Some leftist smart aleck out there might suggest that I am exaggerating the effect of the Federal Judges' "order" (unconstitutional "order") for California to release 43,000 prisoners. Surely they did not "Mean" for California to realease anyone "dangerous" (just like the framers of the Constitution did not "mean" to have Federal judges running state prisons, and ordering people lawfully convicted of a crime released)?
What says who is "dangerous", and who is not. I was part of a legal tema that SUED a psychiatric hospital once, for releasing a mental patient who promptly killed people. The defense (pratly)? We psychiatrists are INCAPABLE of predicting who is dangerous and who is not. You know what? I believed them then, and believe them now, although that is NOT what leftists, including leftist psychiatrists, say when they talk about the benefits of mental treatment for criminals.
Final, conclusive, fact: Al Capone (one of the most dangerous individuals who ever lived) was convicted of TAX EVASION. There is no excuse for Federal Judges to dictatorially order the premature release of criminals lawfullly convicted. And yes, it is CERTAIN thqat there will be killers and rapists among those released (no matter what they are in prison for).