in mind that parole is part of the correctional process, and should be accorded the same level of controlled release as if he were behind bars. Too often, parolees commit violations that return them to prison, and we have not changed the paradigm to prevent such occurrences. The most important function we can perform in this process is to design a "reintegration" plan as opposed to a "parole" or "probation" plan. This is far cheaper than incarceration, and ultimately creates better stability for the communty..
Reintegration starts while the offender is in prison. Instead of granting parole, where the offender is released on a moment's notice, a reintegration process actually starts about 6 months prior to release from prison. A "sponsor" is assigned to the offender, a stable home and job environment is waiting for him, as well as a complete litany of probationary restrictions tailored for the offender. This process if JUST AS IMPORTANT as the incarceration process, because this is where values and a routine will be pragmatically instilled into the offender.
Now, reintegration is not "just like parole." With parole, a convict is sentenced to x many years. He usually serves, say, half his sentence, and his other half he will spend in the community on parole. But the parole itself is not determined in advance.
With reintegration, a judge would sentence an offender to x years hard time, PLUS y years reintegration (usually 2 years, though a year could be done for some offenders). In other words, the incarceration period would be iron-clad. In addition, if during reintegration he breaks the rules, then the reintegration period could be constitutionally extended. NOTE: If he commits a crime during reintegration such as drug usage, that is NOT a violation; that is a NEW CRIME that involves a WHOLE NEW OFFENSE.
Of course, the ultimate arbiter of release must be a combination of public safety and victim advocates. The presence of gangs or willful unlawful behavior plays a huge part as well.
Anyway, as much as the decision by SCOTUS has sharply drawn the line, consider the GREATER fact that the correctional system AS A WHOLE is currently decimated, and needs radical changes that this case simply does not recognize.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
more gov't control
Submitted by jessieH on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 3:23pm.
another "over the line" move by the fed. They care nothing for the soverenty of each State.
ha!
Submitted by Rackie on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 3:42pm.
Oh come on Jessie, grow up - "State soverenty" is so 20th century......;>/
And you
Submitted by IRQ Conflict on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 10:36am.
care not for spell check. :P
Obama lauds califorinia voter
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 3:52pm.
Obama lauds califorinia voter registration drive; 30k new democrats registered.
California Voter Drive
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:42pm.
30K new democrats, I wonder how many are alive, and how many have the same handwriting.
If Obama said the grass was green I'd look up to see what he didn't want me to see while he was talking about the grass.
I take it
Submitted by GW on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:51pm.
LAM was tying in the release of 30K convicts with 30K newly registered Democrat voters.
Ooops
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:01pm.
Just read the post, not the whole thread.
I hope the 38,000 stay in California.
Submitted by virginia republican on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 4:51pm.
Let Moonbeam deal with them.
It is sadly obvious what is
Submitted by dscott on Tue, 05/24/2011 - 5:10pm.
It is sadly obvious what is going to happen here, the illegals who already have an issue with obeying the Laws in the first place now have the confirmation that due to their status they have ZERO need to be concerned about breaking any Laws. So as the crime rates in CA skyrocket from repeat offenders, the public furor will ramp up and more people will move out of the State.
Unfortunately, there will be some galvanizing event that will get the pols to change their minds, how horrific it has to be is anyone's guess given that the pols to date are clueless to the consequences of their failed policy of making CA a sanctuary State. I strongly suspect when the governor at some point has to call out the National Guard to quell the rampant violence at that point the wheels will begin to turn that inviting illegals to come and stay is not such a good idea.
It reminds me of San Francisco and their policy with the homeless, they invited them and they stayed to the point they were sleeping en mass in front of city hall. Once the pols had to live (personally experience) with the consequences of their policy, they promptly changed it and disinvited them. So too, will it be with the illegal aliens. When the pols have to personally experience the consequences of their failed policy, it will be changed. The rules are for thee and not for me (until it is inconvenient.) There's Hope and Change for you.
What's a Sentence amongst friends.
Submitted by Less1leg on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:40am.
Its really hard to tell a young person about the "rule of law", and our legal system when our elected members of government throw out the meaning of crime and punishment. Our legal system was made up on one branch to act on the rules of law that separate an unruley society from a healthy well adjusted one. When there is no fear of the penalty to do crime, society will faulter because those that wish to inflict great harm will do so knowing there isn't a price to be paid for inflicting pain and suffering on those victims they inflict their will over.
Our liberalized side of society has no respect for the society they wish to represent when they open the doors of prison and let the inmates out. Our legal branch selected a group of people to represent us, society, and we sat in a court room listening to the evidence presented. From the presentation of evidence a verdict was given. It was from the people, not the State Representative, from the people a verdict of guilty or innocent. In the US constitution it is written right in the Preambles, WE THE PEOPLE. not we the Annointed.
There is no reason why the federal representatives should have any right to open the doors on the convicted. They must serve their term of verdict. No way should a Representative have the right to cut the criminals sentences.
In defense of NBC and ABC...
Submitted by Icarus on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:28pm.
...a lot of important news over the past couple of days.
~Yeah
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 05/25/2011 - 2:44pm.
Like what Michelle Obama was wearing in England. Oh, and these "hot topics"..
Hot Topics:
* Casey Anthony
* •
* Oprah
* •
* 'Dancing With the Stars'