In a pretty heated 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has agreed to release thousands of prisoners, due to lack of medical care that amounted to an eighth amendment violation.
For a general background, and some context, check here.
Scratch that- THOUSANDS OF EIGHTH AMENDMENT VIOLATIONS.
I'll provide all the legal briefs at the end of the post, but please trust my representation- California State Prisons are severely lacking in providing health care to inmates who desperately need to be treated for a variety of ailments. It'll be supported by the attached references, but it's also something that I've witnessed firsthand by doing a few years' work of prison advocacy. I've dealt with clients who suffered infections that stemmed from a tooth ache that wasn't responded to for weeks, even after the appropriate medical request was sent in.
And, if you have an opportunity to read in to this further, I suggest you read the case that really served as the catalyst for the SCOTUS ruling: Plata v. Schwarzenegger. It makes the "Saw" horror movie franchise look like an episode of "Family Matters."
So, what did our highest court rule on. Here is the holding:
"1)The court below did not err in concluding that overcrowding in California prisons was the “primary” cause of the continuing violations of prisoners’ constitutional rights to adequate health care. 2) The evidence supported the conclusion of the three-judge panel that a population limit was necessary to remedy the overcrowding problem. 3) The relief ordered by the three-judge court – the population limit –was narrowly drawn, extended no further than necessary to correct the violation, and was the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation."
Source: SCOTUS blog
I haven't had an opportunity to read Scalia's dissent, but with my hand over my crystal ball, I envision that he finds this ruling to be an activist overreaching overstepping of the constitution.
I, however, see it differently. The violations outlined in Plata, supra, were so blatant that the prison health care system was placed in to federal receivership, which basically means that the feds assume control until the problem is solved. With the three judge panels' decision to release inmates affirmed by the Supremes, we effectuate the goal of not only providing better care to those incarcerated, but also relieving the tax payer of an insurmountable burden.
Allow me to address a couple of misguided arguments that I have heard all-too-often when discussing this issue:
1. Who cares what treatment we give these guys? They should be PUNISHED, not given medical care!
Yes, yes, inmates in the CDC with rare exception of a few are guilty of crimes. Hell, some of them are pretty ugly crimes. And yes, within our own Penal Code, it's very clear that the purpose of incarceration is to "punish." But here's the key: even if you had no desire of even trying to rehabilitate inmates that might be amenable to such treatment, the United States Constitution kinda provides a floor for heinous treatment. I don't really want to get in to the gruesome details of prison health care, so if you're hesitant, go ahead and reread Plata.
2. Release thousands of inmates?! But they'll move next door, drive down property values, rape and pillage, and spit in my combo burrito at Taco Bell!
People are naturally reticent to 35,000 prisoners being released back to society. However, as the SCOTUS noted, their decision to release was "narrowly tailored" to the constitutional harm, and I guarantee you all that all inmates released will be nonviolent offenders. How can I assure that? BECAUSE CALIFORNIA HAS A NASTY TENDENCY TO INCARCERATE THOUSANDS OF NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS, OFTEN DUE TO SUBSTANCE ABUSE ISSUES! By jettisoning these folks, it serves two ends, hopefully. Again, it will provide an opportunity for the CDC to comply with the fucking eighth amendment. Also, it may alleviate some of the taxes that it costs to keep a person in prison. Trust me, in most cases, especially those involving chronic medical problems, it's cheaper to send your kid to Stanford.
There's a lot more to be discussed on this matter, and as it unfolds, I'll do my best to opine. Suffice it to say, though, I am happy with the Court, and most notably the moderate swing vote Kennedy.
Sources:
SCOTUS BLOG
CDC(R)
A Cat Massaging A Dog
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
$hortcomings...
I'd like to think of myself as a relatively intelligent guy- I have a professional degree, I know how many chromosome pairs the normal human should be, and hell, I'm responsible for calculating the tab when I eat with coworkers (ok, this last one is b/c we're all unbelievably math-averse, with me being the one willing to enter digits in to a calculator.)
So it comes as no surprise that when that bravado is challenged, I naturally get defensive. So, generally, I try to be as honest with myself about all my shortcomings.
The one that I have a hard time owning up to, however? PERSONAL FINANCES.
I know it's lame, but I have all these romanticized notions of my maternal grandfather, who, as the accumulated stories would indicate, was reckless with money. As in would just spend on whatever. I think I try to emulate that sometimes, either subconsciously or otherwise, without realizing the following:
1. My saint of a grandmother was likely pulling her hair out and making sure that bills were paid and my mother and her siblings were clothed and fed.
2. He made considerably more than I do.
I also think that I grew up in an era where it was easy to leverage things like equity in your home and accumulate a lot of debt. I'm certainly not saying that this justifies or excuses my behavior, I'm just trying to pinpoint where my lack of financial acumen originates.
And with the help from people that are much more savvy with their finances, including someone who was able to buy a house in her twenties and still do awesome things, I've decided that for my future sanity I need to be more proactive.
Which leads me to my plug for the day:
Mint.com
Mint.com is a website that takes your financial information, including how and where you spend your money, and does it's best to budget for you, and make recommendations, including recommendations based on goals. It's totally free, and totally helpful for those that get weighed down in the details.
I've just started, and with the full knowledge that an "app" won't solve all my financial debts, I am excited to start to be better about moola, so that maybe someday I can appear to be reckless with money, and still have a comfortable amount stored away.
So it comes as no surprise that when that bravado is challenged, I naturally get defensive. So, generally, I try to be as honest with myself about all my shortcomings.
The one that I have a hard time owning up to, however? PERSONAL FINANCES.
I know it's lame, but I have all these romanticized notions of my maternal grandfather, who, as the accumulated stories would indicate, was reckless with money. As in would just spend on whatever. I think I try to emulate that sometimes, either subconsciously or otherwise, without realizing the following:
1. My saint of a grandmother was likely pulling her hair out and making sure that bills were paid and my mother and her siblings were clothed and fed.
2. He made considerably more than I do.
I also think that I grew up in an era where it was easy to leverage things like equity in your home and accumulate a lot of debt. I'm certainly not saying that this justifies or excuses my behavior, I'm just trying to pinpoint where my lack of financial acumen originates.
And with the help from people that are much more savvy with their finances, including someone who was able to buy a house in her twenties and still do awesome things, I've decided that for my future sanity I need to be more proactive.
Which leads me to my plug for the day:
Mint.com
Mint.com is a website that takes your financial information, including how and where you spend your money, and does it's best to budget for you, and make recommendations, including recommendations based on goals. It's totally free, and totally helpful for those that get weighed down in the details.
I've just started, and with the full knowledge that an "app" won't solve all my financial debts, I am excited to start to be better about moola, so that maybe someday I can appear to be reckless with money, and still have a comfortable amount stored away.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
The Gods Must Be Crazy
First, allow me to apologize for the debacle below. I don't know what happened to the format of the blog below, and I apologize for the ridiculousness.
I've been thinking a lot lately about random topics to rant about- celebrities, people that piss me off, things that I've been enjoying (as in my new and awesome iPad), beers I've been drinking, etc., et. al.
But then I was walking back the block from court to my office and I couldn't help but notice about 7 homeless folks with clear-cut Axis I disorders that should not be on the streets to fend for themselves.
And of these 6 or 7 folks, I personally have represented 4 of them in criminal matters. Matters which they were arrested for being homeless. And no, I'm not being a bleeding heart or activist for saying this; they were literally just out, and were homeless.
Ever since my second year of law school I have been fascinated with the cross section of jurisprudence and psychological issues. Not guilty by reason of insanity, competency to stand trial, factors in mitigation in sentencing- they were all theoretical and philosophical issues that were fun to play around with.
But now, slightly jaded by a year of this work, I am of the opinion that criminal courts, at least in counties with no resources for the mentally ill, do absolutely nothing to help those in need. To a large extent, it's not their fault; there are simply no resources for the court to utilize in order to assist a criminal defendant with mental health issues.
But here's where things get convoluted. Courts will routinely order someone to go, on their own, and make and keep an appointment with county Mental Health to address their behavior. Which, when you really think, is unbelievably short-sighted. Assuming the defendant does have significant mental health issues, it's not paternalistic to assume that they simply do not have the resources to maintain appointments. And they don't. And then, when they don't show up to court, they are faced with further consequences that only serve as a drain on the court system. Probation violations are filed, bench warrants issued, which is frankly a bazooka firing at an ant hill. What's more ridiculous, is county mental health, like some other behavioral programs here in this county, are self reporting. So, if a crazy person goes there, and as is routinely the case, feels that they are perfectly sane, they are taken at their word. Viewing it cynically (which is nearly impossible to do otherwise), it's a cost-saving tactic to prevent providing services for those who may actually benefit.
I wish I had an answer that incorporated getting help to those who needed it, and ensured that they were able to easily access those services. Other, more affluent, counties do have mental health courts, which if appropriately staffed with personnel and the right mindset, can have a profound impact. But I suppose it all depends on the almighty dollar. Hopefully, money will begin to trickle again, even in the more rural counties, and people can get the help they deserve.
I've been thinking a lot lately about random topics to rant about- celebrities, people that piss me off, things that I've been enjoying (as in my new and awesome iPad), beers I've been drinking, etc., et. al.
But then I was walking back the block from court to my office and I couldn't help but notice about 7 homeless folks with clear-cut Axis I disorders that should not be on the streets to fend for themselves.
And of these 6 or 7 folks, I personally have represented 4 of them in criminal matters. Matters which they were arrested for being homeless. And no, I'm not being a bleeding heart or activist for saying this; they were literally just out, and were homeless.
Ever since my second year of law school I have been fascinated with the cross section of jurisprudence and psychological issues. Not guilty by reason of insanity, competency to stand trial, factors in mitigation in sentencing- they were all theoretical and philosophical issues that were fun to play around with.
But now, slightly jaded by a year of this work, I am of the opinion that criminal courts, at least in counties with no resources for the mentally ill, do absolutely nothing to help those in need. To a large extent, it's not their fault; there are simply no resources for the court to utilize in order to assist a criminal defendant with mental health issues.
But here's where things get convoluted. Courts will routinely order someone to go, on their own, and make and keep an appointment with county Mental Health to address their behavior. Which, when you really think, is unbelievably short-sighted. Assuming the defendant does have significant mental health issues, it's not paternalistic to assume that they simply do not have the resources to maintain appointments. And they don't. And then, when they don't show up to court, they are faced with further consequences that only serve as a drain on the court system. Probation violations are filed, bench warrants issued, which is frankly a bazooka firing at an ant hill. What's more ridiculous, is county mental health, like some other behavioral programs here in this county, are self reporting. So, if a crazy person goes there, and as is routinely the case, feels that they are perfectly sane, they are taken at their word. Viewing it cynically (which is nearly impossible to do otherwise), it's a cost-saving tactic to prevent providing services for those who may actually benefit.
I wish I had an answer that incorporated getting help to those who needed it, and ensured that they were able to easily access those services. Other, more affluent, counties do have mental health courts, which if appropriately staffed with personnel and the right mindset, can have a profound impact. But I suppose it all depends on the almighty dollar. Hopefully, money will begin to trickle again, even in the more rural counties, and people can get the help they deserve.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Gender Normalities are Mere Formalities
Hey that rhymed!
So, with coffee and new toy in hand, I began to scan the morning headlines today, looking for nothing too deep that would make me think.
Of course, fox news is a constant source of inspiration in ridiculousness, so it is not uncommon for me to meander throughout their "journalistic integrity."
Today, I found this:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/04/11/j-crew-plants-seeds-gender-identity/
So, long story short: J Crew designer is in her magazine painting her son's toes pink. PINK. PINK.
Which spurns fox news' resident "psychiatrist" to go off on what gender norms are and how fucking important they are.
They are?
Wait, are you telling me if you little boys don't wear cowboy outfits and play with guns, they may be weird?
First of all, how weird? Are we talking John Wayne Gaycie weird? Or John Waters weird? Because if it's the latter, I'll paint my hypo-kid's toes pink and put him in a sequence gown.
The article irks me for a couple of reasons. First of all, all boys kinda act a little stereotypically gay to begin with. Don't believe me? Is that offensive? I'll put my money where my 7-year-old mouth is (gross):
Pretty clear that gender norms were loosely affixed to young Patrick. And while yes, I do presently harbor a STRONG desire to become a Nikki Minaj impersonator, I also think I'm more or less normal.
Moral of the story: Fox News, stfu- let parents parent. If you're not hurting you child, and your child is happy, who the fuck are you to judge.
So, with coffee and new toy in hand, I began to scan the morning headlines today, looking for nothing too deep that would make me think.
Of course, fox news is a constant source of inspiration in ridiculousness, so it is not uncommon for me to meander throughout their "journalistic integrity."
Today, I found this:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/04/11/j-crew-plants-seeds-gender-identity/
So, long story short: J Crew designer is in her magazine painting her son's toes pink. PINK. PINK.
Which spurns fox news' resident "psychiatrist" to go off on what gender norms are and how fucking important they are.
They are?
Wait, are you telling me if you little boys don't wear cowboy outfits and play with guns, they may be weird?
First of all, how weird? Are we talking John Wayne Gaycie weird? Or John Waters weird? Because if it's the latter, I'll paint my hypo-kid's toes pink and put him in a sequence gown.
The article irks me for a couple of reasons. First of all, all boys kinda act a little stereotypically gay to begin with. Don't believe me? Is that offensive? I'll put my money where my 7-year-old mouth is (gross):
Pretty clear that gender norms were loosely affixed to young Patrick. And while yes, I do presently harbor a STRONG desire to become a Nikki Minaj impersonator, I also think I'm more or less normal.
Moral of the story: Fox News, stfu- let parents parent. If you're not hurting you child, and your child is happy, who the fuck are you to judge.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Of Marshmallows and Teenage Witticisms
It doesn't take much for LLK to make a strong push for the canceled Veronica Mars. Several years ago, I took her up on her recommendation.
The recommendation delivered. And, quite honestly, it makes sense to recommend the show at any occasion.
I've been devouring the show (presently streaming on Netflix) lately, and it has progressively hit me.
This fucking show has everyone.
Rob Thomas, most recently of Party Down fame (another show canceled despite critical reception), seems to either have influential friendships, or a knack for creating shows that people what to involve themselves with. If I had to hazard a bet, I would guess it's some combination.
So, to avoid butchering the explanation of why VMars is so amazing (and it is), I'll simply point you to your Wii, blue ray player, or computer to stream that shit. But what I will do is illustrate the eerie encompassing of other shows. If you judge people by the company they keep, this list should be illustrative.
1. The "Wet Hot American Summer" contingent: The greatest movie ever, this program incorporated two actors from Wet Hot: Ken Marino, who plays the asshole detective Vinny Van Lowe, and Paul Rudd, who makes an awesome asshole guest appearance as Desmond Fellows, an "aging rocker." For anyone with taste, this should automatically clinch.
2. The "Simpsons" contingent: Dan Castelleneta, aka Homer, makes a guest cameo as the sociology professor. At one point, one of the actors exclaims "Doh!" as he walks away. Very awesome.
3. The "Home Improvement" contingent: Ok, so if you're like me, you haven't thrown away a single "Tiger Beat," especially those with JTT gracing the cover. Both JTT and ZTB have guest appearances, which induces such a strong nostalgic reaction that I'm half-tempted to reach for the nearest Boyz to Men cassette I have laying around.
4. The "Just Shoot Me" contingent: Enrico Colantani, who plays Keith Mars, obviously was in Just Shoot me. So it makes sense that they should bring the actress that played Maya in the third season.
5. The "Boy Meets World" contingent: A bit of a stretch since there's only one actor, but Rider Strong (porn name), who blessed this world as Cory's wrong-side-of-the-tracks bff Sean, resurfaces as the asshole college kid.
6. The "Freaks and Geeks" contingent: Samm Levine, who was in another too-soon canceled show, "Freaks and Geeks," graces us with his presences as Samuel Horshack, in the same episode with Strong, above.
Honorable Mentions: "Laguna Beach," "Celebrity Sex Tapes involving Heiresses."
I know I'm missing some, but I'd like to think that the above list shows that Rob Thomas keeps good company, and makes good tv that is cut down too soon.
Enjoy!
The recommendation delivered. And, quite honestly, it makes sense to recommend the show at any occasion.
I've been devouring the show (presently streaming on Netflix) lately, and it has progressively hit me.
This fucking show has everyone.
Rob Thomas, most recently of Party Down fame (another show canceled despite critical reception), seems to either have influential friendships, or a knack for creating shows that people what to involve themselves with. If I had to hazard a bet, I would guess it's some combination.
So, to avoid butchering the explanation of why VMars is so amazing (and it is), I'll simply point you to your Wii, blue ray player, or computer to stream that shit. But what I will do is illustrate the eerie encompassing of other shows. If you judge people by the company they keep, this list should be illustrative.
1. The "Wet Hot American Summer" contingent: The greatest movie ever, this program incorporated two actors from Wet Hot: Ken Marino, who plays the asshole detective Vinny Van Lowe, and Paul Rudd, who makes an awesome asshole guest appearance as Desmond Fellows, an "aging rocker." For anyone with taste, this should automatically clinch.
2. The "Simpsons" contingent: Dan Castelleneta, aka Homer, makes a guest cameo as the sociology professor. At one point, one of the actors exclaims "Doh!" as he walks away. Very awesome.
3. The "Home Improvement" contingent: Ok, so if you're like me, you haven't thrown away a single "Tiger Beat," especially those with JTT gracing the cover. Both JTT and ZTB have guest appearances, which induces such a strong nostalgic reaction that I'm half-tempted to reach for the nearest Boyz to Men cassette I have laying around.
4. The "Just Shoot Me" contingent: Enrico Colantani, who plays Keith Mars, obviously was in Just Shoot me. So it makes sense that they should bring the actress that played Maya in the third season.
5. The "Boy Meets World" contingent: A bit of a stretch since there's only one actor, but Rider Strong (porn name), who blessed this world as Cory's wrong-side-of-the-tracks bff Sean, resurfaces as the asshole college kid.
6. The "Freaks and Geeks" contingent: Samm Levine, who was in another too-soon canceled show, "Freaks and Geeks," graces us with his presences as Samuel Horshack, in the same episode with Strong, above.
Honorable Mentions: "Laguna Beach," "Celebrity Sex Tapes involving Heiresses."
I know I'm missing some, but I'd like to think that the above list shows that Rob Thomas keeps good company, and makes good tv that is cut down too soon.
Enjoy!
Friday, April 1, 2011
Cabin Fever
So, as of this morning, the following has occurred:
101 is COMPLETELY shut off south of Garberville.
299, one of two highways to get to the 5, has been plagued with rock slides.
It's created a bit of a cabin fever situation, and hopefully, as the ever wonderful (sarcasm) Times-Standard reports, 101 will be one-way traffic by Sunday at the earliest.
With that in mind, I have no recourse but to drown my sorrows in the following blooper reel:
101 is COMPLETELY shut off south of Garberville.
299, one of two highways to get to the 5, has been plagued with rock slides.
It's created a bit of a cabin fever situation, and hopefully, as the ever wonderful (sarcasm) Times-Standard reports, 101 will be one-way traffic by Sunday at the earliest.
With that in mind, I have no recourse but to drown my sorrows in the following blooper reel:
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Compassion v. Practicality
I know few public defenders that took the position just because of the money, or because it was something to do. Most, if not all, either enjoy the work, or have some degree of compassion or youthful idealism that makes even Sean Penn want to puke up that pizza he ordered in the middle of class. (Lest we forget that he was Spicoli.)
Ok, so I know this post looks like it's veering in to self-congratulatory pandering, but it's not.
All glorified social workers (which is essentially what I am), have a breaking point.
For some, it's representing someone you know is guilty, getting them sprung, only to see the same crime committed. For others, it's just the knowledge of a losing battle.
For me, it's this tweaker asshole that has currently been parked outside in our parking lot for the past 16 or so hours. It started yesterday afternoon, when I came back and saw a disheveled, scraggly, man wearing waders and a coat that I assume at some point did not smell like meth and day old cigarette butts. He was working on his car. And when I say working, I mean, hood open, and randomly pulling shit out of the engine. Shit that looked serious.
I let it go on for a while. Exchanged pleasantries. He called me "counselor," and in his little tweaker way, I thought it was kinda cute.
But it kept going until closing time.... So I go outside. "Hey," I call, "so is it not starting or anything." I thought the hint was there. "No, counselor, it's just the light." The light. The light?! Are you fucking kidding me?! So I leave, and my parting words are, verbatim, "Hey, you should just take it to a mechanic. They should be able to take care of it. You're not allowed to park here if you don't have an appointment, unfortunately." He meths back, "Loud and clear Counselor!"
Fast forward to this morning. Same fucking jalopy. Straddling two parking spots. Tweaker, wrapped like a mummy, in a leopard print fleece, sleeping in the driver's seat. As of thirty minutes ago, I have woken him up, and let him know that I will be towing said vehicle if it's not gone in 30 minutes.
Ideals be damned, parking is sacred.
Ok, so I know this post looks like it's veering in to self-congratulatory pandering, but it's not.
All glorified social workers (which is essentially what I am), have a breaking point.
For some, it's representing someone you know is guilty, getting them sprung, only to see the same crime committed. For others, it's just the knowledge of a losing battle.
For me, it's this tweaker asshole that has currently been parked outside in our parking lot for the past 16 or so hours. It started yesterday afternoon, when I came back and saw a disheveled, scraggly, man wearing waders and a coat that I assume at some point did not smell like meth and day old cigarette butts. He was working on his car. And when I say working, I mean, hood open, and randomly pulling shit out of the engine. Shit that looked serious.
I let it go on for a while. Exchanged pleasantries. He called me "counselor," and in his little tweaker way, I thought it was kinda cute.
But it kept going until closing time.... So I go outside. "Hey," I call, "so is it not starting or anything." I thought the hint was there. "No, counselor, it's just the light." The light. The light?! Are you fucking kidding me?! So I leave, and my parting words are, verbatim, "Hey, you should just take it to a mechanic. They should be able to take care of it. You're not allowed to park here if you don't have an appointment, unfortunately." He meths back, "Loud and clear Counselor!"
Fast forward to this morning. Same fucking jalopy. Straddling two parking spots. Tweaker, wrapped like a mummy, in a leopard print fleece, sleeping in the driver's seat. As of thirty minutes ago, I have woken him up, and let him know that I will be towing said vehicle if it's not gone in 30 minutes.
Ideals be damned, parking is sacred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)