Can we, for once, get together and stop this "releasing of criminals early"?

Question

Can we leave aside all our differences, and appeal to the Justice system to stop releasing criminals in our society?....Can we atleast do something?

Answer 1

No. Because the problem is not the courts. It's the prison system.

We don't have the capacity for 50% of the people currently sentenced to prison. Every prison in the country is overcrowded, and we cannot build new prisons fast enough.

So, if we stopped early release (even if the laws allowed that -- see below) our choice would prevent us from sending anyone else to prison. We release people to make room for the new criminals.

But, even if we had room, once someone is sentenced, you cannot retroactively increase their sentence -- and that includes removing the possibility of early release or parole. It's constitutionally forbidden (Article I Section 9) to retroactively increase a sentence. So again it's not up to the judges.

And to change the sentences going forward, each state and the federal govt would need to change the sentencing laws to eliminate early release and/or probation. So, again, it's not up to the judges.

If you want the laws to change, lobby to have them changed. But also figure out where you are going to put all these new prisoners with longer terms.

Answer 2

If there is any weight to the term "stare decisis" which is defined here, then I would be very very concerned about what these precedents are creating for future courts, but not only for the court, but for the society as well.

When corruption permeates any system, it will find many places to raise its ugly head. Unfortunately, there may be very little we can do about unelected officials, but I will put myself out on a limb here with some folks and state unequivocally that there is a higher court than any here on earth. Some of you are saying "Amen;" some of you are saying "I want to know more about what this means;" and some of you are saying "Huh?"

STARE DECISIS - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.

An appeal court's panel is "bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions." United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).

Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.'" (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.

Addendum:

After evaluating other answers to this question, I am inclined to ask if you are referring to those individuals who are released even though there is a good possibility based on the facts, that they will repeat the offense, or do something worse? This is where I saw the question leading. Am I correct?

Answer 3

Nice thought. However not practical. Non-Violent offenders are the ones usually getting out early.

Answer 4

Yeah, as soon as we stop locking them up at the most aggressive rate in the world. And as soon as we stop locking up 40% of the black population, which makes up only 10% of the US population. As soon as we stop issuing ridiclously harsh sentences for drug addicts instead of treatment, and as soon as we stop spending $9,000 per child in public education and $47,000 for incarcerating an individual. Its about prevention and education, not punishment, unless you just want to lock up dramatic numbers of the population for being poor, and for living in an economic environment in which they are marginalized...... Jobs, my man. Jobs.

Answer 5

And are you willing to build more prisons to house them?

Answer 6

we don't have the prison space to do that