Seemingly without a "grim roster of victims," California reduces extreme prison crowding as ordered in Plata

The Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Plata that a lower court was correct that California had to reduce prison overcrowding that lead to serious harms. There were concerns, including in a dissent by Alito that was joined by the Chief Justice of "a grim roster of victims" resulting from this order. Prof. Berman, citing a conservative legal blog's numbers, suggests that so far the sky did not fall. If anything violent crime decreased. A reply wondered about all the "murders" and "rapists" helped by this. Response:

[B]efore Plata a prisoner was dying unnecessarily every single week because of the unconstitutional conditions created by California's mismanagement of its prison system and its failure to reform its sentencing system for many years even after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency. Plata came to be because legislators and executive officials refused to deal with hundreds of dead prisoners being, in essence, tortured because of state neglect. Plata involved federal judges properly applying the PLRA, a law passed by Congress to provide remedies if/when a state refused to comply with its constitutional obligations.

Asking if Plata, which was based in constitutional vales and Congressional authority, was "worth it" after pointing to some crimes that you claim Plata caused is a bit like asking if the Second Amendment is "worth it" after pointing to kids accidentally shooting and killing family members. In a society committed to certain constitutional values and conceived in liberty, judges are tasked with safeguarding those values when others will not.  [read the whole thing]

The original person disagreed with the need for the ruling in the first place, but the comment he (pretty sure) made is standard for him, including the potshot at Sotomayor.  Ironically, he often complains about how she doesn't have enough empathy for crime victims. This guy, according to one person, is a civil lawyer in some big firm.  So, it's a tad bit depressing he rants about things while ignoring that in this country we have rights, rights that apply to defendants and even those in prison.  The proper balance is complex, but if you aren't even going to grant that, well okay.

The person is cited as a representative of a type, which is the usual value with flagging such people. It is realized they are but one person, but they stand for more. Correcting one wrong person on the Internet still can be taken too far.  Anyway, it is somewhat hopeful that something is going well in regard to this issue.