The Poverty and Social Justice Thread

[A.]

I'm curious as to what would be in such a thread...regulation of anal beads?

[A.]

In an attempt to relieve overcrowding, California is now exporting some of its 170,000 inmates to privately run corrections facilities as far away as Tennessee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103458.html?hpid=topnews

Interesting.  Does the existence of this prisoner export business make a state more or less likely to get rid of stupid laws?  I'm thinking less.  That said, perhaps from a humanitarian perspective, it's better to export them than to put them in crowded jail cells...

[TruOne]

Does the existence of this prisoner export business make a state more or less likely to get rid of stupid laws?  I'm thinking less.  That said, perhaps from a humanitarian perspective, it's better to export them than to put them in crowded jail cells...

From an economic standpoint this is a boon for Tenn. The influx of those prisoners is going to require more prision guards to take care of them, in addition to more funding to house those criminals. Not to mention that those 170k prisoners are not considered "residents" of Tennessee for consensus purposes, yet they won't be able to vote for any decisions.

For Tenn: More jobs, more money
For Cali: More space and less over-head.

Everybody wins! well . . .except for the prisoners who are on the other side of the country away from their friends and loved ones.

[A.]

Nice:


Court gives detainees habeas rights
Thursday, June 12th, 2008 10:08 am | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post

Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights.  If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.

The Court stressed that it was not ruling that the detainees are entitled to be released — that is, entitled to have writs issued to end their confinement. That issue, it said, is left to the District Court judges who will be hearing the challenges. The Court also said that “we do not address whether the President has authority to detain” the individuals at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba; that, too, it said, is to be considered by the District judges.

In a second ruling on habeas, the Court decided unanimously that U.S. citizens held by U.S. military forces in Irqn have a right to file habeas cases, but that federal judges do not have any authority to bar the transfer of those individuals to Iraqi authorites to face prosecution or punishment for crimes committed in that country in violation of Iraqi laws.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-gives-detainees-habeas-rights/

[pikey]

Nice:


Court gives detainees habeas rights

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-gives-detainees-habeas-rights/

Awesome!  My conlaw prof was big on war powers stuff, so we read and were tested on all of the major cases (Hamdi, Hamdan, etc.  (Unlike everyone else, who didn't read any of that). 

[A.]

Oh, trust that we did too...our profs can't get enough of it.

[pikey]

That was my least favorite part of the class.  Since it was fairly recent, there was very little guidance in terms of supplements, old class notes, etc.  Even my beloved Chemerinsky barely addressed it.

[A.]

Lol Chemerinsky...I just finished day 1 of 2 of his BarBri con law lecture.  He's kinda boring and corny, but thorough.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

Nice:


Court gives detainees habeas rights
Thursday, June 12th, 2008 10:08 am | Lyle Denniston | Print This Post

Email this • Share on Facebook • Digg This!

In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights.  If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the Constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion.

The Court stressed that it was not ruling that the detainees are entitled to be released — that is, entitled to have writs issued to end their confinement. That issue, it said, is left to the District Court judges who will be hearing the challenges. The Court also said that “we do not address whether the President has authority to detain” the individuals at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba; that, too, it said, is to be considered by the District judges.

In a second ruling on habeas, the Court decided unanimously that U.S. citizens held by U.S. military forces in Irqn have a right to file habeas cases, but that federal judges do not have any authority to bar the transfer of those individuals to Iraqi authorites to face prosecution or punishment for crimes committed in that country in violation of Iraqi laws.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-gives-detainees-habeas-rights/

I was just about to post this but you beat me to it.  Good stuff.

My favorite quote by Kennedy "To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say ‘what the law is.’"

GET 'EM!!!

[Miss P]

In an attempt to relieve overcrowding, California is now exporting some of its 170,000 inmates to privately run corrections facilities as far away as Tennessee.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103458.html?hpid=topnews

Interesting.  Does the existence of this prisoner export business make a state more or less likely to get rid of stupid laws?  I'm thinking less.  That said, perhaps from a humanitarian perspective, it's better to export them than to put them in crowded jail cells...

I think less too.

And I'm not sure about whether the exporting of prisoners is humanitarian on balance.  As TruOne pointed out, it means the state has lower representation for census/congressional purposes and also takes prisoners away from their loved ones.  It also really burdens appellate defenders and post-conviction lawyers.  If California wants to put so many people in prison, it should have to build more detention facilities or release more people on parole.