In Alameda County I think this is more a problem of a court system which puts itself above the people. there are numerous stories out there about problems in that county. this includes spending nearly a hundred fifty million on a new court house and support buildings and then chopping the staff to handle cases from nearly a thousand to under seven hundred. So you have all this out lay for shiny new buildings and then the people in the same part of funding get cut.

throw in the courts, even appellate courts, do not like ruling against a judge and its harder to see it happen over a question that does not pertain to an individual case.

all of this budget cutting of staff to work the courts is fascinating but expected in a state that is nearly run by its police public service union. they are big money and getting people in the system is priority there. hence attempts to fix or slow that can be stymied with little public outrage

>state that is nearly run by its police public service union.

don't forget the prison guard union. That one is probably most powerful in the state, and naturally plays the same side with the police union.

Also, am I correct in understanding that private prisons earn more profit if they have more inmates? So someone stands to make less money if less people go to prison. Any connection there or am I blowing things out of proportion?

frequently the private prison contract contains minimum occupancy guarantees (like 80-100%). Thus government has to either send people to prison no matter what or to face the politically tricky situation when taxpayers' money would be openly wasted on non-occupied "beds".

What could possibly go wrong, with rules like this? /s

> Any connection there or am I blowing things out of proportion?

This police and prison guards' unions are why California had the "three strikes" law in the first place. So yes, there is a direct connection.

I believe that that is the status quo, or something similar. But I read recently about a different model where prisons get bonuses for reducing recidivism; I can't remember where it is being set up, and don't exactly have faith in private run things like this, but it's a step in the right direction.

You're right. And if anything, you're understating the conflict of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal

Seems it was more a case of the plaintiff not having standing.

"plaintiff not having standing" is one of the biggest bullshit aspects of American law. Unjust laws sit on the books being used to threaten and intimidate people, and only until some with the money, gall and the lack of anything to lose does a law get challenged. This person also needs to get charged under this law, which often not the case. The Justice System, knowing the rules, tries to never expose itself to a potential challenger.

1) Laws should pass a constitutional court before being put into place.

2) Anyone should be able to challenge a law. Period. Of course, those "with standing" should have more weight. But many clearly unconstitutional laws stand simply because of a lack of standing.

I think the op's point was that plaintiffs with standing can't afford to seek a legal remedy.

So is this being treated as a civil matter? To me this seems more like the kind of thing the prosecutor's office should pursue.

Punishment/containment systems like jails, fines, etc., have always worked this way, and history tells you it will never stop. If anything it has gotten better since, way, 1700's, where the rich simply were the law.