See related Grits posts:The Task Force on Indigent Defense (TFID), in collaboration with the Office of Court Administration (OCA), held its 6th Annual Indigent Defense Workshop on October 23-24, 2008. If you were unable to attend, check out the workshop coursebook and presentations available at the Task Force website. The Task Force staff did an amazing job pulling together valuable resources that counties can use to improve the delivery of indigent defense services.
Key items of discussion at the workshop included:
- The State of Indigent Defense in Texas by Robert L. Spangenberg, President of the Spangenberg Group, a nationally recognized research and consulting firm.
- The impact of the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rothgery v. Gillespise County on the appointment of counsel in Texas counties. Presentations by Andrea Marsh, Executive Director of the Texas Fair Defense Project; Judge Dib Waldrip, 433rd District Court, Comal County; Jim Allison, General Counsel, County Judges and Commissioners Association.
- Model programs from around the state:
- Taylor County's Indigent Defense Coordinator
- El Paso County's District Attorney Direct Filing Process
- Travis County's Mental Health Public Defender Office & Crisis Intervention Teams
- Lubbock County's Regional Capital Public Defender Offices
- Effective Representation to Prevent Wrongful Convictions, by Jeff Blackburn of The Innocence Project of Texas.
- Hot Topics in indigent defense:
- Mary Anne Wiley, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the Governor, expressed the views of the Governor on fair defense issues.
- Phyllis Mann of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association extended offer of assistance to counties.
- Beth Mitchell, Advocacy, Inc. shared recommendations for improving the system and a discussion of Outpatient Competency Restoration Pilots.
- Ana Yañez-Correa, ED of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition (TCJC), presented key findings (summary & ppt) from a recent judicial survey titled "Judicial Perspectives on Substance Abuse & Mental Health Diversionary Programs and Treatment (a collaborative project of TFID, OCA, and TCJC).
- Raman Gill of Sumpter & Gonzalez, L.L.P., spoke on the importance of incorporating social workers and case managers in the defense process for mentally ill clients.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Materials from Indigent Defense Conference
In their e-newsletter this week, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition provided links to presentation materials from a conference I attended last week on indigent defense. They wrote:
Jailed on Principle: Officers need authority for dispute resolution in field
A Texas man went to jail on principle in Georgia this week, but it wasn't some latter-day civil rights protest:
Fulton County authorities arrested 40-year-old Dan Linscomb of Texas City, Texas, last week for refusing to pay his tab at the all-you-can-eat Iron Skillet buffet in northwest Atlanta. Officials say Linscomb ate at the buffet and let his girlfriend eat from his plate.The restaurant charged him for two $7 meals, which he refused to pay. Linscomb was taken to the Fulton County Jail on a charge of theft of service. Fulton County Sheriff's Sgt. Nikita Hightower said Linscomb was released two days later after pleading guilty to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct.
I've little doubt Mr. Linscomb was guilty of technically violating some law somewhere on the books in Georgia. But I'm equally confident that nobody goes to jail over $7 unless they're doing it to prove a point - in this case, he didn't believe his girlfriend's de minimus nibblings constituted a second meal. (On that question, I take no position. Quien sabe?)
The incident reminds me of the famous economists' Ultmatum Game, in which a subject is given some amount of money, say $10, to split between themself and another person. Whatever amount of money they give, the other has to take or leave - no negotiating - but if the second person rejects the money, both parties get nothing.
Rational self interest (as defined by economists) would dictate that no matter how low the amount offered by the other party, you maximize your income by taking whatever you're given. But in practice, people interject fairness concerns into their economic judgments, and sure enough many people in the Ultimatum Game refuse payment altogether if they deem the offering so low as to be unfair.
That's what this guy did. He considered what was happening unfair, so he refused to play the game and everybody lost. The incident did the restaurant owner little good, even if they did ultimately extract the $7 from him at the end of the process. Meanwhile, Fulton County taxpayers probably paid somewhere between $200-$300 to book and jail the guy for a couple of days, more if they had to appoint him a lawyer. Nobody really wins and everybody is dissatisfied with the outcome.
Frequently police officers enter an emotional situation and find themselves moderating informally in some dispute between individuals where very little is helped, and the problems are only postponed or aggravated, by taking someone to jail.
Assuming there's not more to the story (no violent behavior, etc.), what would have been a better outcome here? I've heard Marc Levin from the Texas Public Policy Foundation propose giving police officers more dispute resolution authority out in the field (particularly in juvenile cases), perhaps solving a conflict via an impromptu contract (enforced with the alternative of arrest) instead of taking someone into custody. If I'm not mistaken (though it didn't seem to make it into my notes), Leigh Garrett described similar field-resolution strategies used by police in South Australia.
You hear many departments talk about "community policing," but the term seems to mean something different to nearly everyone who uses it. I'd like to see community policing strategies give officers more dispute resolution authority in the field to resolve cases like this one, if possible without necessarily taking anyone to jail. (You'd need to create procedures and training for dispute resolution functions, since that task's a little different from the job they're trained for now.) Perhaps then some of the truly petty stuff really wouldn't need to rise to the level of criminal prosecution and clog up the courts and the jails just because arrest is the only tool in the officer's toolbox.
BLOGVERSATION: Scott Greenfield's reaction to this case at Simple Justice makes some excellent points, particularly that this should have been considered a civil rather than a criminal dispute. A commenter points to this case law which seems to support that position rather strongly (though it's not from the 5th Circuit.) Greenfield also objects to giving police more dispute resolution power "because their opinion on who is right and wrong is utterly irrelevant. Who cares what some cop thinks?" See more discussion by foodies at Yum Yum Sugar.
Pushback beginning on Halloween sex offender hype
I'm glad to see this year more thoughtful critiques popping up of grandstanding by law enforcement and the annual, mostly fact-free media hype surrounding registered sex offenders and Halloween. (See prior, related Grits posts.) In Maryland, officials partially backed off their "scarlet pumpkin" strategy after becoming the butt of national jokes, reports the Washington Times:
The bright orange signs, reading, "No candy at this residence," in all capital letters, were sent to the state's 1,200 violent and child sex offenders earlier this month along with instructions that they must post them on their front doors on Friday evening.
But the plan became fodder for television comics ranging from Jay Leno to the "Saturday Night Live" cast after details were reported Oct. 15 by The Washington Times.
"Sex offenders in Maryland are now required to post signs that read, 'No candy at this residence,' on Halloween or face a possible parole violation," Seth Meyers deadpanned on the 'Weekend Update' part of NBC's long-running Saturday night program. "They are also being required to take down the signs that read, 'Knock if you can keep a special secret.'"
Laughing at stupid public policies is sometimes the best way to influence public opinion, so I'm glad to know the Saturday Night Live piece struck a nerve and many in the public apparently see through the hype. After all, trick or treaters are statistically much more likely to be hit by lightning than molested by a registered sex offender while soliciting candy.
Even more promising, reports the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, this week "a federal court temporarily struck down two provisions of a Missouri law that banned, among other things, sexual offenders from having “Halloween-related contact” with children." In that case:
according to a ruling ... by U.S. District Jude Carol Jackson, Missouri sex offenders won’t have to comply with parts of a new state law. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Judge Jackson temporarily struck down two provisions as unconstitutionally vague: a ban on “Halloween-related contact” with children and a requirement to stay inside from 5-10:30 p.m. “unless required to be elsewhere for just cause.” (Click here for the law.)
Apparently, Judge Jackson was concerned that in some cases, parents could be punished for Halloween activities with their own children, such as “carving a pumpkin in the privacy of your kitchen with your 5-year-old child.” She questioned whether such parents might have to send their kids away on Halloween to avoid prosecution. “It’s not too much to expect criminal laws to be clear,” she said.
The ruling came after four convicted sexual offenders sued this month, represented by the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. Their lawyer, Anthony E. Rothert, told the NYT: “Once people have completed their sentences, you can’t go back and punish them for the same crime.”
The state is appealing that case so perhaps by next Halloween there will be more guidance from federal courts on what type of restrictions may be applied to sex offenders on Halloween. Given the ruling from the Show-Me State, I have to wonder if even more restrictive Texas policies would pass constitutional muster if they were challenged? (UPDATE: A three judge panel on the 8th Circuit reversed the district judge and said the restrictions could stand until the case is fully resolved. Sex Crimes Blog, Constitutional Law Prof, Above the Law, Althouse, TalkLeft, SexOffenderResearch, and Volokh Conspiracy are also covering the case.)
In several Texas counties, including Lubbock, Hidalgo, and Guadalupe, local authorities are rounding up sex offenders on probation or parole to spend Halloween night in the jail or county probation offices. This seems especially silly for a number of reasons. First, the officers monitoring these people would do more to benefit public safety if they were out on the street looking for drunks or teenage vandals on a night with one of the highest youth crime rates of the year. In Lubbock, in particular, extra traffic from the approaching UT-Texas Tech game tomorrow night (my father lucked out and will get to to watch the game from box seats) poses a much greater threat than the remote chance a trick or treater will be molested.
Even more silly, these just-for-show tactics ignore most registered sex offenders, applying only to those still formally on probation or parole. In Bexar County, for example, where law enforcement will waste resources doing house to house checks on supervised sex offenders instead of a roundup (which their DA Susan Reed had supported), "Of the 3200 sex offenders that are registered, approximately 814 are under supervision, which is probation or parole."
So if Bexar's numbers are typical, the no-candy restrictions only apply to about a quarter of registered sex offenders! To the extent the tactic addresses a real threat, that makes the policy counterproductive and harmful (instead of just wasteful and useless) because the publicity could give people a false sense that every registered sex offender will be restricted from participating in Halloween when in fact the overwhelming majority can put up decorations, give out candy, and fully participate in the holiday once they're off probation or parole. Despite that reality, over and over we see stories like this one declaring that "It is against the law for sex offenders to decorate their homes for Halloween or place anything that might attract children," but that's just not true for most people on the registry.
El Paso and Houston are is similarly expending patrol resources to check up on sex offenders instead of focusing on DWI, vandalism, or youth crime. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has predictably jumped on the bandwagon. (The blog SexOffenderResearch has numerous posts about ongoing crackdowns in other states.)
Of course, in the only documented case in history of a Halloween related child abduction (35 years ago in Wisconsin), the perpetrator had no prior criminal history and so wouldn't have been captured by any registry-related restrictions. Most sex crimes are committed by people who aren't on the registry, and even if that weren't true, the much-publicized restrictions don't apply to 3/4 of registered sex offenders. What a wasted effort!
The annual demagoguing over sex offenders at Halloween is a classic example of what security expert Bruce Schneier calls "security theater," hyping (and pretending to solve) a threat that in reality is extremely remote, even to the point of diverting resources from policing activities like DWI enforcement that would protect more people and save more lives. The approach is dumb, it's wrong, and it makes the public less safe.
Perhaps we'll look back sometime in the future and consider 2008 the year the media and the public began to re-think these thoughtless, hype-driven policies. I hope so.
RELATED: On the bright side, not everyone in the MSM, apparently, has bought into the hype. This excellent article from the blog Sex Offender Research points us to " ONE -- TWO -- THREE -- FOUR -- FIVE articles explaining real dangers" (e.g., drunk driving, fire hazards, choking, food allergies) facing kids and families on Halloween.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Roundup of think tank's criminal justice work product
The latest e-newsletter from the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for Effective Justice featured links to much of director Marc Levin's excellent work over the last several months which I'm certain will interest Grits readers:
1) Recent PublicationsMeasuring Performance in the Juvenile Justice System
As the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) and Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC) undergo sunset review, their performance measures should be enhanced to focus more on outcomes such as restitution to victims, recidivism, educational progress, and administrative costs.
Occupational Licensing & Overcriminalization: Testimony Before the House Government Reform Committee
Texas regulates too many occupations, applies excessive criminal penalties to violations of licensing rules, and too often prevents otherwise qualified individuals from obtaining licenses because of a minor and sometimes decades-old conviction.
This document highlights key reforms that would strengthen the state’s juvenile justice system, such as changing the funding system to incentivize positive outcomes and provider greater flexibility for counties to utilize local facilities and programs instead of TYC.
Five Technological Solutions for Texas' Correctional and Law Enforcement Challenges
Advances in electronic monitoring, alcohol detection, and interoperability between law enforcement and private security can produce better public safety results while minimizing costs to taxpayers.
Work Release: Con Job or Big Payoff for Texas?
The Texas experience and evidence from around the nation indicates that work release programs that properly monitor and carefully screen participants can reduce recidivism and costs to taxpayers while protecting public safety.
2) Commentaries
This piece, which appeared in the Houston Chronicle, argues graffiti laws in Texas cities should be changed to empower victims and communities while holding offenders accountable.
This commentary published in the Fort Worth Star Telegram spotlights the criminal justice blueprint released by the British Conservative Party that advocates funding prisons and parole partially based on outcomes such as recidivism and discusses similar initiatives in Texas.
3) Speaking Freely Postings & Podcasts
Measuring Performance in the Juvenile Justice System (podcast)
More Money for More of the Same (podcast)
County Commissioners key to jail decisions
I'm always pleased to see policy debates about public safety make it into electoral campaigns, but the back and forth in Dallas this election cycle between the incumbent Sheriff and challenger over the jail have confirmed my sense that County Commissioners Court races are where jail problems and solutions really need to be discussed.
Last week at the Dallas News, Kevin Krause analyzed the two Sheriff campaigns' descriptions of the jail's problems and who's to blame and pronounced, "Neither is entirely correct" ("No easy answers on jail: Frequently cited issue in Dallas' Sheriff's race is often oversimplified," Oct. 24). For example, the challenger tells voters the jail still isn't passing state inspections, without mentioning that fire-safety improvements and other upgrades needed to pass simply weren't funded by the Commissioners Court:
Jails need to be debated in county commissioners court races because they control the purse strings and paying for jails and the justice system is typically the most expensive portion of the county budget. The Sheriff plays almost purely a management role, though certainly if the jail is poorly managed, the Sheriff must be accountable - it's really the primary job function, after all, especially in a large urban county. But a sheriff can't, for example, install fire safety equipment when the county refuses to buy it. Besides, as Krause notes, it's the pocketbook issues voters really care about, anyway:
Paying for jails and courts is the single biggest expense in county budgets, but we rarely hear the economics of crime and punishment debated. The media and the public tend to portray jails as the Sheriff's job, or look to judges, only, for issues affecting the courts. More often than not, though, because of the structure of Texas government, the most important decisions about what county government actually does (i.e., what it pays for) lie firmly in the hands of the Commissioners Court.
Last week at the Dallas News, Kevin Krause analyzed the two Sheriff campaigns' descriptions of the jail's problems and who's to blame and pronounced, "Neither is entirely correct" ("No easy answers on jail: Frequently cited issue in Dallas' Sheriff's race is often oversimplified," Oct. 24). For example, the challenger tells voters the jail still isn't passing state inspections, without mentioning that fire-safety improvements and other upgrades needed to pass simply weren't funded by the Commissioners Court:
Dallas right now has an empty jail wing that was closed because the commissioners court wouldn't/can't/won't hire enough guards to staff it, necessitating at one point during Valdez's tenure the impromptu release of nearly a thousand inmates to comply with state jail standards, all for reasons entirely beyond her control. Even so, lately, the Dallas Commissioners Court has been insisting overtly that the Sheriff fill up the jail with petty Class C (ticket only) offenders to boost fine income. So they want to use the jail to extract money from average people who can't pay large fines, but don't want to pay to keep it up.
Federal inspectors agreed earlier this year that there was still room to improve. A separate report from the state in January noted that intercoms were still broken, numerous toilets, showers and lavatories weren't working, and air vents were clogged with toilet paper.
The county commissioners are still spending money on maintenance and repairs. This week, they approved an additional $63,000 to replace more sinks and bulkheads and complete shower improvements – part of a half-million-dollar job. ...
County officials say the jails have been under intense scrutiny not seen before because of problems with fire-safety equipment as well as medical and mental health services, none of which the sheriff controls.Allen Clemson, the Commissioners Court administrator, said that had the life-safety issues been resolved, state jail inspectors probably wouldn't have failed the jails this year for sanitation and maintenance problems.
That point is not lost on Sheriff Valdez, who has expressed frustration that it's taken four years and counting to replace fire-detection and smoke-removal systems. The commissioners, she said, tried to save money on the front end.
Jails need to be debated in county commissioners court races because they control the purse strings and paying for jails and the justice system is typically the most expensive portion of the county budget. The Sheriff plays almost purely a management role, though certainly if the jail is poorly managed, the Sheriff must be accountable - it's really the primary job function, after all, especially in a large urban county. But a sheriff can't, for example, install fire safety equipment when the county refuses to buy it. Besides, as Krause notes, it's the pocketbook issues voters really care about, anyway:
How inmates are treated isn't one of voters' top issues, political analysts point out. But they say voters do care about financial liabilities posed by jail problems because those have an impact on their wallets. Dallas County was hit with recent settlements and judgments totaling nearly $2 million in jail-neglect lawsuits. The alleged abuse occurred under the previous sheriff.For further evidence that county commissioners are where all the policymaking action is, look no further than 90 miles east of Dallas in my hometown of Tyler where the Smith County Commissioners Court has placed unwanted jail bonds on the ballot for the third year in a row. For good or ill, it's the Commissioners Court there who are pushing the jail hard, even though voters have twice overwhelmingly opposed it. Other elected offiicals - the Sheriff, judges, the DA - have been peripheral players in Tyler's debate for one simple reason: The Commissioners Court holds the purse strings.
Paying for jails and courts is the single biggest expense in county budgets, but we rarely hear the economics of crime and punishment debated. The media and the public tend to portray jails as the Sheriff's job, or look to judges, only, for issues affecting the courts. More often than not, though, because of the structure of Texas government, the most important decisions about what county government actually does (i.e., what it pays for) lie firmly in the hands of the Commissioners Court.
Corroborating informant testimony, reporting crimes by snitches among ACLU recommendations
On Monday, ACLU's Texas affiliate and the group's Drug Law Reform Project held a press conference to release a briefing paper (pdf) recommending changes to how testimony from confidential informants is gathered and used. While I haven't seen any press coverage, many of their proposals, for long-time readers, will have a familiar ring:
1. Require any warrant based on information from a confidential informant to include information on the informant.According to the briefing paper, not only can uncorroborated informant testimony lead to false convictions of innocent people, "There is an incentive for law enforcement to ignore illegal activity by informants because addressing the criminal activity would stop or impair a criminal investigation."
2. Corroborate information from a confidential informant used to acquire a warrant.
3. Provide information on any confidential informant to all parties prior to plea bargaining.
4. Require a reliability hearing for informants prior to the introduction of informant testimony.
5. Corroborate information from incarcerated informants.
6. Require each law enforcement agency maintain an informant registry.
7. Establish performance measures that track law enforcement effectiveness.
8. Report crime committed by confidential informants.
9. Establish grants to improve law enforcement training relating to gathering informant testimony.
10. Require a signed statement from confidential informants prior to use of informant-derived evidence at trial.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Gov. Perry wants his own version of Clinton's COPS program ... to fight Los Zetas?
Readers may recall that in 2007, the Texas Legislature backed Governor Rick Perry's much-ballyhooed plan to give more than $100 million in pork barrel grants to border Sheriffs, splitting the funds equally (more than $6 million apiece) among sheriffs in the 16 counties along the border to pay for extra equipment and overtime for patrols.
Given that massive, recent state investment, I was surprised that no one in the mainstream media picked up on the fact that one of those Sheriffs recently was indicted and accused of working in cahoots with the Mexican Gulf Cartel(!), making him the second border Sheriff during Perry's tenure to face charges for assisting Mexican drug gangs, along with many other law enforcement agents.
Though the MSM hasn't yet linked Sheriff Guerra's indiscretions to his border security work or probed how he spent his grant money, I've already wondered how the Governor could justify extending this expensive pork program now that it turns out some of the money went to a Gulf Cartel operative. The cost is even harder to justify since there's no evidence it had any effect on border crime.
Clearly, though, the Governor thinks that giving millions in state border security money to an alleged Gulf Cartel flunky won't hurt his chances of re-upping the program, particularly if he sweetens the pot with grants for big-city PDs as well, reported the San Antonio Business Journal ("Gov. Perry allocates funds to help SAPD fight gangs," Oct. 29):
Given that massive, recent state investment, I was surprised that no one in the mainstream media picked up on the fact that one of those Sheriffs recently was indicted and accused of working in cahoots with the Mexican Gulf Cartel(!), making him the second border Sheriff during Perry's tenure to face charges for assisting Mexican drug gangs, along with many other law enforcement agents.
Though the MSM hasn't yet linked Sheriff Guerra's indiscretions to his border security work or probed how he spent his grant money, I've already wondered how the Governor could justify extending this expensive pork program now that it turns out some of the money went to a Gulf Cartel operative. The cost is even harder to justify since there's no evidence it had any effect on border crime.
Clearly, though, the Governor thinks that giving millions in state border security money to an alleged Gulf Cartel flunky won't hurt his chances of re-upping the program, particularly if he sweetens the pot with grants for big-city PDs as well, reported the San Antonio Business Journal ("Gov. Perry allocates funds to help SAPD fight gangs," Oct. 29):
As part of his anti-gang strategy, Perry says he plans to ask the 2009 Texas Legislature for $110 million in sustained border security funding and another $24 million to combat transnational gang activity across the state.As he previously did with funding for border sheriffs, Gov. Perry is using federal Byrne grant funds to initiate a small amount of funding to local police on his own authority. (This pot of money shrank significantly in recent years thanks to pressure by the Bush Administration; it once funded Texas' network of drug task forces before they were brought down by corruption scandals in Tulia, Hearne, and elsewhere.) Again from the SA Business Journal:
Texas Gov. Rick Perry has allocated nearly $560,000 to help the San Antonio Police Department target transnational gang activity.
The funding will come from the federal Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program and will be distributed by the Governor’s Criminal Justice Division.
Perry will allocate a total of $4 million in Criminal Justice Division grant money to Arlington, Austin, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth, Garland, Houston, Irving, Laredo, McAllen and San Antonio. The funds will be used as overtime pay for officers who patrol hot spots of gang activity.
Is it just me, or is this is an odd shift in focus? The "gang" problems in San Antonio, for example, are scarcely (at least directly) related to "transnational" drug gangs like the Gulf Cartel who Perry's border security initiative targeted. And they're certainly not affiliated with "terrorists," which is how he originally sold the program. To hear the Governor's latest statement, it sounds more like he intends the money to simply supplement regular police patrols:
“No one has a better grasp of the situation on the ground than the peace officers who patrol our neighborhoods and tackle the challenges of law enforcement every day,” Perry says. “These officers are the key to our fight against transnational gangs, and Texas is committed to ensuring that they are well equipped to combat these organizations.”
Governor Perry is basically asking the Texas Legislature to give him his own version of President Bill Clinton's COPS program, which claimed to put 100,000 new local officers on the street nationwide. Indeed, Perry's proposal suffers from the identical failure as Clinton's COPS inititive: It wasn't the feds' job to fund local police officers, and it's not state government's, either.
I didn't like Governor Perry's border security plan because it focused on maximizing pork and minimizing accountability. But at least I understand that border security is a state-level priority and requires a statewide strategy and response. I do NOT think it's state government's role to pay for overtime for patrol officers at local, municipal police departments. Once they become dependent on state funding, it'll be nigh-on impossible to ever get them off the state teat.
MORE: WOAI Radio has more from Perry's comments, including:
Perry cited the threat from Mexico's Gulf drug cartel and criminal gangs like Barrio Azteca, MS-13, and the Mexican Mafia.
"The threat that is posed by these trans national gangs is very very real," Perry said. "These people don't hesitate to kill, to kidnap, to torture. as a means of eliminating their criminal competition, or, for that matter, terrorizing citizens into silence. Mexican drug cartels are using stolen vehicles, weapons, there is human cargo involved here."
Perry's initiative comes as the FBI in San Antonio issued what it calls a 'Joint Assessment Bulletin' to law enforcement agencies statewide, warning that the Gulf Cartel is attempting of gain control of major drug trafficking routes through Texas, including Interstate 35.
"We are talking about a very specific group called Los Zetas, which are a paramilitary drug trafficking group operating in Mexico, which have been known to conduct some activity in the United States," Special Agent Erik Vasys told 1200 WOAI's Michael Board today.
Los Zetas are mainly former Mexican Army special forces soldiers, many of whom have been trained by the United States, who are hired as 'enforcers' for the Gulf and Sinaloa drug cartels in northern Mexico.
Deputy U.S. Marshal James Benjamin in San Antonio says the incident that prompted the warning is the arrest of a major drug gang commander earlier this week near Tijuana.
"There will be some jockeying as to who will be in charge of that cartel, and we expect some renewed violence," Benjamin said.
Vasys says there is no specific threat from the Zetas.
"Law enforcement regularly receives raw intelligence, information from a variety of sources, which is put out in bulletin form to alert law enforcement to trends that they may see on a daily basis."
Vasys said Los Zetas are a 'significant problem in Mexico' and have 'the potential to pose a significant problem to law enforcement in Texas.'
Perry says his program is aimed at 'dismantling' Mexican gang activity in Texas.
I'll give the Governor this much credit: I'm glad he's finally started talking publicly about the biggest public safety threat on the southern border as opposed to demagoguing in campaign commercials about "terrorism," but I don't think that expanding a program with poor results to more jurisdictions is really the way to go.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Open Thread
I'll be away from the blog because of a death in the family for the next day or so. Use this as an open thread to let me know what's going on in your neck of the woods.
In particular, I'm interested in hearing about any local criminal justice-related elections (Sheriff, DA, judges, jail bonds, etc.) you may be following.
Hasta la vista.
In particular, I'm interested in hearing about any local criminal justice-related elections (Sheriff, DA, judges, jail bonds, etc.) you may be following.
Hasta la vista.
Back to the future: California showdown recalls Ruiz in Texas
When state prison systems and federal judges collide, typically the guys in the black robes come out on top - ask Judge William Wayne Justice and everyone involved in Texas' Ruiz case.
California has chosen to test that truism, defying a federal court order to expand prison hospital capacity or reduce the inmate population. Reports the San Francisco Chronicle:
All this happened because California's Legislature refused to pay for an adequate health system. Given chronic understaffing problems in Texas and the sorry state of our prison health system (and UTMB), I can't help but wonder if Texas might face a similar showdown someday over essentially the same shortcomings once there's no longer a Texan appointing the US Attorney General?
California has chosen to test that truism, defying a federal court order to expand prison hospital capacity or reduce the inmate population. Reports the San Francisco Chronicle:
The lawyer representing California in a lawsuit over prison health care said Monday that state officials aren't ready to comply with a federal judge's order to turn over $250 million for new hospitals for inmates, despite the possibility of a contempt-of-court order against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.California's got a worse overcrowding problem than Texas, even, with more prisoners stuffed into space designed for fewer inmates. But it's their healthcare system that's drawn down the wrath of a federal judge, and unfortunately Texas already had big problems in that regard even before Hurricane Ike blew down UTMB's Galveston operation like the Big Bad Wolf. I never got a great answer about what's happening with post-Ike prison healthcare. Readers with any insight on that topic, please let us know in the comments.) Thirty percent of Texas prison inmates are past clients of the mental health system, the number of sick, elderly inmates is rising, and more inmates die in Texas prisons than in California - about 2,000 over one recent four year stretch.
U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson ordered Schwarzenegger and state Controller John Chiang on Oct. 8 to tell him how soon they would provide the money, the first installment in an $8 billion construction plan that a court-appointed manager drew up to raise the prison health system to constitutional standards.
Henderson said at an earlier hearing that he was prepared to hold Schwarzenegger and Chiang in contempt, with fines against the state of as much as $2 million a day, unless they turn over $250 million in prison funding that the Legislature has already approved. But at Monday's hearing in San Francisco, Deputy Attorney General Daniel Powell said the state is not legally required to follow such an order and has no immediate plans to do so.
"This court has no authority to order construction of prisons," Powell told Henderson. He said state officials must review the construction plans, decide whether they comply with legal restrictions and seek specific approval from the Legislature.
If the state maintains that position, Henderson said, he'll go "full speed ahead" with contempt proceedings. Later in the day, he ordered state officials to transfer $250 million to the prison health system's federal overseer by Nov. 5 or face a contempt hearing a week later.
"Despite the progress that has been made, the health care system remains in a state of crisis," the judge said at the hearing.
All this happened because California's Legislature refused to pay for an adequate health system. Given chronic understaffing problems in Texas and the sorry state of our prison health system (and UTMB), I can't help but wonder if Texas might face a similar showdown someday over essentially the same shortcomings once there's no longer a Texan appointing the US Attorney General?
Monday, October 27, 2008
An 'I Really Really Like You Crime'?
In new TV cop show Life on Mars, the main character (played by Jason O'Mara) is a modern-day officer who inexplicably time travels back to 1973 where he finds himself working in the NYPD homicide unit. In the most recent episode, while investigating the killing of a veteran back from Vietnam who turned out to be gay, the time traveling cop declared to his boss, played by Harvey Keitel, "See, I told you it was a hate crime."
Obviously unfamiliar with the term that wouldn't be coined until years later, Keitel's character brilliantly replied, "As opposed to an 'I really really like you crime'?"
I couldn't help but recall that scene upon reading press coverage about a murder last month in Paris, Texas where a black man was allegedly run over and dragged to death by two white guys in a pickup truck, an incident that's being compared in the press to the infamous dragging death of James Byrd in Jasper. The victim's mother called it a "hate crime" and the Dallas News' coverage even included a sidebar documenting historic lynchings in Paris and northeast Texas going back to the 19th Century.
But how does the "hate crime" label jibe with the fact that the victim and his alleged killers were actually friends and close associates? Reported the Dallas News:
I'm not defending McClelland's killers one bit; if the accused men did it, they deserve harsh punishment (the victim's mother told the News she opposes the death penalty and would like to see them get Life Without Parole). I just hate to see activists and the media ginning up racial animosities when the facts don't warrant it. Every murder is an unfathomable tragedy for those involved, but not every white on black murder is a "lynching."
There are plenty of real examples of racism in the world, and especially the justice system, without the media manufacturing alleged racial motives every time there's a mixed-race crime.
BLOGVERSATION: More from Dallas South Blog, which gives background from a Chicago Tribune story on the episode where the victim in this case provided a false alibi for one of his alleged killers. Alan Bean at the Friends of Justice blog agrees with the hate crime meme.
Obviously unfamiliar with the term that wouldn't be coined until years later, Keitel's character brilliantly replied, "As opposed to an 'I really really like you crime'?"
I couldn't help but recall that scene upon reading press coverage about a murder last month in Paris, Texas where a black man was allegedly run over and dragged to death by two white guys in a pickup truck, an incident that's being compared in the press to the infamous dragging death of James Byrd in Jasper. The victim's mother called it a "hate crime" and the Dallas News' coverage even included a sidebar documenting historic lynchings in Paris and northeast Texas going back to the 19th Century.
But how does the "hate crime" label jibe with the fact that the victim and his alleged killers were actually friends and close associates? Reported the Dallas News:
I find it hard to imagine the assailants had some ulterior racist motive when the black victim in question actually committed perjury in a previous manslaughter case to protect one of his killers. Clearly these men were close associates if the victim had lied in court to protect one of them and they were still drinking buddies after he'd done prison time over it. There must be some other, more mundane motive that explains what happened.Mr. McClelland [the victim] was last seen alive drinking with Mr. Finley and Mr. Crostley, both 27.
The men were thought to be friends. Mr. McClelland was convicted of perjury for lying on Mr. Finley's behalf in a manslaughter case. Mr. Finley went to prison from 2004 to 2007 for shooting a friend in a Paris park; Mr. McClelland was sentenced to a two-year term.
After midnight on Sept. 16, the suspects told police, the men ran out of beer and drove to Oklahoma for more. On the way back, they said, there was an argument over whether Mr. McClelland was too drunk to drive, and he got out of Mr. Finley's pickup, taking a couple of beers with him.
They said that was the last they saw of him.
But investigators found human blood on the undercarriage of Mr. Finley's truck, according to an affidavit filed Sept. 24, and witnesses quoted Mr. Finley and Mr. Crostley as saying that they ran over Mr. McClelland on purpose and dragged him "about 40 feet."
For Ms. Cherry and others in the community, that sounds like what happened a decade ago to Mr. Byrd.
There are differences, however: Mr. Byrd was tied to a pickup and dragged for three miles, while Mr. McClelland was struck and dragged underneath the truck for several feet. Also, two of the three men convicted of killing Mr. Byrd had ties to white supremacist groups and prison gangs. Prison officials say there are no such connections to the suspects in this case, despite rumors to the contrary.
I'm not defending McClelland's killers one bit; if the accused men did it, they deserve harsh punishment (the victim's mother told the News she opposes the death penalty and would like to see them get Life Without Parole). I just hate to see activists and the media ginning up racial animosities when the facts don't warrant it. Every murder is an unfathomable tragedy for those involved, but not every white on black murder is a "lynching."
There are plenty of real examples of racism in the world, and especially the justice system, without the media manufacturing alleged racial motives every time there's a mixed-race crime.
BLOGVERSATION: More from Dallas South Blog, which gives background from a Chicago Tribune story on the episode where the victim in this case provided a false alibi for one of his alleged killers. Alan Bean at the Friends of Justice blog agrees with the hate crime meme.
Contraband Update
The Texas prison system remains on lockdown searching for contraband; here are a few interesting details from recent coverage.
For starters, the blog Texas Prison Bidness informs us that private prisons have contraband smuggling problems, too, while the Houston Chronicle published an interesting story about how cell phones are smuggled into supposedly secure facilities.
The Austin Statesman reports that searches have been expanded to staff leaving prisons as well as those entering them:
Of course, not all contraband is harmful, even if it's prohibited. The same News story was accompanied by this photo of a "Prisonopoloy" board game created by a TDCJ inmate that was confiscated four years ago which now is housed in the Texas Prison Museum. It's a pretty impressive artifact:
For starters, the blog Texas Prison Bidness informs us that private prisons have contraband smuggling problems, too, while the Houston Chronicle published an interesting story about how cell phones are smuggled into supposedly secure facilities.
The Austin Statesman reports that searches have been expanded to staff leaving prisons as well as those entering them:
The same story has this astonishing tidbit letting us know that nearly 1/3 of the state's cell phone smuggling problem occurs in one unit:At first, everyone going into Texas prisons was being searched as part of a massive contraband sweep. On Friday afternoon, officials ordered everyone leaving to be searched, too.
The reason: At one Beaumont prison, officials reportedly found guards carrying out cell phone chargers — presumably to keep inmates from getting caught with them.
With more than 2,800 convicts and 776 employees, the Stiles Unit has the worst problem with smuggled cell phones. Since January, 180 cell phones have been seized there, of the more than 600 statewide, according to agency statistics.We also hear more about employees' negative reaction to new policies:
At some prisons, officials who didn't have permission to speak publicly said the pat searches are triggering dozens of grievances and formal complaints, including some in which female employees alleged that male searchers improperly touched their breasts. At others, employees have complained they are not being allowed to bring in lunches and other personal items they had previously, said Brian Olsen, executive director of a labor union that represents some Texas correctional officers.Another story from the Dallas News gave some interesting data on Texas prison contraband that surprised me, particularly the very low totals for the number of weapons found system-wide:
| Item | 2007 | 2008* |
| Prohibited alcohol | 2 | 8 |
| Prohibited cell phone | 484 | 743 |
| Prohibited drugs | 512 | 405 |
| Prohibited money | 80 | 105 |
| Prohibited tobacco | 111 | 99 |
| Prohibited weapon (such as shanks and razor blades) | 10 | 8 |
| *Through Oct. 20 | ||
Of course, not all contraband is harmful, even if it's prohibited. The same News story was accompanied by this photo of a "Prisonopoloy" board game created by a TDCJ inmate that was confiscated four years ago which now is housed in the Texas Prison Museum. It's a pretty impressive artifact:
Dallas police reexamining 'showup' policy
Grits has frequently discussed faulty eyewitness ID procedures used by police, and few such tactics are more problematic than use of the "showup," where police bring a single suspect in custody to see a witness or victim and simply ask, "is this the guy." As it turns out, reports the Dallas News, for the most part this tactic isn't necessary for good police work ("Dallas police view suspect showups," Oct. 25):
A Dallas police review of single-suspect "showup" identifications revealed that more than half may not have been necessary to make an arrest.
Police found 36 cases involving showups in a review completed this week of crimes from the last six months.
The examination began after an investigation earlier this month by The Dallas Morning News into eyewitness identification.
In 20 of the 36 cases, police already had enough information to make an arrest or there was already a warrant for a suspect in another crime, police said.
A photo lineup using six images could have been conducted later in those instances.
"A lot of times, it wasn't necessary," said Dallas police Lt. David Pughes, who is in charge of the review. "The patrol officers tried to make it an ironclad case."
That said, DPD's review likely isn't capturing all showups, said a nationally reknowned eyewitness ID expert, because usually they're typically performed by patrol officers and DPD only counted the ones done by detectives:
Gary Wells, an Iowa State University psychology professor and expert on eyewitness identification, commended Dallas police for conducting the review and other changes. But he said their assessment is incomplete because detectives typically aren't the ones conducting lineups. They might not remember that a patrol officer conducted a showup in a particular case. "They are missing most of the showups," Dr. Wells said.
It's particularly troublesome if detectives "might not remember" that a patrol officer did a showup because it could taint future identification processes. After all, once police have shown you a guy handcuffed in the back of a police car, the odds that the witness would pick the same guy out of a photo array later are pretty high, whether or not it's actually the culprit.
In an op-ed, state Sen. Rodney Ellis proposed eliminating the tactic altogether ("Sen. Ellis to propose ban on police showups in Texas," Oct. 15):
"I think because of the outrageous number of wrongful convictions in Texas, it's time to begin the dialog [to ban showups]," Mr. Ellis said. "Whether or not I can get legislators to a point at which they would mandate it would not be used is a separate issue."
Dallas PD is in the process of creating a stricter policy, whether or not the Legislature is willing to actually ban the procedure:
"I think at the end the day, our policy will be more restrictive than the model policy," Chief Waldrop said. "The survey was more or less to determine the types of cases and the prevalence." He said police expected to find that almost all the showups involved robberies. But that was true in only 13 of the cases. Ten were vehicle burglaries. Seven were thefts and five were burglaries. One was a sexual assault. ... Lt. Pughes said there is no way to determine whether the showups were done improperly because the reports do not reflect how the showups were conducted. Although the practice is highly suggestive, sometimes showups are conducted when suspects are in handcuffs or in the back of a patrol car. The planned DPD policy will forbid this.
It's particularly telling that no documentation is kept about when and how this procedure is used, making it easy to fudge results or to overlook cases where witnesses got it wrong. In any even, reports the News, for now:
No policy limits or prohibits showups, but a training bulletin issued last month forbids single-photo showups when the witness does not know the suspect by name and face. But before the end of this year, DPD will begin tracking showups to better understand how often they occur, and the department will require a supervisor's presence at all such identifications, Chief Waldrop said. He said a department showup policy and training regimen will begin within 30 days. The policy will have guidelines to make showups less suggestive, limit how long after a crime they can be conducted, and prevent them if an arrest can be made without them.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Why jail people you're not going to charge?
Counties can save big bucks by eliminating jail time for people who're never charged with a crime if District and County Attorneys implement a "direct filing" system on the front end.
El Paso DA Jaime Esparza gave a presentation this week at a conference of the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense about his county's upgraded information management system (DIMS), which allows police to immediately file cases with the DA instead of having prosecutors wait to evaluate the case until after the defendant sees a judge.
Harris County, he said, had the first direct filing system in the state. (See excellent bloggerly descriptions of Harris County's system here and here.) In Harris, police must get every arrest pre-approved by prosecutors who are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days per year to evaluate cases at the time of arrest. That eliminates needless delays that in other counties strand people in jail for days or weeks who will never actually be prosecuted.
Esparza declared law enforcement must get away from the idea that arrest is punishment, citing the old cops' adage enshrined in Grits' masthead - "you might beat the rap but you won't beat the ride." That approach maximizes cost to taxpayers and distorts the justice system with little public safety benefit.
There are 3 basic models used by different counties to arrest and charge people with a crime, said Esparza, and most use the third, most cumbersome one. They are:
Esparza explained the core assumption behind the system: Most cases are routine. On misdemeanor cases and low-level felonies, in particular, typically once a police car leaves the scene, they're never coming back. It's those routine cases (not more complex ones like murder or sexual assault) where the direct filing has the biggest impact.
Making charging decisions earlier in the process - in El Paso it happens before a defendant is ever booked into jail - reduces jail overcrowding and helps process court dockets more quickly.
In Harris County, he said, 25% of direct-filed cases are completed in just three days; that figure was 15% in El Paso, but it would be zero without the DIMS system.
For routine cases, there's a pre-set bond schedule so defendants can actually bond out BEFORE magistration. (That potentially saves the county money on indigent defense costs because, according to Indigent Defense Task Force chief Jim Bethke, if there's no magistration hearing, requirements to appoint counsel under the Rothgery ruling aren't triggered, a particular boon whenever charges aren't ultimately filed.)
Even for defendants who remain in jail, overall detention rates are lower with direct filing and cases are resolved much faster, reducing the length of pretrial incarceration. El Paso has an open file policy, so the DA's full file on the case is given to defense counsel within 24 hours.
While it might seem like being on call 24-hours a day would put a strain on prosecutors, as it turns out they're paid time and a half when working non-standard hours, so prosecutors tend to consider it a plum and seek out the assignment. Even with extra costs for prosecutors, though, overall savings to the county from DIMS has been about $1.49 million per year, said Esparza, mostly from reduced jail costs.
El Paso's Sheriff initially refused to participate and while that created headaches for the DA, it also created a situation where researchers could evaluate differences in cases depending on how they were filed. El Paso prosecutors receive offense reports an average of 7 hours after an arrest using the DIMS system. By contrast, offense reports for El Paso's non-DIMS cases take an average of 19 days to reach a prosecutor. That's a big difference!
In the meantime, taxpayers pay for the defendant to sit in jail, even though 19% of cases brought by police to the DA in El Paso don't result in prosecution, said Esparza (a figure which closely corresponds to the statewide average of 18%). In Harris County, according to our pal at the blog Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center, the arresting officer must phone the on-call Assistant DA, describe the incident and get agreement about the proposed charge up front, which prevents jailing people who will never charged.
When El Paso began using the DIMS system, said Esparza, the county jail was so crowded that officers were in many cases forced to give summons instead of making arrests. Now, he said, the county actually leases jail beds to the feds to generate extra income because the DIMS system reduced the jail population to such an extent. It's hard to argue with that kind of success.
RELATED: See this study of direct filing systems (pdf) by the Task Force on Indigent Defense.
El Paso DA Jaime Esparza gave a presentation this week at a conference of the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense about his county's upgraded information management system (DIMS), which allows police to immediately file cases with the DA instead of having prosecutors wait to evaluate the case until after the defendant sees a judge.
Harris County, he said, had the first direct filing system in the state. (See excellent bloggerly descriptions of Harris County's system here and here.) In Harris, police must get every arrest pre-approved by prosecutors who are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days per year to evaluate cases at the time of arrest. That eliminates needless delays that in other counties strand people in jail for days or weeks who will never actually be prosecuted.
Esparza declared law enforcement must get away from the idea that arrest is punishment, citing the old cops' adage enshrined in Grits' masthead - "you might beat the rap but you won't beat the ride." That approach maximizes cost to taxpayers and distorts the justice system with little public safety benefit.
There are 3 basic models used by different counties to arrest and charge people with a crime, said Esparza, and most use the third, most cumbersome one. They are:
- Arrest - Charge - Jail
- Arrest - Charge - Magistrate - Jail
- Arrest - Magistrate - Jail - Charge
Esparza explained the core assumption behind the system: Most cases are routine. On misdemeanor cases and low-level felonies, in particular, typically once a police car leaves the scene, they're never coming back. It's those routine cases (not more complex ones like murder or sexual assault) where the direct filing has the biggest impact.
Making charging decisions earlier in the process - in El Paso it happens before a defendant is ever booked into jail - reduces jail overcrowding and helps process court dockets more quickly.
In Harris County, he said, 25% of direct-filed cases are completed in just three days; that figure was 15% in El Paso, but it would be zero without the DIMS system.
For routine cases, there's a pre-set bond schedule so defendants can actually bond out BEFORE magistration. (That potentially saves the county money on indigent defense costs because, according to Indigent Defense Task Force chief Jim Bethke, if there's no magistration hearing, requirements to appoint counsel under the Rothgery ruling aren't triggered, a particular boon whenever charges aren't ultimately filed.)
Even for defendants who remain in jail, overall detention rates are lower with direct filing and cases are resolved much faster, reducing the length of pretrial incarceration. El Paso has an open file policy, so the DA's full file on the case is given to defense counsel within 24 hours.
While it might seem like being on call 24-hours a day would put a strain on prosecutors, as it turns out they're paid time and a half when working non-standard hours, so prosecutors tend to consider it a plum and seek out the assignment. Even with extra costs for prosecutors, though, overall savings to the county from DIMS has been about $1.49 million per year, said Esparza, mostly from reduced jail costs.
El Paso's Sheriff initially refused to participate and while that created headaches for the DA, it also created a situation where researchers could evaluate differences in cases depending on how they were filed. El Paso prosecutors receive offense reports an average of 7 hours after an arrest using the DIMS system. By contrast, offense reports for El Paso's non-DIMS cases take an average of 19 days to reach a prosecutor. That's a big difference!
In the meantime, taxpayers pay for the defendant to sit in jail, even though 19% of cases brought by police to the DA in El Paso don't result in prosecution, said Esparza (a figure which closely corresponds to the statewide average of 18%). In Harris County, according to our pal at the blog Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center, the arresting officer must phone the on-call Assistant DA, describe the incident and get agreement about the proposed charge up front, which prevents jailing people who will never charged.
When El Paso began using the DIMS system, said Esparza, the county jail was so crowded that officers were in many cases forced to give summons instead of making arrests. Now, he said, the county actually leases jail beds to the feds to generate extra income because the DIMS system reduced the jail population to such an extent. It's hard to argue with that kind of success.
RELATED: See this study of direct filing systems (pdf) by the Task Force on Indigent Defense.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Around the web
Here are several stories I'd blog about if I had more time:
- State Sen. Rodney Ellis has a column in the Dallas News announcing he plans to introduce legislation next spring to improve eyewitness ID procedures and require videotaping custodial interrogations.
- At Women in Crime Ink, Andrea Campbell discusses "That Murky Question: Time of Death"
- At Texas Prison Bidness, Bob Libal lets us know the Geo Group (a private prison company) has been indicted in South Texas for an inmate's death.
- I'd missed this Statesman story last week by Steven Kreytak about rising indigent defense costs in Central Texas counties.
- In San Antonio, the Democratic Sheriff's candidate is in trouble for accepting corporate donations to his campaign.
- At the Dallas News' Crime Blog, Kevin Krause has the story of possible litigation over a recent Dallas County jail death.
Smart policies can boost police coverage even in a bad economy
CNN had a story this week that I'm sure we'll be seeing much more frequently titled, "Police face cuts as economy falters." According to CNN:
This problem will likely only get worse, but there are two easy fixes Texas departments can implement to keep more officers on the street during the coming economic crunch:
First, more departments should embrace new discretion granted by the Legislature last year to give citations instead of arresting for low-level misdemeanors. In Austin, for example, 37% of all arrestees entering jail are there on charges for which they could have received a citation. That takes officers off the street to handle petty offenses and effectively reduces the number of cops on patrol.
In addition, cities could greatly increase their police coverage by requiring private security companies to do "verified response" before sending officers to react to alarms. As many as 99% of alarm calls are false alarms, and even when a crime did occur, typically the offender is long gone by the time police get there.
In some jurisdictions like Plano and Richardson, police spend more time responding to false burglar alarms than any other departmental function. Plano PD in particular spends about 10% of its officers' time annually responding to false alarms.
So implementing verified response would be the equivalent of increasing the size of their police force by as much as 10%, while using citations for low-level offenses would keep an even greater proportion of officers out on the street to perform more important tasks.
There's little doubt the economic downturn will affect law enforcement agencies' ability to hire more officers in the near future, so it's more critical than ever that officials use police resources wisely. These two ideas would supplement police coverage at no cost to the taxpayers. In fact, both would save taxpayers money while putting more cops on the street - truly a win-win scenario.
U.S. police departments are streamlining patrols, reducing training and cutting back on some preventative programs as their budgets fall victim to the struggling economy.The Plano, TX Police Department was one of the examples cited - they're leaving vacant officer positions unfilled to save money.
Many police chiefs are warning deeper cuts may be coming. ...
A poll of 200 departments during the summer by the Police Executive Research Forum, which studies law enforcement trends, reported 39 percent of respondents said their operating budgets were cut because of the economy and 43 percent said the faltering economy had affected their ability to deliver services.
This problem will likely only get worse, but there are two easy fixes Texas departments can implement to keep more officers on the street during the coming economic crunch:
First, more departments should embrace new discretion granted by the Legislature last year to give citations instead of arresting for low-level misdemeanors. In Austin, for example, 37% of all arrestees entering jail are there on charges for which they could have received a citation. That takes officers off the street to handle petty offenses and effectively reduces the number of cops on patrol.
In addition, cities could greatly increase their police coverage by requiring private security companies to do "verified response" before sending officers to react to alarms. As many as 99% of alarm calls are false alarms, and even when a crime did occur, typically the offender is long gone by the time police get there.
In some jurisdictions like Plano and Richardson, police spend more time responding to false burglar alarms than any other departmental function. Plano PD in particular spends about 10% of its officers' time annually responding to false alarms.
So implementing verified response would be the equivalent of increasing the size of their police force by as much as 10%, while using citations for low-level offenses would keep an even greater proportion of officers out on the street to perform more important tasks.
There's little doubt the economic downturn will affect law enforcement agencies' ability to hire more officers in the near future, so it's more critical than ever that officials use police resources wisely. These two ideas would supplement police coverage at no cost to the taxpayers. In fact, both would save taxpayers money while putting more cops on the street - truly a win-win scenario.
Did you visit your client in jail, yet?
At a truly excellent conference this week sponsored by the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense, the indigent defense coordinator in Taylor County gave a description of the processes they use to ensure attorneys are promptly appointed for people in jail.
As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court's Rothgery case now requires counties to provide lawyers to indigent defendants out on bond and many counties have not upgraded their indigent defense plans to accommodate that change. But processes for appointing lawyers for people in jail have problems too, and for those folks, Taylor County seems to have a good accountability system in place that goes beyond what most counties are doing.
Jennifer DeLeon Griffin, the Taylor indigent defense coordinator, pro-actively reviews the list of jail inmates who've not bonded out and do not have an attorney (if they have one, she emails the lawyer to let them know their client is back in jail). Then she visits the jail twice weekly to record requests for an attorney and gets them appointed ASAP. That's a pretty pro-active approach - lots of other counties just have requests go through the jailers which can cause unnecessary delay.
After counsel is appointed, Griffin periodically checks jail visitation records to find out if the lawyer has visited their client, which is supposed to happen according to county rules within five days. If the attorney hasn't visited, she contacts them with a reminder. If a second reminder is required, she also sends a copy to the judge so the lawyer knows the judge is aware of their delay. If that doesn't do the trick, she gets the judge to personally call the attorney telling them to follow up.
Griffin also created a county "complaint of attorney conduct" form for defendants to fill out if they're unhappy with their representation,, and those complaints are computerized so each judge can pull up all of a given attorney's complaints. Their county plan has a periodic review process for attorneys where judges look at complaints, non-compliance with attorney visits, etc., and make a decision whether to remove those who're not up to snuff.
Speaking of which, I heard a couple of interesting discussions at the event of processes for removing bad attorneys from the appointment list. The court administrator from Travis said their judges annually vet the list together and may decide to remove an attorney altogether, downgrade others to lower-level cases, and in some instances giving a reprimand/warning in lieu of removal. In some cases, judges told attorneys they needed to get a mentor to continue receiving appointments.
The first time Travis judges vetted the appointment list several years ago, targeted lawyers reacted with a howl of protest. In some instances their caseload was 100% appointed cases, so removing them from the list was essentially firing them as a lawyer and some were quite upset. As a result of that initial backlash, now when Travis removes somebody a county staffer meets with them to explain the judges' reasons and tell them what they need to do to regain their appointment status. By contrast, some counties just send them a form letter saying "you're off."
The Taylor County coordinator deserves a lot of credit for being proactive to ensure prompt appointment of counsel and that lawyers are visiting their clients. I'd definitely like to see other counties mimic her methods, and similar accountability protocols need to be developed after Rothgery to oversee appointed counsel for people who've bonded out.
As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court's Rothgery case now requires counties to provide lawyers to indigent defendants out on bond and many counties have not upgraded their indigent defense plans to accommodate that change. But processes for appointing lawyers for people in jail have problems too, and for those folks, Taylor County seems to have a good accountability system in place that goes beyond what most counties are doing.
Jennifer DeLeon Griffin, the Taylor indigent defense coordinator, pro-actively reviews the list of jail inmates who've not bonded out and do not have an attorney (if they have one, she emails the lawyer to let them know their client is back in jail). Then she visits the jail twice weekly to record requests for an attorney and gets them appointed ASAP. That's a pretty pro-active approach - lots of other counties just have requests go through the jailers which can cause unnecessary delay.
After counsel is appointed, Griffin periodically checks jail visitation records to find out if the lawyer has visited their client, which is supposed to happen according to county rules within five days. If the attorney hasn't visited, she contacts them with a reminder. If a second reminder is required, she also sends a copy to the judge so the lawyer knows the judge is aware of their delay. If that doesn't do the trick, she gets the judge to personally call the attorney telling them to follow up.
Griffin also created a county "complaint of attorney conduct" form for defendants to fill out if they're unhappy with their representation,, and those complaints are computerized so each judge can pull up all of a given attorney's complaints. Their county plan has a periodic review process for attorneys where judges look at complaints, non-compliance with attorney visits, etc., and make a decision whether to remove those who're not up to snuff.
Speaking of which, I heard a couple of interesting discussions at the event of processes for removing bad attorneys from the appointment list. The court administrator from Travis said their judges annually vet the list together and may decide to remove an attorney altogether, downgrade others to lower-level cases, and in some instances giving a reprimand/warning in lieu of removal. In some cases, judges told attorneys they needed to get a mentor to continue receiving appointments.
The first time Travis judges vetted the appointment list several years ago, targeted lawyers reacted with a howl of protest. In some instances their caseload was 100% appointed cases, so removing them from the list was essentially firing them as a lawyer and some were quite upset. As a result of that initial backlash, now when Travis removes somebody a county staffer meets with them to explain the judges' reasons and tell them what they need to do to regain their appointment status. By contrast, some counties just send them a form letter saying "you're off."
The Taylor County coordinator deserves a lot of credit for being proactive to ensure prompt appointment of counsel and that lawyers are visiting their clients. I'd definitely like to see other counties mimic her methods, and similar accountability protocols need to be developed after Rothgery to oversee appointed counsel for people who've bonded out.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Fraud by DPS tech in DWI cases
Reports the Dallas News:
At least 2,600 Houston-area DWI arrests are now in question, after a Department of Public Safety contractor failed to inspect breath analysis equipment – and faked records to show that she hadMORE: Here's a longer story from the Houston Chronicle, which informs us that:
The Texas Department of Public Safety announced Friday that it suspended the certification for a woman who contracted to keep the breath test machines accurate for the Clute, Friendswood, Galveston, League City, Pearland, Seabrook, South Houston and Webster police departments. ...
DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange said the problem was discovered in a routine audit last week; the inspector was suspended on Thursday; and DPS met with the prosecutors in Harris, Galveston and Brazoria counties Friday to discuss the next steps.
Informants focus of media briefing, CLE
For attorneys in Austin, a reader notified me of a continuing legal education (CLE) event on Monday sponsored by ACLU focused on the use of confidential informants in the drug war:
Continuing Legal Education Seminar “Confidential Informants: Problems, Issues and Strategies” presented by University of Texas law professor Gerry Morris and [Jay] Rorty [Deputy Director of the ACLU National Drug Law Reform Project]. 1 to 4 pm; Thompson Conference Center, 2405 Robert Dedman Dr.; Room 2.110; $30; RSVP (512) 478-7300 x 126 or e-mail avuong@aclutx.org.The group will also sponsor a press event Monday morning where a public policy report will be released titled “Law Enforcement Use of Confidential Informants in Texas.”
Many Texas counties not complying with SCOTUS' Rothgery ruling
Many Texas counties have yet to update their indigent defense plans to accommodate the US Supreme Court's Rothgery decision this spring, according to presentations at a statewide conference of the Texas Task Force on Indigent Defense this week. If local officials aren't careful, such omissions could lead to confessions and other evidence being thrown out of court, the group was told.
The main problem occurs when an indigent defendant requests an attorney but then is somehow able to make bond - a particularly common occurrence on misdemeanor cases and penny ante felonies where bond amounts are low. Defendants in custody, for the most part, have counsel appointed promptly, but not always those who bail out.
Before Rothgery, Texas law did not require appointment of counsel until a defendant was acutally indicted, which could be weeks or months after the initial arrest. But SCOTUS said that the "magistration" hearing, where bail is set, marks the initiation of adversarial proceedings that requires appointment of counsel, speakers told the group.
In Texas, if a defendant is in custody, the law requires counsel to be appointed within 1-3 working days depending on the size of the county, "if an indigent defendant is entitled to and requests appointed counsel and if adversarial proceedings have been initiated." In Rothgery, SCOTUS said adversarial proceedings begin upon magistration and a lawyer must be appointed within a reasonable time thereafter. However, the confusion comes under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 1.051(j), which adds that:
The "whichever comes first" language could arguably mean that - since we now know precisely WHEN adversarial proceedings commence - counsel must be appointed within 1-3 days of magistration. But Texas Association of Counties General Counsel Jim Allison disagreed with that analysis, saying counties must only appoint lawyers within a reasonable time, though the longer they wait, he said, the greater the risk a delay will harm their case.
At a minimum, said Allison, counties can no longer wait until indigent defendants are indicted to appoint a lawyer - doing nothing is not an option. The safest practice, Allison declared, would be for counties to treat defendants the same regardless of whether or not they're out on bond - that's the only way to know for sure you'll be in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling, he said.
Counties that fail to appoint counsel after magistration risk having interrogations, confessions, line-ups, and other investigative efforts thrown out based on the court case Michigan v. Jackson, said Texas Fair Defense Project chief Andrea Marsh. That case held that "post-arraignment confessions were improperly obtained - and the Sixth Amendment violated - because the defendants had requested counsel during their arraignments but were not afforded an opportunity to consult with counsel before police initiated further interrogations."
District Judge Dib Waldrip from Comal County told the group counties should try to screen cases between arrest and the magistration hearing, dividing cases into "the good, the bad and the ugly," to get rid of bad cases before setting bail and identify ones where more investigation is needed before a defendant can be prosecuted. Not only would that practice help counties better comply with Rothgery, they're wasting taxpayer money on pretrial detention not to do so, said the judge and former DA.
See prior, relate Grits posts:
The main problem occurs when an indigent defendant requests an attorney but then is somehow able to make bond - a particularly common occurrence on misdemeanor cases and penny ante felonies where bond amounts are low. Defendants in custody, for the most part, have counsel appointed promptly, but not always those who bail out.
Before Rothgery, Texas law did not require appointment of counsel until a defendant was acutally indicted, which could be weeks or months after the initial arrest. But SCOTUS said that the "magistration" hearing, where bail is set, marks the initiation of adversarial proceedings that requires appointment of counsel, speakers told the group.
In Texas, if a defendant is in custody, the law requires counsel to be appointed within 1-3 working days depending on the size of the county, "if an indigent defendant is entitled to and requests appointed counsel and if adversarial proceedings have been initiated." In Rothgery, SCOTUS said adversarial proceedings begin upon magistration and a lawyer must be appointed within a reasonable time thereafter. However, the confusion comes under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 1.051(j), which adds that:
if an indigent defendant is released from custody prior to the appointment of counsel under this section, appointment of counsel is not required until the defendant's first court appearance or when adversarial proceedings are initiated, whichever comes first.Rothgery contradicted and essentially overrides that language, but SCOTUS did not proscribe a policy to replace it. The court only declared that adversarial proceedings initiate at magistration, but declined to specify how long counties have thereafter to appoint counsel.
The "whichever comes first" language could arguably mean that - since we now know precisely WHEN adversarial proceedings commence - counsel must be appointed within 1-3 days of magistration. But Texas Association of Counties General Counsel Jim Allison disagreed with that analysis, saying counties must only appoint lawyers within a reasonable time, though the longer they wait, he said, the greater the risk a delay will harm their case.
At a minimum, said Allison, counties can no longer wait until indigent defendants are indicted to appoint a lawyer - doing nothing is not an option. The safest practice, Allison declared, would be for counties to treat defendants the same regardless of whether or not they're out on bond - that's the only way to know for sure you'll be in compliance with the SCOTUS ruling, he said.
Counties that fail to appoint counsel after magistration risk having interrogations, confessions, line-ups, and other investigative efforts thrown out based on the court case Michigan v. Jackson, said Texas Fair Defense Project chief Andrea Marsh. That case held that "post-arraignment confessions were improperly obtained - and the Sixth Amendment violated - because the defendants had requested counsel during their arraignments but were not afforded an opportunity to consult with counsel before police initiated further interrogations."
District Judge Dib Waldrip from Comal County told the group counties should try to screen cases between arrest and the magistration hearing, dividing cases into "the good, the bad and the ugly," to get rid of bad cases before setting bail and identify ones where more investigation is needed before a defendant can be prosecuted. Not only would that practice help counties better comply with Rothgery, they're wasting taxpayer money on pretrial detention not to do so, said the judge and former DA.
See prior, relate Grits posts:
- Rothgery Ramifications: 'Investigate your defendant before arresting him'
- Rothgery 'trumped' counties leeway to delay counsel appointments
- A possible explanation for Rothgery confusion
- Dallas County data entry errors could lead to more wrongful arrests like Walter Rothgery's
- What does Rothgery really mean?
- SCOTUS to Texas: Provide counsel earlier in the process
- Requirement to appoint indigent defendants' counsel not an 'unfunded mandate'
- Rothgery v. John Wiley Price: Move to slash Dallas defender budget couldn't come at worse time
- When does the adversarial process commence?
- Rothgery oral arguments reveal new insight about murky systems
- Do they really have to appoint you a lawyer when you ask for one?
- SCOTUS to decide in Texas case when right to counsel attaches
Fronting for bail bondsmen? Tyler jail debates getting weird
An attorney representing Smith County in an open records lawsuit, in which jail opponents are seeking access to proposed facility plans developed in secret meetings earlier this year, is making some bizarre allegations about the requestors:
This isn't the first strange and desperate argument being trotted out by jail proponents in Tyler. The local establishment types are pushing the jail as hard as they can, but diversion plans spearheaded by Judge Cynthia Kent have already eliminated the need for leasing space from other counties. As of October 1, Smith County had 628 county prisoners in the jail and leased 107 beds from other counties, but their jail capacity is 755 inmates. If they'd build on that success, a new jail wouldn't be necessary.
[Robert] Davis said Mr. Good's motivation is that he represents bail bondsmen across the state, as well as sues Texas counties on their behalf. "Ken Good would love nothing more than to be able to give bail bond companies and criminals detailed security plans for our correctional institutions," Davis said.For what nefarious reason does Davis think bail bondsmen want jail floor plans, I wonder? That's just weird. Citing long-established precedents, the Texas Attorney General already told the county they must release the plans, but the lawsuit ensures that won't happen until after voters have already made their decision.
This isn't the first strange and desperate argument being trotted out by jail proponents in Tyler. The local establishment types are pushing the jail as hard as they can, but diversion plans spearheaded by Judge Cynthia Kent have already eliminated the need for leasing space from other counties. As of October 1, Smith County had 628 county prisoners in the jail and leased 107 beds from other counties, but their jail capacity is 755 inmates. If they'd build on that success, a new jail wouldn't be necessary.
TYC stops paying for empty private prison
The Texas Youth Commission continues to take a step and a half back for every one step forward. TYC's new Executive Commissoner Cheri Townsend canceled their contract with a private prison company out of Florida to operate a facility in Eagle Lake west of Houston in Colorado County, the Dallas News reported, after the agency had already paid the company more than $1.26 million for managing an empty facility:
Leasing the Eagle Lake facility was TYC's first significant step toward its regionalization plan, and canceling it leaves the agency in quite a muddle. This move makes clear that state leaders weren't fully on board with the direction conservator Richard Nedelkoff took the agency, but no clear direction has been given for how they do want TYC to operate now that a new Executive Commissioner's in charge.
I'm not sure how I feel about this development because opening the Eagle Facility only made sense if it was part of a more comprehensive regionalization plan - just adding it to TYC's present capacity wouldn't help anything, but it might if it were part of more sweeping changes that closed or radically downsized some of the larger, rural units and shifted to smaller facilities. However there's no consensus on what sweeping changes would look like (though Sen. Whitmire has some ideas). In the meantime, though, backtracking on Eagle Lake reinforces the impression of a directionless and floundering agency.
When I talked to Sen. Whitmire last month about TYC, he was supportive of the new Eagle Lake facility because it would be closer to Houston and most units are out in the sticks, but that was before it became known that the state was paying to operate an empty prison. Upon learning that, reported the Austin Statesman's Mike Ward, Whitmire demanded the unit be closed: "This is what I asked for — cancel that contract," he said. "We need to get our money back. It's a good day for taxpayers and the Youth Commission that they corrected this big mistake."After spending $1.26 million over three months on an empty juvenile prison in Eagle Lake, the Texas Youth Commission said today it is cancelling the controversial contract.
It’s unclear whether the agency will reclaim the money.
Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, said he had assurances from the TYC that all the money would be recovered from the prison operator, Youth Services International.
“I was told [by TYC Executive Commissioner Cherie Townsend] that they’re going to reimburse the funds,” Mr. Whitmire said. “They know they weren’t delivering a service. If that company would like to be considered again, they’re returning all the money.”
But a TYC press release said only that the vendor has been asked to account for how much they’ve spent so far. The last two checks to the vendor have been canceled. ...
The point of the contract, agency officials said, was to do what state leaders had asked of them – to quickly get kids in facilities closer to their homes. But lawmakers said they never authorized paying generous start-up fees for prisons without any kids in them. And they questioned the value of opening a 119-bed facility when the TYC’s population was already declining.
Leasing the Eagle Lake facility was TYC's first significant step toward its regionalization plan, and canceling it leaves the agency in quite a muddle. This move makes clear that state leaders weren't fully on board with the direction conservator Richard Nedelkoff took the agency, but no clear direction has been given for how they do want TYC to operate now that a new Executive Commissioner's in charge.
I'm not sure how I feel about this development because opening the Eagle Facility only made sense if it was part of a more comprehensive regionalization plan - just adding it to TYC's present capacity wouldn't help anything, but it might if it were part of more sweeping changes that closed or radically downsized some of the larger, rural units and shifted to smaller facilities. However there's no consensus on what sweeping changes would look like (though Sen. Whitmire has some ideas). In the meantime, though, backtracking on Eagle Lake reinforces the impression of a directionless and floundering agency.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Open Thread
I'm out today to attend this conference by the Task Force on Indigent Defense. Consider this an open thread to discuss whatever criminal justice topics are on your mind.
More on Halloween sex offender hype
The San Antonio Express News today quoted this Grits piece about law enforcement grandstanding over sex offenders at Halloween ("Roundup targets sex offenders," Oct. 23), in which I'd pointed out that extra monitoring of sex offenders who are unlikely to cause problems "mis-targets resources on a night with one of the year's highest youth crime rates." Apparently Bexar DA Susan Reed had wanted the county to round up every sex offender on Halloween night like they do in Waco, but couldn't garner support for the plan.
Such programs are all about playing to the media, not public safety. Kids trick or treating are more likely to be hit by lightning while going door to door than they are to be abducted by a registered sex offender.
I've mentioned before there's only one case in the history of the planet where a child was abducted by a stranger while trick or treating (in Wisconsin in 1973). In that instance, the killer had no prior record and wouldn't have been on any sex offender registry even if it had existed. But reporter Lomi Kriel was reluctant to take my word for it and researched the matter herself. Neither the various law enforcement agencies she talked to nor the National Center on Missing and Exploited Children could identify a single precedent besides the one 35 years ago.
By comparison, how many drunk drivers are out on Halloween? How much vandalism and other youth crime occurs that night while police attention is focused on tracking sex offenders?
They can say this is all about protecting children, but if authorities really wanted to protect kids they'd protect them from actual, demonstrable risks that occur in the real world.
Such programs are all about playing to the media, not public safety. Kids trick or treating are more likely to be hit by lightning while going door to door than they are to be abducted by a registered sex offender.
I've mentioned before there's only one case in the history of the planet where a child was abducted by a stranger while trick or treating (in Wisconsin in 1973). In that instance, the killer had no prior record and wouldn't have been on any sex offender registry even if it had existed. But reporter Lomi Kriel was reluctant to take my word for it and researched the matter herself. Neither the various law enforcement agencies she talked to nor the National Center on Missing and Exploited Children could identify a single precedent besides the one 35 years ago.
By comparison, how many drunk drivers are out on Halloween? How much vandalism and other youth crime occurs that night while police attention is focused on tracking sex offenders?
They can say this is all about protecting children, but if authorities really wanted to protect kids they'd protect them from actual, demonstrable risks that occur in the real world.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Burnet jail blames overcrowding on Class C arrests
More and more Texas law enforcement agencies are embracing the tactic of reducing their number of arrests for petty offenses in order to stave off costly jail overcrowding. KXAN-TV out of Austin reports that:
Until recently, I was under the impression that Class Cs made up a small percentage of arrests, but a report this summer (pdf, p. 5) found that in Austin, 22% of all arrests by APD were for Class C misdemeanors, so roughly one in five people entering the Travis County jail are there for offenses that carry no jail time. If the same is true in Burnet County, the Sheriff's new policy may well save the county quite a bit of money with little risk to public safety.
Due to overcrowding and lack of manpower, Friday, the Burnet County Sheriff relayed the message that the Burnet County will no longer be accepting most class C misdemeanor suspects. Wednesday, Jail Captain Kathy Sievers said two county justices of the peace disagreed with the plan. Seivers said the county will accept them, but if their stay is longer than two days, the inmates will be transported to the Zavala County Jail in Crystal City. The facility is handling Burnet County's overflow.Class C misdemeanors are the most petty class of nonviolent offenses for which the sole punishment is a fine, not jail time, so it makes sense not to take most of these folks to jail in the first place.
Tuesday, 29 Burnet County inmates were in Crystal City. It costs Burnet County $45 a day per inmate to house their inmates in the South Texas jail. The cost does not include the gas and time it takes to make the 400 mile trip. All 98 beds at the Burnet County jail are full.
Until recently, I was under the impression that Class Cs made up a small percentage of arrests, but a report this summer (pdf, p. 5) found that in Austin, 22% of all arrests by APD were for Class C misdemeanors, so roughly one in five people entering the Travis County jail are there for offenses that carry no jail time. If the same is true in Burnet County, the Sheriff's new policy may well save the county quite a bit of money with little risk to public safety.
FCC has no authority to approve cell phone jammers
At yesterday's Senate Criminal Justice Committee hearing, legislators demanded that the Department of Criminal Justice seek Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval to install cell phone jammers at Texas prison units. According to this AP article, though, the FCC has no such authority:
In addition, reports AP, jamming cell phones could have unintended security consequences:
"We have no authority to even grant it if we thought it was worthwhile or something that was warranted," said Robert Kenny, a spokesman for the FCC. "It's likely going to take some level of action by Congress."That news certainly casts a different light on the senators' conversation yesterday about eliminating cell phones in prison. I'm guessing Congress might support the jammer idea down the line, but it's not something, apparently, that could happen immediately.
In addition, reports AP, jamming cell phones could have unintended security consequences:
Sounds like jammers won't be the short-term fix legislators hoped for to TDCJ's cell phone smuggling epidemic."You can prevent emergency calls if these jammers are allowed," said Joe Farren, spokesman for CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group for the wireless industry. "You put signal jammers in, you interfere with critical communications, life and death."
That worry is shared by Zack Kendall, a security specialist for North Carolina's prison system, who said he doesn't know whether his prisons would take advantage of signal blocking because it could interfere with internal radio communications.
Long booking times a strong argument for police using citation authority
Keeping more officers on the street for longer periods of time is perhaps the best argument for police to use their new authority granted by the Legislature last year to issue citations for low-level misdemeanors, followed as a close second by the fact that doing so reduces jail overcrowding.
There's a significant opportunity cost involved with arresting somebody for driving with no insurance or possession of a joint: Most notably, while the officer is booking an arrestee into the jail, they're not available to respond to more serious crimes. In that vein, the FOX TV station in El Paso had a story last night about how much time it takes officers to process arrestees into the jail:
I'd be interested to know what proportion of arrests in El Paso could have been otherwise resolved with a citation? In Austin, a study found that 37% of all arrests were for offenses where officers could have given a citation.
There's a big opportunity cost to doing that: Each time it happens, it's like taking an extra officer off the force for however long booking takes. In aggregate, that's a lot of officer-hours spent shuttling penny ante cases to and from the jail that could and should be spent protecting the public.
There's a significant opportunity cost involved with arresting somebody for driving with no insurance or possession of a joint: Most notably, while the officer is booking an arrestee into the jail, they're not available to respond to more serious crimes. In that vein, the FOX TV station in El Paso had a story last night about how much time it takes officers to process arrestees into the jail:
When a patrol officer out on the field makes an arrest, he takes the suspect downtown to the El Paso County Jail to book that person -- a process that can take any where from 20 minutes to almost two hours. One of the first steps is to have the suspect screened by a nurse. El Paso Sheriff Jimmy Apodaca said it's one step that may not always go very smoothly."It should be mentioned that El Paso police don't typically have the same long drive times as, say, Dallas or Houston, where it may take quite a bit of time (and petrol) driving to and from the jail in addition to booking.
Maybe he has a contagious disease, maybe he's been hurt, he's complaining of chest pains. Whatever it is, the nurse will evaluate him," said Apodaca.
Apodaca explains the medical exam takes the longest because there's only one nurse and because they must attend to the suspects medical needs as part of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards. During the 4th of July weekend, officers were required to sign in when they arrived and when they left. He said even with one nurse the log sheet indicated the average time was about 30 minutes.
"The next step, which is the intake window, this is where we require the officer have reports ready for us. We also search the individual so he doesn't have any contraband on him," said Apodaca.
Apodaca said he's well aware of the importance of getting officers back on the field and he says steps are being taken to improve booking times.
I'd be interested to know what proportion of arrests in El Paso could have been otherwise resolved with a citation? In Austin, a study found that 37% of all arrests were for offenses where officers could have given a citation.
There's a big opportunity cost to doing that: Each time it happens, it's like taking an extra officer off the force for however long booking takes. In aggregate, that's a lot of officer-hours spent shuttling penny ante cases to and from the jail that could and should be spent protecting the public.
Staff bristling at TDCJ lockdown restrictions
An Amarillo TV station broadcast this report on how TDCJ staff are reacting (mostly negatively) to the system-wide lockdown ordered by Governor Perry in response to widespread contraband smuggling:
It is not only the prisoners under scrutiny but prison employees as well, the TDCJ is not allowing food or any outside contraband into the prison system. They say they are providing food through the commissary and the Officer's Dinning Hall. They are advising employees to not bring anything to work, just a photo ID.
With all these rules and regulations being instituted on prison employees, some say the TDCJ is going too far.
We talked with a prison employee who is putting their job on the line in hopes of making things better for fellow employees during the lockdown. They feel prison worker rights are being violated the longer the lockdown persists. With in 24-hours of Texas Governor Rick Perry's lockdown the Panhandle prison system has changed.
Every prison employee must go through an extensive search of their property and their body. They say the searching is making employees at least an hour late for work and harder to take breaks. Some employees say if they even receive a lunch break the dinning hall is closed because it is run by inmates and the commissary has limited options if you have dietary needs or medical conditions. These new policy changes are leaving many employees frustrated and ready to take action.
A prison employee told us that they will not be surprised to see some employees leave. "They'll probably be some that'll quit or even they calling in sick and make a real unsafe place for not just the public and us who work on the inside," they said.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Pay hike for guards needed to reduce contraband smuggling
At a Senate committee meeting today Texas legislators were told that understaffing and low guard pay were primary causes of the flood of contraband in Texas prisons, combined with a lack of phone access for inmates to keep in touch with their families. Improved phone access is already coming, but boosting pay will require legislative action. As Texas heads into the 81st legislative session, TDCJ officials have requested an eye-popping 20% pay hike for prison employees to stem its chronic understaffing problems.
In that context, I was interested to see PacoVilla's Corrections Blog recently lamenting possible pay cuts for California prison guards because of that state's budget crisis (coupled with looming federal court judgments). California guards are the highest paid in the nation, and interestingly, the main argument Paco offers in favor of high pay is reduced contraband smuggling by guards:
As our friends at the Back Gate have frequently reported, at some Texas prison units the smuggling problem is epidemic, despite our guards facing much harsher criminal penalties than their counterparts on the West Coast. Perhaps, then, it's more effective to pay guards a decent salary on the front end and hire enough people to do the job. California prison guards make double what they're paid in Texas, though their cost of living is higher.
Better staffing appears to be a key part of the solution: there's a one guard per 5.28 inmate ratio in California versus a one guard per 7.03 inmate ratio in Texas. That plus higher pay, better screening for job applicants, and stricter oversight procedures (including pat downs for guards as they enter the gates) are all more effective ways to keep contraband out.
Twenty percent is a lot for TDCJ to ask for increasing prison staff pay all at once, but the best argument for giving them so big a boost is just what Paco said - it "enhances professionalism, security, [and] retention rates," plus it's probably the only way to dig TDCJ out of its staffing hole and fill those 3,000 empty guard slots.
RELATED: See initial MSM coverage of yesterday's hearing:
In that context, I was interested to see PacoVilla's Corrections Blog recently lamenting possible pay cuts for California prison guards because of that state's budget crisis (coupled with looming federal court judgments). California guards are the highest paid in the nation, and interestingly, the main argument Paco offers in favor of high pay is reduced contraband smuggling by guards:
Notwithstanding the utter scorn the media has for California CPO's, even our harshest critics must acknowledge the effect high wages have had on staff involved contraband trafficking. Consider the FACT that Texas CO's rank 47th in the pay scale and HIGHEST in the illicit tobacco trade.If higher pay appreciably boosted professionalism and reduced smuggling among Golden State guards, that's the opposite trend from what we've seen in Texas. In fact, we learn from one of Paco's links that California's penalties are actually much more lenient toward contraband smugglers:
IN ANY CASE, whether pay enhances professionalism, security, retention rates or anything else, the handwriting is on the wall: CPO's have pretty much hit the ceiling. The days of wine and roses are long gone, friends.
Welcome the era of whine and poses.
Prison employees can lose their jobs but there’s almost no chance of a criminal prosecution. Unlike states such as Texas — where providing tobacco to prisoners is a felony — the California statute considers it a misdemeanor and doesn’t lay out specific punishments.That indicates to me that, contrary to the conversation at the Senate committee today, there's little relationship between harsher punishments for smuggling and reducing its frequency in prisons. Besides, Inspector General John Moriarty told the committee that Texas juries are unlikely to convict guards of smuggling offenses even when prosecutors decide to pursue charges.
As our friends at the Back Gate have frequently reported, at some Texas prison units the smuggling problem is epidemic, despite our guards facing much harsher criminal penalties than their counterparts on the West Coast. Perhaps, then, it's more effective to pay guards a decent salary on the front end and hire enough people to do the job. California prison guards make double what they're paid in Texas, though their cost of living is higher.
Better staffing appears to be a key part of the solution: there's a one guard per 5.28 inmate ratio in California versus a one guard per 7.03 inmate ratio in Texas. That plus higher pay, better screening for job applicants, and stricter oversight procedures (including pat downs for guards as they enter the gates) are all more effective ways to keep contraband out.
Twenty percent is a lot for TDCJ to ask for increasing prison staff pay all at once, but the best argument for giving them so big a boost is just what Paco said - it "enhances professionalism, security, [and] retention rates," plus it's probably the only way to dig TDCJ out of its staffing hole and fill those 3,000 empty guard slots.
RELATED: See initial MSM coverage of yesterday's hearing:
Senate committee examines reasons for contraband smuggling
An emergency meeting of the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee today focused on how contraband gets into Texas prisons. Not many solutions were identified but the hearing underlined the scope of the problem.
The most common disciplinary action against prisoners in TDCJ is for possessing contraband, said Sen. John Whitmire. Literally thousands of years are added onto prisoners' sentences annually, said Sen. Whitmire, because they were found with contraband. A whopping 52% of disciplinary actions are for contraband, said the senator, according to data compiled by his staff.
After describing the details of his recent phone interaction with a death row inmate, Sen. Whitmire said that contraband smuggling "shall end today," but that seems like wishful thinking.
Inspector General John Moriarty told the committee the warden and staff were"instrumental" in resolving the situation, but you'd have to also say they were "instrumental" in allowing the situation in the first place. The OIG discovered more than 700 cases of confiscated cell phones in 2008 so far, he said, including 19 on death row this year. Cell phone smuggling is a particular problem, he said, because the lack of an inmate telephone system. (Texas is currently installing legal phones in all units, but they're not online yet.)
Asked how do cell phones get in, Moriarty said it "usually involves an employee." Narcotics and tobacco are also commonly smuggled items. There have been cases in the past, he said, of gang members who used illegal cell phones to operate criminal activities on the outside.
The OIG received 35 new investigators in its budget last session but still is not up to staffing levels from 2003 when the state endured massive budget cuts. Previously every unit had at least one assigned investigator and the largest ones had up to four investigators, but today there's not even one per unit.
Moriarty suggested that the key to eliminating cell phones would be to simply jam those frequencies, but TDCJ would need approval from the Federal Communications Commission to do that. (Of course, that would also eliminate personal cell phones for prison staff, contractors, etc., which would bring its own array of problems. Whitmire wanted that done immediately.)
Sen. Hinojosa asked if we've "lost control" over some of the prison units, but Moriarty said he didn't believe so. Certainly they can't control contraband, though - surely that's clear.
The warden in charge of death row and two of his staffers said they have no good answer for why so many cell phones wound up on death row. They all agreed the main problem is inmates bribing guards. Prisoners on death row don't come and go so the only possible source for contraband would be correction officers.
At the Polunsky unit, guards come in through the front gate and go through a metal detector, the warden said. Whitmire asked if that means the person running the metal detector is corrupt, but received mostly stammers in reply. The warden said they don't have authority to do "pat downs" without probable cause.
The committee was later told by TDCJ brass that only 22 out of 112 units had metal detectors at the front door. However the discussion of what's going on at the Polunsky unit tells us metal detectors won't fully solve the problem.
Sen. Whitmire asked how inmates on death row could pass a cell phone back and forth and received similarly unsatisfactory answers. A major from the unit told the committee inmates can tranfer paper by "fishing" them from cell to cell using string to slide it under the door, but it's unclear how that would really work with a phone. Once again, the unstated implication was that guards must be helping pass the phones around.
Whitmire was unhappy to learn that most employees caught smuggling contraband are fired instead of prosecuted, and the warden agreed that would help. However Moriarty told the senator that juries typically won't vote to convict prison employees and tend to sympathize with defendants who work in prisons. He didn't think prosecution alone would solve the problem and suggested the biggest help might be getting the new inmate phone system online.
UPDATE: Here's a link to the archived broadcast of the committee hearing.
The most common disciplinary action against prisoners in TDCJ is for possessing contraband, said Sen. John Whitmire. Literally thousands of years are added onto prisoners' sentences annually, said Sen. Whitmire, because they were found with contraband. A whopping 52% of disciplinary actions are for contraband, said the senator, according to data compiled by his staff.
After describing the details of his recent phone interaction with a death row inmate, Sen. Whitmire said that contraband smuggling "shall end today," but that seems like wishful thinking.
Inspector General John Moriarty told the committee the warden and staff were"instrumental" in resolving the situation, but you'd have to also say they were "instrumental" in allowing the situation in the first place. The OIG discovered more than 700 cases of confiscated cell phones in 2008 so far, he said, including 19 on death row this year. Cell phone smuggling is a particular problem, he said, because the lack of an inmate telephone system. (Texas is currently installing legal phones in all units, but they're not online yet.)
Asked how do cell phones get in, Moriarty said it "usually involves an employee." Narcotics and tobacco are also commonly smuggled items. There have been cases in the past, he said, of gang members who used illegal cell phones to operate criminal activities on the outside.
The OIG received 35 new investigators in its budget last session but still is not up to staffing levels from 2003 when the state endured massive budget cuts. Previously every unit had at least one assigned investigator and the largest ones had up to four investigators, but today there's not even one per unit.
Moriarty suggested that the key to eliminating cell phones would be to simply jam those frequencies, but TDCJ would need approval from the Federal Communications Commission to do that. (Of course, that would also eliminate personal cell phones for prison staff, contractors, etc., which would bring its own array of problems. Whitmire wanted that done immediately.)
Sen. Hinojosa asked if we've "lost control" over some of the prison units, but Moriarty said he didn't believe so. Certainly they can't control contraband, though - surely that's clear.
The warden in charge of death row and two of his staffers said they have no good answer for why so many cell phones wound up on death row. They all agreed the main problem is inmates bribing guards. Prisoners on death row don't come and go so the only possible source for contraband would be correction officers.
At the Polunsky unit, guards come in through the front gate and go through a metal detector, the warden said. Whitmire asked if that means the person running the metal detector is corrupt, but received mostly stammers in reply. The warden said they don't have authority to do "pat downs" without probable cause.
The committee was later told by TDCJ brass that only 22 out of 112 units had metal detectors at the front door. However the discussion of what's going on at the Polunsky unit tells us metal detectors won't fully solve the problem.
Sen. Whitmire asked how inmates on death row could pass a cell phone back and forth and received similarly unsatisfactory answers. A major from the unit told the committee inmates can tranfer paper by "fishing" them from cell to cell using string to slide it under the door, but it's unclear how that would really work with a phone. Once again, the unstated implication was that guards must be helping pass the phones around.
Whitmire was unhappy to learn that most employees caught smuggling contraband are fired instead of prosecuted, and the warden agreed that would help. However Moriarty told the senator that juries typically won't vote to convict prison employees and tend to sympathize with defendants who work in prisons. He didn't think prosecution alone would solve the problem and suggested the biggest help might be getting the new inmate phone system online.
UPDATE: Here's a link to the archived broadcast of the committee hearing.
Attorney General should stop DPS' end-run around the Lege on roadblocks
The fight over using traffic roadblocks without probable cause to check for drunk drivers has become a biennial affair at the Texas Legislature, and interest groups were already sharpening their knives over the coming roadblock fight in 2009. But the Department of Public Safety has asked Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's permission to circumvent the Legislature's will on roadblocks and allow the procedure on the agency's own authority, we learn from TheNewspaper.com:
Their claim to this new-found authority, DPS attorneys believe, hinges on whether the Public Safety Commission is considered a "politically accountable governing body at the state level." If that's the standard, this should be a no-brainer and barring some agenda-driven, activist reading, the AG should reject DPS' interpretation.
By "politically accountable," the courts clearly meant accountable to the people through democratic elections. Essentially Polunsky wants to claim for DPS authority that rightfully belongs to the Legislature, specifically so he can override their longstanding rejection of a controversial tactic. That takes a lot of chutzpah - it's the kind of thing Polunsky may pay for later behind the scenes next year in the budget process or elsewhere. Legislators don't generally like bureaucrats making a power grab for their turf.
A reader who alerted me to this outrage also forwarded a letter to AG Greg Abbott from Sputnik, the legendary chair of the Texas Motorcycle Rights Association:
The AG should reject this end-run around legislative authority. They'll meet in just a few months and there will be plenty of time then to fight over this topic.
Interest groups are pressuring Texas lawmakers to authorize the use of roadblocks ahead of their return for the 2009 legislative session. The practice of setting up barricades on roads to stop and interrogate motorists suspected of no wrongdoing has been unlawful since a 1994 state appeals court decision ruled that a "politically accountable governing body at the state level" must first approve their use. Now Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has scheduled an October 23 deadline for briefs to decide the Texas Public Safety Commission's request to bypass this requirement and approve roadblocks on its own authority.Here's the letter from Public Safety Commission Chairman Allan Polunsky (pdf) seeking authority to set up roadblocks to check driver's license and insurance information. DPS wants to know not only whether they can authorize a "driver license checkpoint program" but also whether they can "authorize other state and local law enforcement agencies" to do roadblocks!
Their claim to this new-found authority, DPS attorneys believe, hinges on whether the Public Safety Commission is considered a "politically accountable governing body at the state level." If that's the standard, this should be a no-brainer and barring some agenda-driven, activist reading, the AG should reject DPS' interpretation.
By "politically accountable," the courts clearly meant accountable to the people through democratic elections. Essentially Polunsky wants to claim for DPS authority that rightfully belongs to the Legislature, specifically so he can override their longstanding rejection of a controversial tactic. That takes a lot of chutzpah - it's the kind of thing Polunsky may pay for later behind the scenes next year in the budget process or elsewhere. Legislators don't generally like bureaucrats making a power grab for their turf.
A reader who alerted me to this outrage also forwarded a letter to AG Greg Abbott from Sputnik, the legendary chair of the Texas Motorcycle Rights Association:
Honorable Greg AbbottThe deadline for submitting comments about Polunsky's proposal is this Thursday, Oct. 23 (see the AG's Opinions page for more details) and I'd encourage all Grits readers interested in this topic to submit a brief or just tell Abbott your opinion.
Texas Attorney General
Dear Sir:
It has been brought to my attention that you have set Oct. 23rd as the Deadline to hear remarks about allowing the Department of Public Safety to bypass the legislature and establish a road block rule in Texas.
As you are aware this Bill has been introduced in the Texas Legislature As a deterrent for the DWI problem during three separate sessions and has not garnered sufficient support to be passed into law.
Simply changing the title to a Drivers License and Insurance check does not override the legislative intent that roadblocks should not be allowed in Texas.The Bill will be introduced again in the coming session by Senator Zaffirrini and will once again be defeated. I hope you will accept the will of the legislature on this basic constitutional issue.
Respectfully,
Sputnik
State Chair
Texas Motorcycle Rights Association
The AG should reject this end-run around legislative authority. They'll meet in just a few months and there will be plenty of time then to fight over this topic.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Fewer than half of authorized new treatment beds online
While Texas has earned praise for its diversion programs, of the 8,500 new treatment beds for which the Texas Legislature appropriated money in 2007, only 4,102 have been contracted so far, Nicole Porter at the blog Texas Prison Bidness reports, providing a detailed table of which companies have received contracts for how many beds (as of Oct. 3). The vendors are a mix of public, private, and not-for-profit entities.
I continue to maintain that "just because the market won't provide a service doesn't mean the government shouldn't fulfill those functions. Government policy shouldn't be limited by what vendors are willing to offer." This news only reinforces that conviction - I hadn't realized fewer than half the funded treatment beds were online. Excellent blogging, Nicole!
I continue to maintain that "just because the market won't provide a service doesn't mean the government shouldn't fulfill those functions. Government policy shouldn't be limited by what vendors are willing to offer." This news only reinforces that conviction - I hadn't realized fewer than half the funded treatment beds were online. Excellent blogging, Nicole!
Even death row not immune to contraband smuggling
There's no more secure environment in all of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice than death row, so how did murderers there get access to cell phones used to make thousands of calls, including one to state Sen. John Whitmire whose family was implicitly threatened? Reports AP:
The Governor's office issued a press release this afternoon that included this tidbit:
Other items like drugs or cigarettes can be smuggled through the mail but only guards and prison staff can get cell phones past metal detectors. To judge by this episode, even the state's worst murderers can benefit from corrupt guards' largess.
MORE: See the Austin Statesman's coverage. A followup story in the Chronicle says the inmate got the phone onto death row by bribing a guard for $2,100, though nobody has yet identified the culprit(s) bringing phones onto death row.
NUTHER UPDATE: During the search as part of the lockdown reacting to this news, two more cell phones were found on death row. The Statesman has more details about the lockdown and search.
RELATED: See these prior Grits posts -
Texas prison officials Monday arrested the mother of a death row inmate on charges she paid for cell phone minutes for an illegal phone that had been smuggled in to her condemned son.It's fine to prosecute the inmate's mother who's paying the bill, but to get to the root of the problem they need to find the guards who smuggled cell phones onto death row - apparently in at least 19 documented instances since the beginning of the year.The inmate, Richard Tabler, shared the phone with nine other inmates, who made 2,800 calls in 30 days. Tabler called a key state senator, telling him he knew his daughters' names.
While Lorraine Tabler, 60, was being arrested at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport on charges of providing a prohibited item to an inmate, Texas Department of Criminal Justice officials confiscated a phone from her son, prisoner Richard Tabler. ...
Prison officials said Richard Tabler and as many as nine other death row inmates made 2,800 calls from the cell phone in the last 30 days.
Authorities found out about the phone when Richard Tabler made several calls to state Sen. John Whitmire, chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, between Oct. 7 and 19.
"Whether it's a citizen or a senator, no one should be contacted by an incarcerated offender who is using an illegal cell phone," Criminal Justice Board chairman Oliver Bell said Monday.
Tabler told Whitmire he knew the Houston Democrat had two daughters, knew their ages and knew where they lived.
"He called his daughters by name," Moriarty said.
"Frankly, that scared the hell out of me," Whitmire told the Austin American-Statesman.
The inspector general's office opened a formal investigation Oct. 8, the day after the first call to Whitmire. Tabler called Whitmire again two days later.
Investigators determined the phone had been purchased in Waco in September 2007, that Lorraine Tabler had been buying time for the phone, including a purchase on Oct. 7 at a Wal-Mart store in Waycross, Ga. The investigation also determined that calls were coming to the phone as well as going out.
Moriarty said the phone apparently was being passed among the other nine inmates in Tabler's immediate cell block area.
Those inmates also face criminal charges or disciplinary actions. ...
Illegal cell phone use is a continuing problem in prisons where the phones are considered a security breach and of particular value to gang members.
Moriarty said since Jan. 1, his investigators have closed or are working on 19 cases of prohibited cell phones or cell phone components on death row. Some 700 cases are being investigated systemwide among the state's nearly 160,000 prisoners, including one case where officials have an X-ray of an inmate with a phone and charger inside the prisoner's body.
The Governor's office issued a press release this afternoon that included this tidbit:
Oooh, a "zero tolerance" policy - now we know the smuggling will stop! (/sarcasm)."Let there be no doubt about how seriously we take this security breach," Perry said. "Anyone who delivers or attempts to deliver cell phones or any other contraband to prisoners will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The vast majority of Texas Department of Criminal Justice employees are upstanding, hardworking citizens. It is a shame that the criminal acts of some overshadow the good name of others."
The governor directed the board to immediately lock down the entire prison system, search all inmates, staff and visitors and seize any contraband while issuing a statement of zero tolerance for anyone caught moving contraband within the prison. Any violators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Other items like drugs or cigarettes can be smuggled through the mail but only guards and prison staff can get cell phones past metal detectors. To judge by this episode, even the state's worst murderers can benefit from corrupt guards' largess.
MORE: See the Austin Statesman's coverage. A followup story in the Chronicle says the inmate got the phone onto death row by bribing a guard for $2,100, though nobody has yet identified the culprit(s) bringing phones onto death row.
NUTHER UPDATE: During the search as part of the lockdown reacting to this news, two more cell phones were found on death row. The Statesman has more details about the lockdown and search.
RELATED: See these prior Grits posts -
Elected Sheriff receiving Governor's border security funds allegedly worked for Gulf Cartel
Yet another elected Texas Sheriff has been ousted on corruption charges, this time Starr County Reymundo Guerra who was allegedly helping the Gulf Cartel smuggle drugs through his county. He resiged today.
Guerra joins former Brownsville Sheriff Conrado Cantu and several sheriffs caught up in commissary-related bribery schemes in the annals of disgraced, corrupt elected law enforcement officials lately hounded out of office. Reported the Brownsville Herald ("Starr Sheriff indicted in Gulf Cartel case," Oct. 14):
The Lege should cut their losses and decline to reauthorize those block grants in the 81st session - who knows what's happening with that money, but we know it wasn't doing much good toward reducing smuggling in Starr County!
Guerra joins former Brownsville Sheriff Conrado Cantu and several sheriffs caught up in commissary-related bribery schemes in the annals of disgraced, corrupt elected law enforcement officials lately hounded out of office. Reported the Brownsville Herald ("Starr Sheriff indicted in Gulf Cartel case," Oct. 14):
Sheriff Guerra was one of the members of the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition that lobbied Gov. Rick Perry and the Legislature to pony up more than $100 million in "Operation Linebacker" block grants to be distributed equally among the Sheriffs to use as they saw fit. We already knew the initiative wasn't being coordinated with other law enforcement efforts on the border. Now it appears some of that grant money was directly under control of a crooked cop working for the Gulf cartel. Ouch!
Guerra's imminent arrest had been telegraphed for weeks - ever since FBI agents searched his home and office in Rio Grande City on Sept. 4. Court documents later linked the raids to an ongoing probe into a smuggling ring led by Jose Carlos Hinojosa, 31, of Roma.
U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey touted the investigation later that month as one piece of a nationwide crackdown on Gulf Cartel operatives and their associates that had resulted in more than 175 arrests
So far, 14 men and women - mostly from Starr County and the Mexican city of Miguel Alemán - have been indicted in the Hinojosa case.
But despite the chatter that surrounded the sheriff, his fate remained unclear until the FBI returned to his office Tuesday morning and placed him under arrest.
"I'm shocked that this happened, because every indication that I had was that the sheriff's department was running smoothly, the best way I have seen in a long time,"
The Lege should cut their losses and decline to reauthorize those block grants in the 81st session - who knows what's happening with that money, but we know it wasn't doing much good toward reducing smuggling in Starr County!
Texas' example cited as way to smartly reduce prison costs
Texas' recent shift toward strengthened probation, expanded treatment and especially the proliferation of drug courts was given credit by an editorial in the Christian Science Monitor ("One way to cut prison costs," Oct. 20) for pioneering ways to cut prison costs without harming public safety, an approach now under consideration by the US Sentencing Commission.
Kudos to Texas legislators from both sides of the aisle for backing smart-on-crime approaches that national opinion leaders are looking to as a model.
RELATED: From Doc Berman, see "Proceedings from US Sentencing Commission imprisonment alternative symposium," including a link to materials from the symposium.
Of course, Texas prison system is asking for a 10.5% budget hike next year to pay for guarding the same number of offenders (and may still be lowballing the real costs), so reforms here haven't eliminated rising prison costs, but they dramatically reduced the rate of increase, much to the relief of budget writers who before that were nervously looking at a flood of future red ink.The expanding number of adults in prisons and jails in the US is nearing 2.5 million – more than 1 in 100 adults – the world's highest incarceration rate. As federal and state lawmakers try to downsize budgets, they should reconsider some of the tough-on-crime laws that have helped swell the prison population.
That's what the US Sentencing Commission is doing. It's reviewing ways to ease federal mandatory minimum sentences passed by Congress in the mid-1980s. The minimums for first-time offenders apply mostly to drug crimes. The commission is considering recommendations that, if approved by lawmakers, could have nonviolent drug users opt for treatment instead of time behind bars.
States, which have mandatory minimum laws of their own, would do well to watch closely, because prisons account for a large part of their budgets. In 20 years, state general-fund spending on corrections has risen 127 percent, adjusted for inflation, according to a recent study by the nonpartisan Pew Center on the States. Nationwide, the annual cost of incarceration is an average $24,000 per inmate.
The Sentencing Commission is considering drug courts and treatment as a far less expensive alternative – between $1,500 and $11,000 per offender.
Kudos to Texas legislators from both sides of the aisle for backing smart-on-crime approaches that national opinion leaders are looking to as a model.
RELATED: From Doc Berman, see "Proceedings from US Sentencing Commission imprisonment alternative symposium," including a link to materials from the symposium.
Tyler paper editorializing for jail in news pages
A bizarre triplet of articles from the Tyler Morning Telegraph awaited me on my news feeds when I got back to the blog this morning after being away from the computer most of the weekend - bizarre because they all seem to overtly promote the jail the way an editorialist or blogger would, though they were portrayed to readers as news stories.
Consider first this odd little feature in which a local historian "said little has changed as the county has grown during the last 152 years. More people means more incarceration, which in turn means more jails." So it's inevitable, like the sunrise - more people means a bigger jail. Simple, huh?
Except that assessment is a fact-free bit of un-historical flotsam, entirely misrepresenting the sources of jail overcrowding in Smith County. Mirroring a trend occurring all over the state, Tyler's recent increases in jail inmate numbers far outstripped population growth in the county - almost all that growth came from expanded use of pretrial detention, especially for low-level offenses. Statewide, jail populations increased 18.6% between 2000-2007, according to Dr. Tony Fabelo, but nearly all of that increase came from pretrial detainees, whose numbers increased 49.2% over the same period.
Half of Smith County inmates have not been convicted yet and are sitting in jail awaiting trial, including (as of Sept. 1) 87 misdemeanants and 75 state jail felons. That means 22% of the county's jail population are people charged with low-level offenses who've not been convicted of anything and are eligible for bond. By contrast, for example, McLennan County (Waco) has a larger jail than Smith and a bigger population but houses only 49 pretrial misdemeants and 57 state jail felons, according to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards.
The line "More people means more incarceration" may sound reasonable, but it doesn't explain Smith County's jail population figures and neither does rising crime. Today's jail overcrowding is caused by policy decisions made by elected officials - including judges and the DA as well as the commissioners court - and has far outpaced population increases. Recent inmate population growth was a volitional choice on their part, not some demographic inevitability, particularly when they've ignored the easiest solutions available to help solve the problem.
Besides, bottom line: Smith County's jail overcrowding problem isn't that urgent. According to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards' September Jail Population Report (pdf), Smith County's jail has a maximum capacity of 755, but as of Sept. 1 only 657 inmates were there and 41 of those were contracted beds (likely filled by federal inmates). So the county was housing 616 of its own inmates on Sept. 1 and leasing another 123 beds from other counties. That still only totals 739, so Smith County doesn't really need to lease those extra beds - there's room for them right now in the jail.
Why would Smith County pay to house prisoners out of county if they don't have to? Is it because it's politically expedient to make a new jail look more attractive? Perhaps that's too cynical, but the numbers don't jibe with the urgency with which the jail is being touted.
The Telegraph's strange little history offers an especially jaundiced and uninformative view of recent jail debates, in which Tyler voters overwhelmingly told the county they didn't want a new jail in two elections running.
The key misreprentation in the story - the line that makes it 100% an opinion piece as opposed to any sort of factual "history," is reporter Adam Russell's assertion that, "By February 2008, the opposition and advocates, both agreeing a jail should be built, came together to plan a bond the community could accept." That's a bizarre and false statement, particularly since there's a well-organized opposition group led in part by a 20-year veteran judge running a campaign against the jail!
A more accurate version of recent events would acknowledge that so many people in Tyler opposed the jail that many different political factions opposed it for many reasons at different points in time. Mr. Curtis and Commissioner Jo Ann Fleming are political allies and their decision to join with jail builders (i.e., her other four colleagues on the Commissioners Court), cannot be credibly described as "the opposition and advocates ... came together."
In fact, Fleming's coming together with jail builders occurred in unpublicized meetings in which the most prominent local jail opponents like Judge Cynthia Kent or Ken Good weren't invited. Even though they're asking voters to pony up $60 million for the project in the midst of a flattening economy and declining oil prices, the county still won't divulge the complete plan that resulted from those secret meetings, even after the Attorney General told them they must.
Where is that "history" as the Telegraph rambles on about jails from the 19th Century?
The same article quotes officials claiming a new jail "would end overcrowding for 22-25 years," ignoring predictions by Judge Kent and others that unless the county funds more diversion programs and reduces pretrial detention, a new jail would be "full on the day that it opens." There's not even a pretense toward journalistic "balance" here, this is a full-blown opinion piece couched as front page news.
Little better was Mr. Russell's offering, "Smith County Jail Bond: What are we paying for?" Inexplicably, Russell quoted the number estimated for interest costs from a financial report produced before the recent credit market meltdown, which means it's entirely fictional and worthless today. That estimate said county taxpayers would pay $100 million in interest for a $60 million jail, but now voters can expect that figure to have increased substantially because of what's happening on Wall Street. (The paper needs to make the same re-calculation for the Tyler ISD bonds.)
Rather than balance spin from jail propoents in the other two stories with quotes from the opposition, Russell stuck them all in a single article titled "Community Speaks out on Jail Bond," published today. Finally in this story, Russell relocates his journalistic reflex for "balance" - of the three, it's the only one where opposing sides are quoted side by side, mostly trying to counter Judge Kent's cogent explanation why the county can't build it's way out of its overcrowding problems.
At least the latter story read like journalism, if bad journalism. The other two read like a high school report from the Sheriff's son titled "Why my Dad says we need a new jail." I don't blame the reporter; that's the kind of thing that happens when your publisher wants the story spun a particular way.
Though the local paper is torturing many facts and ignoring others, new media are picking up the slack. The jail opposition committee has published short essays from voters explaining why they'll vote no, and linked on their blog to a video of a local TV debate between Judge Kent and a jail proponent (highly recommended for those interested).
I'd still bet dollars to donuts Smith County voters will see through these arguments on election day and reject a new jail for the third year in a row.
The diversion programs Smith County tried after voters initially rejected a new jail have worked extremely well, beyond anyone's expectations. If voters reject a jail again it will force Smith County to get serious about jail diversion and strengthening community supervision, while if they just get to keep building, all the urgency for backing those programs will immediately cease. That's my main reason for opposing a new Smith County Jail: I don't doubt upgrades to the jail are needed to improve medical facilities, for example, but they wouldn't need more jail beds if the the county would focus more on diversion initiatives. If voters approve more construction, I fear momentum for such programs will quickly wane despite their proven effectiveness.
Consider first this odd little feature in which a local historian "said little has changed as the county has grown during the last 152 years. More people means more incarceration, which in turn means more jails." So it's inevitable, like the sunrise - more people means a bigger jail. Simple, huh?
Except that assessment is a fact-free bit of un-historical flotsam, entirely misrepresenting the sources of jail overcrowding in Smith County. Mirroring a trend occurring all over the state, Tyler's recent increases in jail inmate numbers far outstripped population growth in the county - almost all that growth came from expanded use of pretrial detention, especially for low-level offenses. Statewide, jail populations increased 18.6% between 2000-2007, according to Dr. Tony Fabelo, but nearly all of that increase came from pretrial detainees, whose numbers increased 49.2% over the same period.
Half of Smith County inmates have not been convicted yet and are sitting in jail awaiting trial, including (as of Sept. 1) 87 misdemeanants and 75 state jail felons. That means 22% of the county's jail population are people charged with low-level offenses who've not been convicted of anything and are eligible for bond. By contrast, for example, McLennan County (Waco) has a larger jail than Smith and a bigger population but houses only 49 pretrial misdemeants and 57 state jail felons, according to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards.
The line "More people means more incarceration" may sound reasonable, but it doesn't explain Smith County's jail population figures and neither does rising crime. Today's jail overcrowding is caused by policy decisions made by elected officials - including judges and the DA as well as the commissioners court - and has far outpaced population increases. Recent inmate population growth was a volitional choice on their part, not some demographic inevitability, particularly when they've ignored the easiest solutions available to help solve the problem.
Besides, bottom line: Smith County's jail overcrowding problem isn't that urgent. According to the Texas Commission on Jail Standards' September Jail Population Report (pdf), Smith County's jail has a maximum capacity of 755, but as of Sept. 1 only 657 inmates were there and 41 of those were contracted beds (likely filled by federal inmates). So the county was housing 616 of its own inmates on Sept. 1 and leasing another 123 beds from other counties. That still only totals 739, so Smith County doesn't really need to lease those extra beds - there's room for them right now in the jail.
Why would Smith County pay to house prisoners out of county if they don't have to? Is it because it's politically expedient to make a new jail look more attractive? Perhaps that's too cynical, but the numbers don't jibe with the urgency with which the jail is being touted.
The Telegraph's strange little history offers an especially jaundiced and uninformative view of recent jail debates, in which Tyler voters overwhelmingly told the county they didn't want a new jail in two elections running.
The key misreprentation in the story - the line that makes it 100% an opinion piece as opposed to any sort of factual "history," is reporter Adam Russell's assertion that, "By February 2008, the opposition and advocates, both agreeing a jail should be built, came together to plan a bond the community could accept." That's a bizarre and false statement, particularly since there's a well-organized opposition group led in part by a 20-year veteran judge running a campaign against the jail!
A more accurate version of recent events would acknowledge that so many people in Tyler opposed the jail that many different political factions opposed it for many reasons at different points in time. Mr. Curtis and Commissioner Jo Ann Fleming are political allies and their decision to join with jail builders (i.e., her other four colleagues on the Commissioners Court), cannot be credibly described as "the opposition and advocates ... came together."
In fact, Fleming's coming together with jail builders occurred in unpublicized meetings in which the most prominent local jail opponents like Judge Cynthia Kent or Ken Good weren't invited. Even though they're asking voters to pony up $60 million for the project in the midst of a flattening economy and declining oil prices, the county still won't divulge the complete plan that resulted from those secret meetings, even after the Attorney General told them they must.
Where is that "history" as the Telegraph rambles on about jails from the 19th Century?
The same article quotes officials claiming a new jail "would end overcrowding for 22-25 years," ignoring predictions by Judge Kent and others that unless the county funds more diversion programs and reduces pretrial detention, a new jail would be "full on the day that it opens." There's not even a pretense toward journalistic "balance" here, this is a full-blown opinion piece couched as front page news.
Little better was Mr. Russell's offering, "Smith County Jail Bond: What are we paying for?" Inexplicably, Russell quoted the number estimated for interest costs from a financial report produced before the recent credit market meltdown, which means it's entirely fictional and worthless today. That estimate said county taxpayers would pay $100 million in interest for a $60 million jail, but now voters can expect that figure to have increased substantially because of what's happening on Wall Street. (The paper needs to make the same re-calculation for the Tyler ISD bonds.)
Rather than balance spin from jail propoents in the other two stories with quotes from the opposition, Russell stuck them all in a single article titled "Community Speaks out on Jail Bond," published today. Finally in this story, Russell relocates his journalistic reflex for "balance" - of the three, it's the only one where opposing sides are quoted side by side, mostly trying to counter Judge Kent's cogent explanation why the county can't build it's way out of its overcrowding problems.
At least the latter story read like journalism, if bad journalism. The other two read like a high school report from the Sheriff's son titled "Why my Dad says we need a new jail." I don't blame the reporter; that's the kind of thing that happens when your publisher wants the story spun a particular way.
Though the local paper is torturing many facts and ignoring others, new media are picking up the slack. The jail opposition committee has published short essays from voters explaining why they'll vote no, and linked on their blog to a video of a local TV debate between Judge Kent and a jail proponent (highly recommended for those interested).
I'd still bet dollars to donuts Smith County voters will see through these arguments on election day and reject a new jail for the third year in a row.
The diversion programs Smith County tried after voters initially rejected a new jail have worked extremely well, beyond anyone's expectations. If voters reject a jail again it will force Smith County to get serious about jail diversion and strengthening community supervision, while if they just get to keep building, all the urgency for backing those programs will immediately cease. That's my main reason for opposing a new Smith County Jail: I don't doubt upgrades to the jail are needed to improve medical facilities, for example, but they wouldn't need more jail beds if the the county would focus more on diversion initiatives. If voters approve more construction, I fear momentum for such programs will quickly wane despite their proven effectiveness.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Austin PD finally implementing B misdemeanor citation policy
More than a year after they gained the new authority created by the Texas Legislature, the Austin Police Department has joined the ranks of Texas law enforcement agencies issuing citations instead of arresting (at the officers' discretion) for certain low-level, non-violent misdemeanors, a change that's been promoted locally by the group Keep Austin Safe. Reported the Austin Statesman ("Austin police to begin citing, not arresting some offenders," Oct. 19):
What the change will do is reduce costs to taxpayers for the jail, prisoner transportation, and also keep officers on the street to combat more serious crime, which seems like a win-win all the way around.
See prior, related Grits posts:
I honestly have no clue what John Bradley is talking about. This change doesn't "decriminalize" anything. The offense charged is still a B misdemeanor with the full range of punishment options available upon conviction. That kind of overhyped rhetoric seems misplaced here.By year's end, Police Chief Art Acevedo hopes to put in place a policy that would allow officers to ticket some offenders instead of taking them to the Travis County Jail. The move comes more than a year after state legislators passed a so-called "cite and release" law. The policy would apply only to certain Class A and Class B misdemeanor arrests.
"We are committed to it," Acevedo said last week. "We just have to work through the actual process."
Since the legislation became law in September 2007, civil libertarians, including representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union, have urged Acevedo to put a program in place. Other Texas cities, including Dallas, have altered policies in the past year to give officers more flexibility in deciding which suspects get tickets and which go to jail.
The penalties for the offenses would not change. People who received citations would be given a court date, and there would be no change in how their cases would move through the court system.
In addition to the marijuana and driver's license charges, offenses that would fall under the law are criminal mischief, graffiti and theft when the damage is less than $500.
Proponents of the measure say a cite and release policy eases the strain on jails, saves relatively minor offenders from spending hours behind bars and frees officers to stay on the street and pursue more serious criminals. A recent study estimated that if the policy had been in place last year, about 15,000 Austin suspects could have been cited instead of taken to jail, a process that can take officers as many as three hours.
State Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Richardson, said he proposed the law after consulting with law enforcement officials from across the state because he supports keeping more officers on the street. Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton was among those who supported the legislation.
"I thought it made sense, that it is a smart-on-crime type bill," Madden said.
However, critics, including Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, said the law "sends the exact opposite signal" law enforcement officials should want to give offenders. "My thoughts are that the entire process is a very creative way to decriminalize how we prosecute drug cases in Texas," Bradley said.
What the change will do is reduce costs to taxpayers for the jail, prisoner transportation, and also keep officers on the street to combat more serious crime, which seems like a win-win all the way around.
See prior, related Grits posts:
- Police union backs using citation authority at Austin PD
- With safety costs rising, why won't Austin PD use new citation authority?
- Nuts and bolts of citations for low-level misdemeanors explained by Travis Sheriff's Office
- On the source of volitional jail overcrowding in Bexar County: Why solve a problem when you can create one?
- Tyler officials should listen to voters, use new tools to reduce jail overcrowding
- Sheriffs more likely than PDs to welcome new arrest discretion
- Jefferson County works out kinks with new cite and summons authority
- How one Texas county will take advantage of new law to reduce jail overcrowding
- HB 2391 could save Bexar taxpayers $10,000 per day
- Cite and summons for low-level offenses could free up jail space
- Texas Lege approved new tools to reduce jail overcrowding, if police can change their thinking
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Free Pacman Jones! Or at least let him back on the football field
As UT's Longhorn football team approached their spectacular game with Oklahoma last week and a tough stretch in their schedule over the next few games, including tonight hosting #11 Missouri, I've found myself checking in more frequently at the venerable sports cable network ESPN and couldn't help but notice they're producing a flood of stories aggressively criticizing troubled Dallas Cowboys cornerback Adam "Pacman" Jones, who was suspended this week by the league after an argument with a bodyguard at a hotel.
ESPN and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seem determined to turn Pacman Jones into the next Michael Vick - a sacrificial lamb suitable for crucifixion in the media to show the league doesn't tolerate bad guys. Maybe Jones deserves it for his past transgressions, which I've never closely followed before he came to Dallas, but not for the incident that most recently hounded him out of the league.
Much of the coverage I've seen has been mean-spirited and misleading. I want to punch ESPN anchor Trey Wingo in the chops every time he announces that Jerry Jones hired Pacman a four-man security team to look after him. "Why does a grown man need four men to follow him around?" Wingo gleefully repeats like a manta, when any fool knows security staff don't work 24 hours per day and a four-man team is needed to provide a week's worth of coverage, one shift at a time. I've even heard Wingo corrected on that point by people he's interviewing and he persists in the misrepresentation. Pacman never had more than one bodyguard with him at a time but you woudn't know it from ESPN's spin on the situation. Do the math, Wingo, and stop the smears!
Tanya Eiserer at the Dallas News Crime Blog ordered the incident reports on the matter (see here -pdf). Thank you, thank you, thank you, Tanya! I'm so grateful somebody's actually performing journalism on the incident instead of just demagoguing about it, I could give give you a big, sloppy kiss!
So what do we discover from these documents? Many interesting things.
For starters, what exactly happened? The official offense report says that Pacman and his bodyguard "caused a verbal argument disturbance" in a hotel restroom. Officer Rodney Allen was already at scene for some other, unknown reason and he called in the disturbance, Corporal Miguel Jamaica was sent as backup. Here's a relevant excerpt from Officer Allen's narrative in his report:
Otherwise, all accounts from those at the scene attribute whatever happened in the restroom to "playing around" or some type of horseplay, not a fight or a brawl. Neither officer at the scene thought arrests were merited and the hotel declined to press charges.
Pacman Jones already has been suspended from the league over this and many talking heads on ESPN, in particular, are declaring he should never be allowed to play professional football again. That's pure demagoguery.
Those same talking heads have criticized Jerry Jones because he initially reviewed the incident and decided not to discipline Pacman. Cynics jumped to the conclusion that the Cowboys' owner was simply willing to tolerate any misconduct to keep his players on the field, and the media drumbeat finally pressured NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to intervene with his own suspension. The irony, though: When you look at the details of the case, Jerry Jones was right and Roger Goodell's decision was based in cowardice and media pandering.
The worst thing Pacman Jones has been accused of that night was horseplay. Nobody was hurt. No one involved including the hotel management thought anyone should be arrested or that charges should be filed. Nobody went to jail. And the officer on the scene wrote an offense report so vague (and which he contradicted other statements to supervisors) that a Deputy Chief said it undermined the credibility of the department.
If Pacman Jones had been out drunk with his posse in a strip club and he decided to "make it rain" as he did in the most famous of his prior indiscretions, I'd think it'd be fine to bounce him out of the league for good - after all, he's had plenty of chances.
But nothing I see in these official accounts indicates to me he was engaging in that type of behavior. When confronted he immediately demurred, left the premises as requested, and even "thanked" Officer Allen at the scene for intervening. Nobody at the scene thought he'd committed any offense or deserved to be arrested.
Although I'm a lifelong Cowboys fan, personally I have few stakes from a fan's standpoint regarding whether Pacman Jones gets to play. He's been at best an average cornerback and kick returner for Dallas despite his much-ballyhooed speed and skills coming in. (Give me Terrance Newman as CB any day of the week and twice on Sundays.) But if these documents from the Dallas Police Department are an accurate reflection of what happened - and I know of no other first-hand documentation - Pacman Jones didn't do anything here that merits the media demagoguery he's enduring, much less suspension by the league and possibly terminating his career.
Free Pacman Jones! Or at least reinstate him.
ESPN and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell seem determined to turn Pacman Jones into the next Michael Vick - a sacrificial lamb suitable for crucifixion in the media to show the league doesn't tolerate bad guys. Maybe Jones deserves it for his past transgressions, which I've never closely followed before he came to Dallas, but not for the incident that most recently hounded him out of the league.Much of the coverage I've seen has been mean-spirited and misleading. I want to punch ESPN anchor Trey Wingo in the chops every time he announces that Jerry Jones hired Pacman a four-man security team to look after him. "Why does a grown man need four men to follow him around?" Wingo gleefully repeats like a manta, when any fool knows security staff don't work 24 hours per day and a four-man team is needed to provide a week's worth of coverage, one shift at a time. I've even heard Wingo corrected on that point by people he's interviewing and he persists in the misrepresentation. Pacman never had more than one bodyguard with him at a time but you woudn't know it from ESPN's spin on the situation. Do the math, Wingo, and stop the smears!
Tanya Eiserer at the Dallas News Crime Blog ordered the incident reports on the matter (see here -pdf). Thank you, thank you, thank you, Tanya! I'm so grateful somebody's actually performing journalism on the incident instead of just demagoguing about it, I could give give you a big, sloppy kiss!
So what do we discover from these documents? Many interesting things.
For starters, what exactly happened? The official offense report says that Pacman and his bodyguard "caused a verbal argument disturbance" in a hotel restroom. Officer Rodney Allen was already at scene for some other, unknown reason and he called in the disturbance, Corporal Miguel Jamaica was sent as backup. Here's a relevant excerpt from Officer Allen's narrative in his report:
I observed Mr. Adam Jones and his bodyguard walking in the hallway towards the restroom. At that point I observed Mr. Jones and his bodyguard joking around with each other. As I admired the hotel designs, the hotel security advised me that something was going on in the restroom near the lobby. The hotel security then asked me to check out the problem becaue two male individuals were in the restroom playing around. As I arrived at the restroom, I observed Mr. Jones girlfriend at the restroom door stating two male individuals to stop playing around. ...
[Officer Allen] asked hotel security to help me escort Mr. Jones and his bodyguard to their vehicles. ... Before Mr. Jones and his bodyguard left the location, I asked both of them did they want to make an offense report and both of them refused ...Officer Jamaica's report adds this additional material. After arriving at the scene, said Jamaica, Officer Allen:
Ater Mr. Jones and his bodyguard left the location, I then talked with the on duty manager. The manager stated to me that she wanted me to make a note of the incident. I then gave the manager the incident number #312126v. I also did not observe Mr. Jones intoxicated.
informed me that no offense had occurred and that the hotel just wanted them gone. Both parties left without further incident. At no time did anyone involved in the disturbance or hotel management report an offense to me. After the parties left, I suggested to PO Allen that he complete a Miscellaneous Incident Report documenting the incident.Here's where things get even more interesting. Deputy Chief Vincent Goelbeck criticized Officer Allen, in particular, in a memo to Chief David Kunkle which alleged that Allen's vague account of the incident could be "construed as not being forthcoming." He could also have pointed out that Allen gave contradictory accounts about whether Pacman was drinking, saying in his report that "I also did not observe Mr. Jones intoxicated." But that differs from the version he told supervisors who questioned him about the incident after the fact:
[Allen's incident report] was very vague but both officers stated that they did not witness or have information that an assault had occurred or that hotel management wanted any offense made. During the verbal questioning of Officer Allen, he stated that Mr. Jones appeared to have been drinking but not to the point where an arrest needed to be made for public intoxication. However he didn't include this in his written statement. Officer Allen was counseled on the importance of a detailed [incident report] and being specific with information during questions from supervisors, understanding that vaguesness can be construed as not being forthcoming with all of the fact known, which can cast doubt on his and the department's credibility.So the officer has given two different stories about whether Jones was drinking - one is obviously a lie but who knows how to pick between them?
Lt. Kimberly Owens has reiterated to her officers and supervisors the importance of contacting all chain of command on a potentially high-profile incident like this.
Otherwise, all accounts from those at the scene attribute whatever happened in the restroom to "playing around" or some type of horseplay, not a fight or a brawl. Neither officer at the scene thought arrests were merited and the hotel declined to press charges.
Pacman Jones already has been suspended from the league over this and many talking heads on ESPN, in particular, are declaring he should never be allowed to play professional football again. That's pure demagoguery.
Those same talking heads have criticized Jerry Jones because he initially reviewed the incident and decided not to discipline Pacman. Cynics jumped to the conclusion that the Cowboys' owner was simply willing to tolerate any misconduct to keep his players on the field, and the media drumbeat finally pressured NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to intervene with his own suspension. The irony, though: When you look at the details of the case, Jerry Jones was right and Roger Goodell's decision was based in cowardice and media pandering.
The worst thing Pacman Jones has been accused of that night was horseplay. Nobody was hurt. No one involved including the hotel management thought anyone should be arrested or that charges should be filed. Nobody went to jail. And the officer on the scene wrote an offense report so vague (and which he contradicted other statements to supervisors) that a Deputy Chief said it undermined the credibility of the department.
If Pacman Jones had been out drunk with his posse in a strip club and he decided to "make it rain" as he did in the most famous of his prior indiscretions, I'd think it'd be fine to bounce him out of the league for good - after all, he's had plenty of chances.
But nothing I see in these official accounts indicates to me he was engaging in that type of behavior. When confronted he immediately demurred, left the premises as requested, and even "thanked" Officer Allen at the scene for intervening. Nobody at the scene thought he'd committed any offense or deserved to be arrested.
Although I'm a lifelong Cowboys fan, personally I have few stakes from a fan's standpoint regarding whether Pacman Jones gets to play. He's been at best an average cornerback and kick returner for Dallas despite his much-ballyhooed speed and skills coming in. (Give me Terrance Newman as CB any day of the week and twice on Sundays.) But if these documents from the Dallas Police Department are an accurate reflection of what happened - and I know of no other first-hand documentation - Pacman Jones didn't do anything here that merits the media demagoguery he's enduring, much less suspension by the league and possibly terminating his career.
Free Pacman Jones! Or at least reinstate him.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Annual Halloween scare tactic on sex offenders doesn't improve public safety
I'm republishing this Halloween post from last year after seeing lately the resumption of what's become an annual trend: Halloween themed demagoguing and media hype from law enforcement - usually locally generated but seemingly widespread and coordinated - over the possibility of registered sex offenders molesting kids who come to the door at Halloween, an event so rare (there's only been one documented case, ever, of a Halloween abduction) that a kid would be much more likely to select tomorrow's winning lottery numbers.
Some Texas jurisdictions actually round up every sex offender and keep them in one place during trick or treating hours. This year, the latest gimmick is requiring sex offenders to post a "Scarlet Pumpkin" on their door instead of just turning the lights off. Such foolishness mistargets resources on a night with one of the year's highest youth crime rates, plus it increases to the burdens of sex offender registration with no discernible public safety payoff, making the public less safe and registration more burdensome so sex offenders are more likely to recidivate. Friggin genius.
My advice to people concerned about this is the same as it was two years ago: "Just let the kids go get some candy and have some fun, for heavens sake, and if you're worried what will happen, tag along. It's called 'parenting.'" From Oct. 31, 2007:
You want to know what's really scary? How ill-conceived and hype-driven are public safety policies aimed at reducing sexual assaults on children.
Last year I wrote that scare tactics aren't just for kids on Halloween, and I could and for the foreseeable future probably will do some version of this blog post annually to criticize the foolish policy many police and probation departments have adopted of rounding up all the registered sex offenders in their community into custody on Halloween night to keep them from having children come to their door.
Some Texas jurisdictions actually round up every sex offender and keep them in one place during trick or treating hours. This year, the latest gimmick is requiring sex offenders to post a "Scarlet Pumpkin" on their door instead of just turning the lights off. Such foolishness mistargets resources on a night with one of the year's highest youth crime rates, plus it increases to the burdens of sex offender registration with no discernible public safety payoff, making the public less safe and registration more burdensome so sex offenders are more likely to recidivate. Friggin genius.
My advice to people concerned about this is the same as it was two years ago: "Just let the kids go get some candy and have some fun, for heavens sake, and if you're worried what will happen, tag along. It's called 'parenting.'" From Oct. 31, 2007:
You want to know what's really scary? How ill-conceived and hype-driven are public safety policies aimed at reducing sexual assaults on children.Last year I wrote that scare tactics aren't just for kids on Halloween, and I could and for the foreseeable future probably will do some version of this blog post annually to criticize the foolish policy many police and probation departments have adopted of rounding up all the registered sex offenders in their community into custody on Halloween night to keep them from having children come to their door.
As McLennan County’s most recently convicted sex offender, the 82-year-old businessman has been ordered to gather with about 85 other convicted sex offenders at the Adult Probation Office during prime trick-or-treating hours tonight.It’s not for a party. It’s so those being supervised on probation as sex offenders won’t have the porch light on and a welcome mat out for young ghosts, goblins and potential abuse victims.
Curtis Hand, director of McLennan County Adult Probation, says the gathering is not optional or just for those who can make it. It’s an order for those on the sex offender caseload — and those who don’t show are going to jail.
This is the third year that Hand has ordered sex offenders to be at the office at 504 N. Sixth St. from 5:30 to 10 p.m. Halloween night. Some complain, but most don’t, Hand says.
In years past, probation officers went from home to home of sex offenders on probation to make sure they didn’t have their lights on and were not answering the doors on Halloween, Hand says.
“We found that this makes more sense to us,” he says. “This is one night during the year that there is a high concentration of children on the street, and to better assure the safety of those children from this population, it just seems like it is better to have them in one spot so you know where they are.”
This is sheer foolishness. At least if you're going to do it, respect their privacy and don't issue a damn press release or contact the media.
The only Halloween abduction in US history was in Wisconsin in 1973, and the killer did not have a prior record. This is a solution looking for a problem, and finding none, hyping a non-existent one almost purely for purposes of political grandstanding. Stranger rape of children isn't the problem (93% of child sexual assault victims knew their assailant), so there's very little public safety justification for this "Round up the usual suspects" routine.
By comparison, petty juvenile crime, vandalism, underage drinking and driving, fights among kids, and all manner of graffiti and property crime skyrocket on Halloween. It'd be easy enough from analyzing previous years' Halloween reports to identify what crimes police should focus on in what parts of town. Why not focus extra resources there, instead of on an over-hyped scenario that's far less likely to ever occur?
Texas leads in geography of Bush pardons
Declaring that, "The quality of mercy is not strained but its geography is notable," Doc Berman points to this excellent post from Pardon Power documenting President Bush's use of executive clemency by state. Texas tops the list with 17, followed by Florida at 10.
Pardon Power also has a Watch List compiling possible Presidential pardons in the closing days of the Bush Administration, including a pair of Texan athletes - Roger Clemens and Marion Jones - and two Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting an unarmed, fleeing suspect in Texas' Southern District.
Pardon Power also has a Watch List compiling possible Presidential pardons in the closing days of the Bush Administration, including a pair of Texan athletes - Roger Clemens and Marion Jones - and two Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting an unarmed, fleeing suspect in Texas' Southern District.
TYC conservator gone but controversies remain
Several recent Texas Youth Commision-related stories deserve Grits readers attention:
For starters, see the governor's press release and the official proclamation ending TYC's conservatorship. See also a promising initial letter to employees by the new Executive Commissioner Cherie Townsend.
TYC's original conservator from 2007, Jay Kimbrough, has left his post at Texas A&M to take a slot as Rick Perry's Chief of Staff, meaning he'll continue to have a big say over the agency's future even with the conservatorship ended.
Meanwhile, the newly leased Eagle Lake facility in Colorado County has yet to open, the Austin Statesman reports, but TYC is taking heat for paying a Florida company $22,500 per day for the space. The agency pas paid the company more than $1.26 million since July. Apparently "Youth Commission officials agreed to pay for empty beds to cover the startup costs of the company." Reported the Statesman's Mike Ward:
For starters, see the governor's press release and the official proclamation ending TYC's conservatorship. See also a promising initial letter to employees by the new Executive Commissioner Cherie Townsend.
TYC's original conservator from 2007, Jay Kimbrough, has left his post at Texas A&M to take a slot as Rick Perry's Chief of Staff, meaning he'll continue to have a big say over the agency's future even with the conservatorship ended.
Meanwhile, the newly leased Eagle Lake facility in Colorado County has yet to open, the Austin Statesman reports, but TYC is taking heat for paying a Florida company $22,500 per day for the space. The agency pas paid the company more than $1.26 million since July. Apparently "Youth Commission officials agreed to pay for empty beds to cover the startup costs of the company." Reported the Statesman's Mike Ward:
Attributing recent delays in filling the lockup to inspection issues, Townsend said 18 youths will be transferred to the Eagle Lake site today. Plans call for it to house more than 100 youths in the future, she said.
Under the terms of the contract, the Youth Commission agreed to lease up to 132 beds for $189.50 per youth per day, guaranteeing they would pay for 119 beds starting on the date the contract was signed. Over a span of three months, that totals more than $2 million, but records indicated that the state had paid the company only about $1.26 million as of Thursday.
In 2006, the Youth Commission spent $128.66 to $162.88 a day for each youth in its care, according to the agency's Web site.
"Starting upon execution of the contract, payment will be made at the minimum guaranteed amount until 119 beds capacity is reached at which time payment will be made upon the actual capacity," the contract states.
"Guaranteed minimum" contracts — in which state agencies agreed to pay for a minimum number of beds or a level of service, whether it was used or not — were highly controversial two decades ago, when most agencies stopped doing it. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice prohibits the practice, officials there said.
"We only pay for filled beds," said Michelle Lyons, a spokeswoman for the prison agency.
The Youth Commission's contract gives the company 90 days to get the lockup ready for operation. During that "startup" period of hiring and training staff, the contract has several pages covering many other activities, including recruiting staff and arranging trash service.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Austin foot chase restrictions intended to reduce risk
Having discussed police departments' chase polices for vehicles on Grits in the past, I was interested to see this story from the Austin Statesman ("Austin police adopting new foot chase policy," Oct. 15) about the Austin police creating a more restrictive policy for foot chases:
The issue of when — and how — such pursuits should happen had fueled debate about whether a fired sergeant acted appropriately when he shot and killed Kevin Alexander Brown last year.
The policy establishes criteria officers should evaluate before beginning a chase and how they should respond during a pursuit.
According to the policy, officers must gauge the risk to themselves, fellow officers, suspects and bystanders. The two-page policy says that officers should consider whether a suspect may be armed and the availability of backup officers, and it requires them to radio a description of the suspect and location of the chase to dispatchers.
It also says officers should consider ending a chase if the suspects' identities are known and if they are not thought to be an immediate threat.
"The purpose of this policy is to facilitate the safe apprehension of a suspect who flees on foot to reduce the risk of injury to the officer, suspect and public," the policy says.
Confession Suppression: Why we need the exclusionary rule
Defense attorney Katherine Scardino, blogging over at Women In Crime Ink, says a Texas death row inmate "hit the jackpot" when a federal judge granted a new trial because of police misconduct. Writes Scardino, the defendant:
It's not for the guilty but the innocent that such protections are in place: false or coerced confessions are too common to allow police to break the rules without consequence. There are also practical reasons to follow the rules. Police officers who lied to Guidry wound up blowing their case and costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of not millions of dollars.
Equally culpable, Scardino notes in response to a commenter, is the judge who failed to grant a Motion to Suppress.
An anonymous commenter replied to Scardino that "Somehow I can't find compassion for someone too stupid to keep his mouth shut." But it's easy to say you have no compassion for someone you believe is guilty - much more difficult in instances where we know the accused was innocent. I'd defy anybody to read the terrible story of Christopher Ochoa and Richard Danziger and tell me they feel no compassion, particularly for Mr. Danziger.
Police interrogtion is a guilt presumptive and coercive process, and as a result, false confessions happen more frequently than most people realize. In Austin's infamous Yogurt Shop murders, more than 50 different suspects confessed to the crime!
It's hard to believe Houston police thought it was okay to lie to somebody about their lawyer's advice in order to interrogate them alone after they'd requested counsel. Harder still to believe the prosecutor in the case - former GOP District Attorney candidate Kelly Siegler - convinced a judge to allow the confession, anyway.
And there's the rub: The system is broken - its checks and balances frequently don't work. There are simply no meaningful oversight mechanisms to prevent or punish misconduct by state actors. Will those officers face discipline or prosecution for violating these guys' civil rights? No. Will the judge be held accountable by the Commission no Judicial Conduct? Hell no. For that matter, why didn't the Court of Appeals or the CCA step in to fix this obvious error before the federal courts ever saw this case?
This is why, despite many sound arguments against the exclusionary rule (which allows a judge to exclude evidence from trial if it was obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights), as long as alternative accountability mechanisms fail so obviously and continuously, I think getting rid of it would be a disaster.
The cost and embarrassment of mistrial are virtually the only meaningful consequences restraining state actors. If police departments don't hold cops accountable for violating someone's civil rights, and judges allow such abuse without fear of professional consequence, there's nothing left but the exclusionary rule to prevent the justice system's wholesale corruption.
UPDATE/CORRECTION: According to Houston attorney Mark Bennett, Scardino:
is currently in the process of being removed from Death Row and returned to the Harris County Jail. His name is Robert Fratta. Our own Kelly Seigler was the prosecutor.In 1994, Robert Fratta was accused of hiring two men to kill his wife. The couple was going through a very contentious divorce/custody fight during that time, and Fratta apparently made several statements to friends about him wanting her dead.
Fratta’s two co-defendants were Howard Guidry and Joseph Prystash. All three men received death sentences.
In all capital cases where the jury has sentenced an individual to death, there is an automatic direct appeal. The convicted person also has a Federal appellate process available to him as well, and it was through this avenue that Fratta’s case got reversed and a new trial granted.
What is important is why. When the police officers arrested Mr. Guidry and brought him to the police station to question him about the death of this lovely, young woman named Farah Fratta, the officer told Mr. Guidry that he could not see his attorney, and then lied to him and said that the lawyer had given Guidry permission to talk to the officers.
So, he did and confessed to being the triggerman in the killing and to being hired by Mr. Fratta, and also implicating the other accomplice, Prystash. After all the dust settled . . . after all the objections and rulings . . . after all three men went through a jury trial in State court (where Guidry’s confession was admitted into evidence in front of each jury, and other hearsay testimony was admitted, but later ruled to be inadmissible) . . . and after all three defendants were sentenced to death . . . after all the appeals . . . Guidry and Fratta walked out of the appellate maze with a chance at a different verdict in State court.
Scardino asks two questions in light of this story, though I could certainly think of many more:
Do you think Fratta should get a new trial because of the behavior of the officer with a co-defendant?
Do you even think Fratta should be sentenced to death when he was not the triggerman?
For myself, I'd answer "Yes" and "Yes." As long as we're going to have the death penalty, I don't think a scoundrel who enlists a hit man is less culpable than the person who pulled the trigger himself. But I definitely agree that the confession obtained through subterfuge should be thrown out, and doing so would require giving both men a new trial.
It's not for the guilty but the innocent that such protections are in place: false or coerced confessions are too common to allow police to break the rules without consequence. There are also practical reasons to follow the rules. Police officers who lied to Guidry wound up blowing their case and costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of not millions of dollars.
Equally culpable, Scardino notes in response to a commenter, is the judge who failed to grant a Motion to Suppress.
An anonymous commenter replied to Scardino that "Somehow I can't find compassion for someone too stupid to keep his mouth shut." But it's easy to say you have no compassion for someone you believe is guilty - much more difficult in instances where we know the accused was innocent. I'd defy anybody to read the terrible story of Christopher Ochoa and Richard Danziger and tell me they feel no compassion, particularly for Mr. Danziger.
Police interrogtion is a guilt presumptive and coercive process, and as a result, false confessions happen more frequently than most people realize. In Austin's infamous Yogurt Shop murders, more than 50 different suspects confessed to the crime!
It's hard to believe Houston police thought it was okay to lie to somebody about their lawyer's advice in order to interrogate them alone after they'd requested counsel. Harder still to believe the prosecutor in the case - former GOP District Attorney candidate Kelly Siegler - convinced a judge to allow the confession, anyway.
And there's the rub: The system is broken - its checks and balances frequently don't work. There are simply no meaningful oversight mechanisms to prevent or punish misconduct by state actors. Will those officers face discipline or prosecution for violating these guys' civil rights? No. Will the judge be held accountable by the Commission no Judicial Conduct? Hell no. For that matter, why didn't the Court of Appeals or the CCA step in to fix this obvious error before the federal courts ever saw this case?
This is why, despite many sound arguments against the exclusionary rule (which allows a judge to exclude evidence from trial if it was obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights), as long as alternative accountability mechanisms fail so obviously and continuously, I think getting rid of it would be a disaster.
The cost and embarrassment of mistrial are virtually the only meaningful consequences restraining state actors. If police departments don't hold cops accountable for violating someone's civil rights, and judges allow such abuse without fear of professional consequence, there's nothing left but the exclusionary rule to prevent the justice system's wholesale corruption.
UPDATE/CORRECTION: According to Houston attorney Mark Bennett, Scardino:
has it wrong. The decision didn't hinge on the police misconduct in obtaining Guidry's confession; the Fifth Circuit opinion doesn't even mention misconduct.Bennett adds some chiding comments and further explanation at his blog Defending People.
This is a pre-Crawford Confrontation-Clause case. Even if Guidry's confession had been legally obtained, it would have been inadmissible in Fratta's trial, as Judge Harmon and the Fifth Circuit held Prystash's confession was.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
A Desperate Argument: Sheriff claims feds will mandate jail building if voters don't approve new Tyler lockup
Smith County Sheriff J.B. Smith told a local TV station that if voters don't approve a new jail on the November ballot, "He believes if a new jail doesn't get approved now the federal government will step-in and approve one themselves."
Hmmmmm ... Really?!
And where else in Texas has this occurred? In Dallas, where the feds have active litigation, nobody's come close to doing anything like the Sheriff suggests here. Even if the feds sued Smith County because of jail overcrowding - and there's no such litigation right now - it would take many years before a judge even came close to ordering new construction on their own.
J.B. just made that up - it's a desperate argument, perhaps further evidence the pro-jail crowd in Tyler has begun to implode and sabotage their own efforts.
Hmmmmm ... Really?!
And where else in Texas has this occurred? In Dallas, where the feds have active litigation, nobody's come close to doing anything like the Sheriff suggests here. Even if the feds sued Smith County because of jail overcrowding - and there's no such litigation right now - it would take many years before a judge even came close to ordering new construction on their own.
J.B. just made that up - it's a desperate argument, perhaps further evidence the pro-jail crowd in Tyler has begun to implode and sabotage their own efforts.
Expect judicial races to top Democratic vote getters
Here's an underdog pick for the Election Day office betting pool: If Democratic turnout surges and Rick Noriega even comes close to picking off John Cornyn in the US Senate race - a longshot, but the gap has been narrowing - don't be surprised to see Democratic candidates for the Court of Criminal Appeals, Susan Strawn and J.R. Molina, actually upset Republican incumbents Tom Price and Paul Womack.
The Austin Statesman today endorsed Strawn, but declined to back Molina over Womack declaring, "Neither is fit to hold the office, so we're not going to recommend the least lousy choice."
Editorialists' opinions aside, in 2006 Molina got nearly 300,000 more votes than Democratic Senate candidate Barbara Radnofsky, even though he ran no campaign and refused to show up for newspaper editorial board meetings. His opponent, Presiding Judge Sharon Keller, won with only 56.73% of the statewide vote - a shockingly low number against a fringe candidate and a poorer performance than any other statewide Republican. That's a lot of exta voters, too many to be a fluke.
Though CCA judicial campaigns are woefully underfunded, its judges may well be the spearpoint of Democratic statewide success if 2006 voting patterns are any guide. A coordinated campaign by the Democratic Party to elect judges might have maximized these gains, and would certainly be a good idea for 2010. But even if campaigns for appellate judgeships remain ignored stepchildren, on a by-the-numbers basis Dems in those races arguably have a better chance to succeed in the near future than better-funded candidates in higher-profile contests.
The Austin Statesman today endorsed Strawn, but declined to back Molina over Womack declaring, "Neither is fit to hold the office, so we're not going to recommend the least lousy choice."
Editorialists' opinions aside, in 2006 Molina got nearly 300,000 more votes than Democratic Senate candidate Barbara Radnofsky, even though he ran no campaign and refused to show up for newspaper editorial board meetings. His opponent, Presiding Judge Sharon Keller, won with only 56.73% of the statewide vote - a shockingly low number against a fringe candidate and a poorer performance than any other statewide Republican. That's a lot of exta voters, too many to be a fluke.
Though CCA judicial campaigns are woefully underfunded, its judges may well be the spearpoint of Democratic statewide success if 2006 voting patterns are any guide. A coordinated campaign by the Democratic Party to elect judges might have maximized these gains, and would certainly be a good idea for 2010. But even if campaigns for appellate judgeships remain ignored stepchildren, on a by-the-numbers basis Dems in those races arguably have a better chance to succeed in the near future than better-funded candidates in higher-profile contests.
Extraordinary Women in Law
Texas Lawyer recently published a series of features on "Extraordinary Women in Law," including profiles of several barristers whose work I've admired, including Texas Fair Defense Project chief Andrea Marsh, Texas Defender Service staff attorney Maurie Levin, Austin solo Linda Icenhauer-Ramirez, and Texas Rio Grande Legal Aide managing attorney Susan Zinn. Kudos for the well-deserved recognition.
Economic downturn could boost suicides, domestic violence
Discussing ways in which the much-ballyhooed economic downturn will affect the criminal justice system, I'd earlier suggested that "there's little reason to think this economic downturn must automatically boost crime rates. I'd expect a handful of specific offenses to increase - particularly stuff like theft of copper and other metals or siphoning gasoline." That initial assessment deserves some caveats, however, and we find one of them in this item from USA Today ("Financial crisis can lead to violence," Oct. 14) informing us of another category of crimes that are increasing: Suicides and domestic violence. Reported USA Today:
Equally important is to figure out the proper response in each case, and with prisons utterly full, that can't just be jacking up penalties. Theft of copper and other industrial metals soared, for example, after legislation approved in 2007 increased the penalty in Texas to a felony for stealing metal to sell for scrap. That's precisely one of those crimes which appears governed by economic circumstances rather than fear of punishment, and reducing it requires more creative solutions like undercover operations targeting scrap metal dealers.
Similarly, family violence and suicide aren't the types of offenses that respond well to boosted punishments. Instead, in both instances, prevention, rapid response during a crisis and access to mental health services are keys to identifying and reducing unstable behaviors. Being "smart on crime" isn't just a luxury for the good times, it may be even more important when economic times are bad.
Across the country, authorities are becoming concerned that the nation's financial woes could turn increasingly violent, and they are urging people to get help. In some places, mental-health hot lines are jammed, counseling services are in high demand and domestic-violence shelters are full.These are crimes of a pitiful variety and the examples offered are heartwrenching:
"I've had a number of people say that this is the thing most reminiscent of 9/11 that's happened here since then," said the Rev. Canon Ann Malonee, vicar at Trinity Church in the heart of New York's financial district. "It's that sense of having the rug pulled out from under them."
With nowhere else to turn, many people are calling suicide-prevention hot lines. The Samaritans of New York have seen calls rise more than 16% in the past year, many of them money-related. The Switchboard of Miami has recorded more than 500 foreclosure-related calls this year.
"A lot of people are telling us they are losing everything. They're losing their homes, they're going into foreclosure, they've lost their jobs," said Virginia Cervasio, executive director of a suicide resource enter in southwest Florida's Lee County.
My purpose here is to identify which particular offenses we should expect to increase during an economic decline instead of feeding into the common theme that a tanking economy will automatically lead to an unstoppable crime spree. Some have already resorted to blatant scare tactics: A Canadian paper, the Edmonton Sun, for example, told readers that "if the economy goes into a tailspin, Edmontonians should brace for a boom in street violence, drug addiction and homicides, according to a University of Alberta criminologist." That's virtually unadulterated scaremongering with little research-based support.An out-of-work money manager in California loses a fortune and wipes out his family in a murder-suicide. A 90-year-old Ohio widow shoots herself in the chest as authorities arrive to evict her from the modest house she called home for 38 years.In Massachusetts, a housewife who had hidden her family's mounting financial crisis from her husband sends a note to the mortgage company warning: "By the time you foreclose on my house, I'll be dead."
Then Carlene Balderrama shot herself to death, leaving an insurance policy and a suicide note on a table.
Equally important is to figure out the proper response in each case, and with prisons utterly full, that can't just be jacking up penalties. Theft of copper and other industrial metals soared, for example, after legislation approved in 2007 increased the penalty in Texas to a felony for stealing metal to sell for scrap. That's precisely one of those crimes which appears governed by economic circumstances rather than fear of punishment, and reducing it requires more creative solutions like undercover operations targeting scrap metal dealers.
Similarly, family violence and suicide aren't the types of offenses that respond well to boosted punishments. Instead, in both instances, prevention, rapid response during a crisis and access to mental health services are keys to identifying and reducing unstable behaviors. Being "smart on crime" isn't just a luxury for the good times, it may be even more important when economic times are bad.
TYC out of conservatorship
Naming Cherie Townsend Executive Commissioner, Gov. Rick Perry yesterday ended the Texas Youth Commission's conservatorship after a rocky year and a half. The Statesman offered these observations from the legislative leadership ("TYC out of conservatorship," Oct. 15):
Good luck Ms. Townsend, you're going to need it.
These remain trying times for Texas' youth prison system. TYC's third conservator, Richard Nedelkoff, leaves the agency with daunting tasks still facing it and an intense legislative session coming in which the agency will undergo Sunset review and the entire juvenile justice system may be substantially altered to reduce TYC's role and shift more responsibility to counties."The agency's not fixed. I don't think anybody who knows will say it is," [state Sen. John] Whitmire said. "But the conservatorship was not working at fixing anything, either. I'm not sure it makes much difference whether it's in conservatorship or not.
"We need a new model for TYC; that's for sure."
State Rep. Jerry Madden, a Richardson Republican who is Whitmire's co-chairman, said that although "none of us believe everything is fixed at TYC, I think the conservatorship probably had accomplished as much as it could."
Good luck Ms. Townsend, you're going to need it.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Dallas using public humiliation tactics for petty scofflaws
It's one thing to publish information about sex offenders online - I disagree with the tactic, mainly because it increases recidivism for those on the rolls and the database includes too many minor offenders, but at least I understand the flawed public safety motivation behind it.
However, at a time when approximately 10% of adult Texans have outstanding arrest warrants, mainly because the Legislature increased so-called "driver responsibility fees" so much that most people can't pay, do we really want to extend these tactics to every penny ante scofflaw who fails to pay Class C misdemeanor tickets or court-imposed fines?
That's what Dallas County is doing, we learn at the Dallas News' Crime Blog. The County just published a new website listing scofflaws and their debts aimed at humiliating people or scaring them into paying - even publishing photos of people who owe the most.
To say it again, Dallas County is intentionally using public humiliation tactics that affect more than 10% of adults in order to squeeze out more revenue! It's one thing to do that for a relatively small population of sex offenders, but this is a ridiculous application of the tactic.
What's more, they're not even pretending the information in the database is accurate, which is good since Dallas' justice information systems are notoriously flawed. A disclaimer informs us that:
This cannot be a good idea. We've discussed before how using the jail as a debtor's prison generates short-term revenue but much greater long-term ancillary costs for taxpayers: "Penny wise and pound foolish" is the applicable cliche'.
In addition, the Commissioners Court approved another measure mulcting inmate families to the tune of $730,000 per year from a $10 medical screening fee they're beginning to charge. Of course, it's not jailed crooks who must pay the fee. They're taking the money off the top from inmate commissary accounts, money which by definition comes from inmates families or somebody on the outside, often whoever is caring for their kids while they're incarcerated. So this fee generates revenue from truly the least among us - family members of jail inmates who did not commit the crime for which the person is incarcerated.
What's more, all this is over relatively small amounts of money in the county budget, easily soluble with a small tax increase or raiding their $48 million rainy day fund. The approach doesn't even make fiscal sense beyond the most short-term thinking: If Dallas' overcrowded jail earns them more jury verdicts over mistreatment, neglect, and failure to provide adequate medical care, the small amounts they get from scaring and humiliating scofflaws or soaking cash from inmate families will pale by comparison.
Especially with the current climate on Wall Street, it's hard for me to see these revenue-generating schemes through anything but an economic lens. From that perspective, these tactics are pure class warfare - a mean, low, and cynical set of policies by the Dallas Commissioners Court aimed at squeezing money from the poorest among us to subsidize low taxes for property owners.
However, at a time when approximately 10% of adult Texans have outstanding arrest warrants, mainly because the Legislature increased so-called "driver responsibility fees" so much that most people can't pay, do we really want to extend these tactics to every penny ante scofflaw who fails to pay Class C misdemeanor tickets or court-imposed fines?
That's what Dallas County is doing, we learn at the Dallas News' Crime Blog. The County just published a new website listing scofflaws and their debts aimed at humiliating people or scaring them into paying - even publishing photos of people who owe the most.
To say it again, Dallas County is intentionally using public humiliation tactics that affect more than 10% of adults in order to squeeze out more revenue! It's one thing to do that for a relatively small population of sex offenders, but this is a ridiculous application of the tactic.
What's more, they're not even pretending the information in the database is accurate, which is good since Dallas' justice information systems are notoriously flawed. A disclaimer informs us that:
The wanted person’s [sic] listed may not be accurate due to the instant ability to satisfy their delinquent accounts and the inability to update this list in a timely fashion. This list may not be current. The case amount is approximate, and can vary.So they're just dumping a bunch of flawed, unreliable data out there and hoping it increases short-term revenue.
This cannot be a good idea. We've discussed before how using the jail as a debtor's prison generates short-term revenue but much greater long-term ancillary costs for taxpayers: "Penny wise and pound foolish" is the applicable cliche'.
In addition, the Commissioners Court approved another measure mulcting inmate families to the tune of $730,000 per year from a $10 medical screening fee they're beginning to charge. Of course, it's not jailed crooks who must pay the fee. They're taking the money off the top from inmate commissary accounts, money which by definition comes from inmates families or somebody on the outside, often whoever is caring for their kids while they're incarcerated. So this fee generates revenue from truly the least among us - family members of jail inmates who did not commit the crime for which the person is incarcerated.
What's more, all this is over relatively small amounts of money in the county budget, easily soluble with a small tax increase or raiding their $48 million rainy day fund. The approach doesn't even make fiscal sense beyond the most short-term thinking: If Dallas' overcrowded jail earns them more jury verdicts over mistreatment, neglect, and failure to provide adequate medical care, the small amounts they get from scaring and humiliating scofflaws or soaking cash from inmate families will pale by comparison.
Especially with the current climate on Wall Street, it's hard for me to see these revenue-generating schemes through anything but an economic lens. From that perspective, these tactics are pure class warfare - a mean, low, and cynical set of policies by the Dallas Commissioners Court aimed at squeezing money from the poorest among us to subsidize low taxes for property owners.
Voters can't know details of Tyler jail until after election day
Are jail proponents now trying to kill their own plan in Tyler?
I can only wonder in amazement at the foolishness behind the Smith County Commissioners Court's decision to sue the Attorney General over whether they can conceal detailed plans of the jail they're asking voters to finance. It's almost as though they've thought better of the jail plan and are insisting on extra secrecy to sabotage the deal.
Otherwise, if you want me to pay for something but won't tell me the details about what you're doing, I'd vote "no" on principle, no matter what the topic. That's how I predict Smith County voters will respond to this decision, which ensures the details won't come out until after voters have made their choice.
It's pretty ballsy that folks who planned the jail in secret, then sprung the election on voters with little public debate, now want their constituents to vote without getting to see plans that would be public in any other jurisdiction in Texas. (After all, the AG interprets the open records act for the whole state.) Voters can only wonder, as the What Part of No Don't You Understand Blog asked, "What do these people have to hide? Has the cover up begun?"
Sheriff J.B. Smith wants to pretend this A.G. decision was somehow unique, but voters seek information about jail plans in virtually every contested jail election. Since every other jail in the state must abide by the same requirements, why hasn't it harmed their security? The law on this has been the same for nearly 40 years.
For that matter, the county will have to show the detailed plans to Wall Street bond houses in order to get financing approved and the world is seeing that there are plenty of crooks in that crowd! Why do they trust Wall Street more than voters?
In the biggest picture this is a theoretical debate, though certainly J.B. Smith doesn't understand that. The two competing theories are "security through obscurity," where security comes from keeping secrets, and a more modern concept of open-sourced security, which was developed in the computer realm but has been brought to public security debates by people like Bruce Schneier.
The latter view holds that the more people who look at plans and scrutinize them for security flaws, the more likely you are to anticipate mistakes. Even if authorities keep plans secret, they're only secret until one person lets them out - either through incompetence or corruption, it doesn't matter. According to the "security through obscurity" view, that would be an irreparable tragedy. If security problems are open sourced, though, instead of hidden, security solutions must be strong enough to overcome any weaknesses caused by the flaws. That outcome is better for everybody in the long run and is the best safety argument for making the information public.
The best political argument for complying with the law probably comes straight from preamble to the Public Information Act:
I can only wonder in amazement at the foolishness behind the Smith County Commissioners Court's decision to sue the Attorney General over whether they can conceal detailed plans of the jail they're asking voters to finance. It's almost as though they've thought better of the jail plan and are insisting on extra secrecy to sabotage the deal.
Otherwise, if you want me to pay for something but won't tell me the details about what you're doing, I'd vote "no" on principle, no matter what the topic. That's how I predict Smith County voters will respond to this decision, which ensures the details won't come out until after voters have made their choice.
It's pretty ballsy that folks who planned the jail in secret, then sprung the election on voters with little public debate, now want their constituents to vote without getting to see plans that would be public in any other jurisdiction in Texas. (After all, the AG interprets the open records act for the whole state.) Voters can only wonder, as the What Part of No Don't You Understand Blog asked, "What do these people have to hide? Has the cover up begun?"
Sheriff J.B. Smith wants to pretend this A.G. decision was somehow unique, but voters seek information about jail plans in virtually every contested jail election. Since every other jail in the state must abide by the same requirements, why hasn't it harmed their security? The law on this has been the same for nearly 40 years.
For that matter, the county will have to show the detailed plans to Wall Street bond houses in order to get financing approved and the world is seeing that there are plenty of crooks in that crowd! Why do they trust Wall Street more than voters?
In the biggest picture this is a theoretical debate, though certainly J.B. Smith doesn't understand that. The two competing theories are "security through obscurity," where security comes from keeping secrets, and a more modern concept of open-sourced security, which was developed in the computer realm but has been brought to public security debates by people like Bruce Schneier.
The latter view holds that the more people who look at plans and scrutinize them for security flaws, the more likely you are to anticipate mistakes. Even if authorities keep plans secret, they're only secret until one person lets them out - either through incompetence or corruption, it doesn't matter. According to the "security through obscurity" view, that would be an irreparable tragedy. If security problems are open sourced, though, instead of hidden, security solutions must be strong enough to overcome any weaknesses caused by the flaws. That outcome is better for everybody in the long run and is the best safety argument for making the information public.
The best political argument for complying with the law probably comes straight from preamble to the Public Information Act:
Under the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government that adheres to the principle that government is the servant and not the master of the people, it is the policy of this state that each person is entitled, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of public officials and employees. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created.The Smith County Commissioners Court and Sheriff Smith think it's up to them "to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know." I'm guessing that, on election day, voters will inform them that they don't appreciate such an arrogant attitude by their elected officials.
Monday, October 13, 2008
The sad and disgraceful case of Judge Samuel Kent
Here are several related stories about the disgraceful case of indicted federal District Judge Samuel Kent, whose saga of disciplinary woes and sexual abuse allegations I've not followed closely, but which is rightfully garnering national attention as his trial approaches:
Indeed, those two cases have more in common than just a sexual component. Like the impotent Texas Judicial Conduct Commission, which is supposed to provide oversight for Texas state jurists but in practice does nothing of the sort, mechanisms for holding the federal judiciary accountable appear broken in the 5th Circuit, with the Judicial Council in Kent's case more concerned about protecting their judicial peers than the public. That's a recurring theme when you examine various judicial misconduct cases - it's not just individual judges' bad behavior that's the problem, but also the tendency of their peers to knowingly tolerate it.
- From Joel Jacobson at Judging Crimes, "Fifth Circuit Sleaze"
- From the Houston Chronicle: "More judges under investigation"
- From the Tex Parte Blog, "Loosening the gag just a little"
If Kent committed the alleged acts then he deserves prosecution, without question. But he should have been removed as a judge long before now. Even so, Judge Kent is still sitting on the federal bench today post-indictment, eligible to hear cases. Kent's actions were even more egregious, arguably, than former Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Verla Sue Holland, who slept with the District Attorney while he tried cases before her as a district judge, then concealed her adulterous misconduct in a death penalty appeal.Welcome to the whacky world of the Fifth Circuit, which chief Appeals Court Judge Edith Jones rules in a style reminiscent of the Queen of Hearts.
Jones is not one of the sisterhood and is, indeed, famous for her hostility to female plaintiffs alleging sexual misconduct in the workplace. So it was fortunate for Kent that Jones was in charge when the Judicial Council considered complaints against him from Cathy McBroom, his former case manager at the Galveston courthouse.
The council did not reveal what those complaints were, but gave Kent a public reprimand for "sexual harassment" and suspended him for four months. The implication seemed to be that his offenses were relatively trivial.
McBroom did not think so, and went public with the complaint she had filed against Kent.
She said his unwelcome intentions spanned a four-year period and that he had used force in attempting to make her perform oral sex.
Her attorney asked the Judicial Council to give him a longer suspension and call for his impeachment, but no dice, and Kent returned to the bench. But by then the feds had launched an investigation, which culminated last month with his indictment on two counts of abusive sexual contact and one count of aggravated sexual abuse.
Allegations of financial improprieties against Kent remain under investigation, according to press reports.
Kent's attorney has claimed that any sexual contact was "enthusiastically consensual."
Whether you believe him, or the grand jury, the Judicial Council's decision makes no sense. Nobody ever accused him of mere harassment.
Indeed, those two cases have more in common than just a sexual component. Like the impotent Texas Judicial Conduct Commission, which is supposed to provide oversight for Texas state jurists but in practice does nothing of the sort, mechanisms for holding the federal judiciary accountable appear broken in the 5th Circuit, with the Judicial Council in Kent's case more concerned about protecting their judicial peers than the public. That's a recurring theme when you examine various judicial misconduct cases - it's not just individual judges' bad behavior that's the problem, but also the tendency of their peers to knowingly tolerate it.
DPS' anticlimactic Sunset report
Of the several criminal justice agencies under Sunset Review this year, the Department of Public Safety is among the first for which the Sunset Advisory Commission has already issued their final report (pdf) with their official legislative recommendations. (See the agency's self-evaluation report-pdf released last year, and go here to view public comments received.)
Without having read the entire, massive document, from a quick overview the Sunset report appears most notable for the kennel-full of dogs that didn't bark. After Colonel Tommy Davis was hounded out of his post over often-irate criticisms at the Sunset review hearing, I'd expected the Sunset Commission to offer much more sweeping changes. Their big suggestions were to hire a management consultant to consider an agency re-org and to operate the driver's license division on a "civilian business management model" - whoop de do!
I half-expected a rash dismantlement of DPS as the buzzards circled over Col. Davis' political corpse. But this report possibly errs in the other direction, failing to recommend solutions for DPS' most notorious structural flaws and handing the task off to some consultant to be identified later. That's passing the buck on the job the Sunset Commission itself was tasked to perform.
(Correction/update: From our pal Don Dickson in the comments we learn that "The organizational assessment was conducted by Deloitte Consultants. They have submitted their final report and they will be presenting their findings to the Public Safety Commission at a meeting this Thursday." So we'll learn more about the management re-org endorsed by the Sunset Commission later this week.
Without having read the entire, massive document, from a quick overview the Sunset report appears most notable for the kennel-full of dogs that didn't bark. After Colonel Tommy Davis was hounded out of his post over often-irate criticisms at the Sunset review hearing, I'd expected the Sunset Commission to offer much more sweeping changes. Their big suggestions were to hire a management consultant to consider an agency re-org and to operate the driver's license division on a "civilian business management model" - whoop de do!
I half-expected a rash dismantlement of DPS as the buzzards circled over Col. Davis' political corpse. But this report possibly errs in the other direction, failing to recommend solutions for DPS' most notorious structural flaws and handing the task off to some consultant to be identified later. That's passing the buck on the job the Sunset Commission itself was tasked to perform.
(Correction/update: From our pal Don Dickson in the comments we learn that "The organizational assessment was conducted by Deloitte Consultants. They have submitted their final report and they will be presenting their findings to the Public Safety Commission at a meeting this Thursday." So we'll learn more about the management re-org endorsed by the Sunset Commission later this week.
Jail Standards Commission makes web complaints easier
Kudos to Texas Commission on Jail Standards chief Adan Munoz for agreeing to add a tab on their main web page with information about how to file complaints with the commission about local jails, something Diana Claitor and the Texas Jail Project had asked them to do during the Sunset Review Process.
Bluing of the Dallas Judiciary Foreshadows Turnover Among Harris Judges; CCA Electoral Update
In typical times, judicial politics in Texas plays out in the springtime every even-numbered year in the primaries of the party in power. If you want to dismiss an incumbent local judge in an election, the only viable way to do it for all intents and purposes is usually a primary challenge. Voters in November don't pay attention to elections that far down the ballot, particularly in a Presidential election year. The vast majority of voters pick judges based solely on their political party, not on their qualifications or record. That's also true for the state's two highest courts - the Texas Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.
However, these are not typical times and this year the November elections promise more action in judicial races, particularly in Texas' largest cities. A commenter over at Sentencing Law & Policy pointed me to an item I'd missed back in September from the Dallas NBC affiliate announcing that "As many as seven Republican judges in Dallas County are jumping to the Democratic Party." Most pols I've talked to predict that all incumbent Republicans who did not switch in Dallas will lose - every last one of them, good and bad.
In Houston, nine of the 25 judicial races in play are criminal courts. Voters there came within a whisker in 2006 of a judicial turnover in Harris similar to what happened in Dallas, and a high pro-Obama turnout could easily boost Democratic fortunes enough to take all 25 seats, a transition which would represent a stunning change for Harris County, a long-time GOP bastion.
Similarly, especially with relatively low fundraising totals and fewer policy differences among candidates than we'd have seen if incumbent Chuck Rosenthal hadn't imploded, the Harris County District Attorney's race will likely be decided by who benefits most from the coattails of their party's presidential candidate: Give the edge to C.O. Bradford if that's the case.
The Court of Criminal Appeals races are less likely to flip, though those too are a down-ballot races that will be decided based on macro-level partisan trends. Basically, Texas' statewide vote would have to go Democratic, or close to it (Republicans on the CCA tend to do slightly worse than other statewide GOP candidates), for challengers in these races to have a chance.
Unfortunately, Democrats only fielded one strong candidate for the Court of Criminal Appeals - Susan Strawn, who received the endorsements of both the Dallas News and the Houston Chronicle in her bid to unseat incumbent Tom Price. Perennial candidate J.R. Molina, who's running against incumbentCathy Cochran Paul Womack, refuses to campaign for office or even participate in candidate interviews with the press.
I've met Susan Strawn and think she could be a fine judge. OTOH, I've never even met anyone who's met J.R. Molina, including Strawn! Maybe he'd be a terrific judge, but his campaigning performance makes me suspect he'd be a phenomenal and embarrassing dud.By contrast, his opponent Judge Cochran is an intellectual force on the court and one of its more cogent thinkers, though in the context of the group Texas Monthly called "Texas' Worst Court," that may be damning with faint praise.
In any event, the CCA races won't be decided on the merits, unfortunately, so qualifications in a practical sense don't matter in terms of the outcome. Put it this way: If Rick Noriega even gets close to becoming senator, J.R. Molina will likely be on the Court of Criminal Appeals regardless of whether he's competent to represent someone in traffic court. That makes me especially glad Susan Strawn decided to run, on the off chance the stars align and Democrats happen to take those seats.
CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION: Susan Strawn contacted me to correct my error ABOVE about J.R Molina's opponent and to let me know she had met Molina; she had not met him yet when I'd spoken to her after the primaries. Reading this again, perhaps I'm being a bit hard on Mr. Molina, though I wish, if he's going to put his name on the ballot, that he'd bother to tell voters why they should elect him.
However, these are not typical times and this year the November elections promise more action in judicial races, particularly in Texas' largest cities. A commenter over at Sentencing Law & Policy pointed me to an item I'd missed back in September from the Dallas NBC affiliate announcing that "As many as seven Republican judges in Dallas County are jumping to the Democratic Party." Most pols I've talked to predict that all incumbent Republicans who did not switch in Dallas will lose - every last one of them, good and bad.
In Houston, nine of the 25 judicial races in play are criminal courts. Voters there came within a whisker in 2006 of a judicial turnover in Harris similar to what happened in Dallas, and a high pro-Obama turnout could easily boost Democratic fortunes enough to take all 25 seats, a transition which would represent a stunning change for Harris County, a long-time GOP bastion.
Similarly, especially with relatively low fundraising totals and fewer policy differences among candidates than we'd have seen if incumbent Chuck Rosenthal hadn't imploded, the Harris County District Attorney's race will likely be decided by who benefits most from the coattails of their party's presidential candidate: Give the edge to C.O. Bradford if that's the case.
The Court of Criminal Appeals races are less likely to flip, though those too are a down-ballot races that will be decided based on macro-level partisan trends. Basically, Texas' statewide vote would have to go Democratic, or close to it (Republicans on the CCA tend to do slightly worse than other statewide GOP candidates), for challengers in these races to have a chance.
Unfortunately, Democrats only fielded one strong candidate for the Court of Criminal Appeals - Susan Strawn, who received the endorsements of both the Dallas News and the Houston Chronicle in her bid to unseat incumbent Tom Price. Perennial candidate J.R. Molina, who's running against incumbent
I've met Susan Strawn and think she could be a fine judge. OTOH, I've never even met anyone who's met J.R. Molina, including Strawn! Maybe he'd be a terrific judge, but his campaigning performance makes me suspect he'd be a phenomenal and embarrassing dud.
In any event, the CCA races won't be decided on the merits, unfortunately, so qualifications in a practical sense don't matter in terms of the outcome. Put it this way: If Rick Noriega even gets close to becoming senator, J.R. Molina will likely be on the Court of Criminal Appeals regardless of whether he's competent to represent someone in traffic court. That makes me especially glad Susan Strawn decided to run, on the off chance the stars align and Democrats happen to take those seats.
CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION: Susan Strawn contacted me to correct my error ABOVE about J.R Molina's opponent and to let me know she had met Molina; she had not met him yet when I'd spoken to her after the primaries. Reading this again, perhaps I'm being a bit hard on Mr. Molina, though I wish, if he's going to put his name on the ballot, that he'd bother to tell voters why they should elect him.
'Show up' tactic can taint witness IDs
Following up on its coverage of eyewitness ID flaws in Dallas DNA exonerations, the Dallas News today brings us an analysis of the use of "show ups" to identify suspects - where suspects simply take a witness to a single suspect who's already in custody and ask "is he the guy?" Reported the News ("Police use show-ups to quickly nab suspects - and sometimes choose wrong," Oct. 13):
To be clear: Not everyone identified based on a show-up is innocent, but there's a greater chance they've been falsely accused than if they were selected from a photo array with appropriate fillers, proper witness cautioning and blind administration. And obviously, it would be greatly preferable to corroborate the witness' accusation with some other evidence besides the ID, particularly when the witness didn't previously know the defendant. The tactic dramatically increases the risk of accusing the wrong guy if the witness didn't already know the suspect before the crime.
MORE: From the Dallas News Crime Blog on Dallas PD's recent decision to upgrade its policy on show-ups.
Further, according to the Dallas News' investigation:Almost a decade has elapsed since the U.S. Justice Department recommended stricter limits on the use of "showups," as the practice is known in police circles. More than 40 years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed them dangerously suggestive and discouraged their use.
Yet showups have been cited as a critical flaw in at least 20 percent of the 220 DNA exonerations nationwide. Three of the 19 Dallas County wrongful convictions involved a showup, according to court records.
Most agencies do not have written policies on showups or eyewitness ID procedures generally, the News found, but I was pleased to learn the Dallas PD is creating a new, written policy that puts significant limits on the most suggestive uses of this tactic:Showups continue in Dallas County and elsewhere because police value them, judges seldom suppress them and juries are swayed by the results.
They are done with few rules and scant oversight. Street cops with little formal guidance on identification procedures typically conduct them, and detectives trying to preserve a key part of their case defend them.
No one keeps statistics on their use.
To better understand the prevalence of showups in Dallas County, The Dallas Morning News reviewed more than 20 years of state appellate court opinions. The News found more than 100 felony trial convictions involving showups. Trials represent just a fraction of how charges are disposed; most result in plea agreements.
How often showups result in misidentifications remains a matter of scholarly debate. But it is a given that one-person showups can pose a higher risk of error than the standard six-person photo array or live lineup.
Each of the Dallas County exoneration cases with a showup involved a rape that occurred between 1982 and 1986, when genetic testing was unavailable. Police based the charges almost entirely on the victim's one-on-one identification.
Of more than two dozen law enforcement agencies in Dallas County, only two (Duncanville and Irving) responded that they had written policies governing showups, The News found.
I think the proposed Dallas policy draws the line at pretty much the right place - show-ups should never be used to identify a stranger. What's more, they can be tainted if officers don't properly caution the witness, particularly to tell them the suspect may not be the person who did it.Ron Waldrop, an assistant Dallas police chief, said he did not know what, if any, training patrol officers receive on showups. The department's policies on identifications do not mention showups, but new guidelines are being written.
In mid-September, after an innocent man was misidentified in a single-photo showup, the Dallas Police Department banned the practice except when a witness knows the suspect by name or face.
"It was inappropriate," Chief Waldrop said, "and we put an end to that."
To be clear: Not everyone identified based on a show-up is innocent, but there's a greater chance they've been falsely accused than if they were selected from a photo array with appropriate fillers, proper witness cautioning and blind administration. And obviously, it would be greatly preferable to corroborate the witness' accusation with some other evidence besides the ID, particularly when the witness didn't previously know the defendant. The tactic dramatically increases the risk of accusing the wrong guy if the witness didn't already know the suspect before the crime.
MORE: From the Dallas News Crime Blog on Dallas PD's recent decision to upgrade its policy on show-ups.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
New FBI guidelines expand reliance on snitching, political snooping
I'd like to hear both Presidential candidates tell us whether they'd repeal the new DOJ investigative guidelines (pdf) issued this month by the Bush Administration, which appear designed to enable expanded investigations of political dissenters and create all sorts of negative, unintended consequences, not the least of which is expanding FBI use of informants in situations there is no active investigation of a crime - sort of like the East German Stasi maintained an ongoing informant network to monitor dissenters during the Cold War. Reported the Center for Investigative Reporting's Muckraker Blog:
The Justice Department finalized a new set of more lenient guidelines regulating what tactics FBI agents can use for criminal and national security investigations.
Elements of the proposed changes generated attention after Democratic lawmakers heard testimony about them in August and worried publicly in a letter to the Attorney General's Office that they could lead to abuse. ...The Washington Post reported that the Justice Department was asked to wait until the next president takes office before making any drastic changes to bureau guidelines, but the current White House, which is similarly overhauling how other law-enforcement agencies can collect domestic intelligence as Bush's tenure comes to a close, rejected that idea.
The bureau's definition of "assessment" is what seems to startle some observers the most. An assessment is different than a full-blown criminal or national security investigation, the latter of which requires reasonable suspicion, or "factual predication" as the bureau calls it, that a crime has occurred.
Groups or individuals targeted for an assessment may simply resemble to an agent a risk to public safety without any advance information indicating that was the case. It's not clear, then, how the bureau determines what groups or people should be spied upon if they haven't broken any laws and whether that process is arbitrary.
"[The FBI] cannot be content to wait for leads to come in through the actions of others, but rather must be vigilant in detecting terrorist activities to the full extent permitted by law, with an eye towards early intervention and prevention of acts of terrorism before they occur," the new guidelines state.
Among the powers agents now have for an assessment:
• Conduct surveillance without an otherwise required court order
• Obtain grand jury subpoenas for personal telephone and e-mail accounts
• Recruit informants for feeding information about a group or person to the bureau
• Examine records maintained by federal, state and local government agencies, which are typically not accessible to the public, like police databases profiling past criminal suspects.
In particular, the powers allow agents to "collect information relating to demonstration activities," according to the guidelines, for the purpose of protecting "public health and safety" before a major event, like the party conventions that occurred in St. Paul and Denver. The bureau can gather intelligence to determine where political demonstrators are lodging during the event, how they're traveling there, where demonstration activities are planned and how many people will attend, all without advanced proof that a national-security threat exists.
Agents can also access commercial databases containing large volumes of personal information on U.S. citizens, like those maintained by the private company ChoicePoint, which specializes in serving government agencies.
The bureau, for its part, says the old rules led to confusion among agents who were limited to varying techniques for intelligence gathering depending solely on whether an investigation was given a "criminal" or "national security" label.
"Under the new guidelines, the investigative steps that the FBI may take in a particular investigation will not be driven by irrelevant factors, such as the type of paperwork the agent uses to open the investigation," Mukasey told a crowd during an August anti-terrorism conference in Oregon. "The revisions also aim to eliminate distinctions in the existing rules that make it, in practice, harder to gather information about threats to the national security than it is to conduct 'ordinary' criminal investigations."
Eyewitness IDs at root of most Dallas DNA exonerations, newspaper analysis finds
Be sure to check out a must-read Dallas News piece by reporters Steve McGonigle and Jennifer Emily analyzing the causes of Dallas County DNA exonerations, honing in on particular faulty eyewitness identifications, which occurred among 18 of 19 Dallas cases where DNA exonerated the defendant ("18 Dallas County cases overturned by DNA relied heavily on eyewitness testimony," Oct. 12). They report:
So whether a witness is "certain" in the witness box has virtually nil to do with whether their testimony is accurate. If it's wrong but they've been convinced it's right because they've seen the same photo over and over or police told the witness "we've got the guy," a witness will be just as "certain" either way. Reported McGonigle and Emily:
That's why eyewitness IDs tend to be much more reliable where the witness already knew the offender from elsewhere, but not so much when they didn't previously know each other. Otherwise, as the teaser to an hour-long public radio piece on memory put it last year (highly recommended), "According to the latest research, remembering is an unstable and profoundly unreliable process. It’s easy come, easy go as we learn how true memories can be obliterated and false ones added."
A sidebar to the News story titled "Rape victim studying science of memory after man dies serving wrongful sentence" (Oct. 12) explores this budding science of memory in the context of the tragic Timothy Cole/Michelle Mallin case out of Lubbock, chronicled on Grits here, here, and here.
Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins has concluded from his experience that the same problems with misidentification undoubtedly still continue today and that these DNA exonerations likely represent just a fraction of the total number of innocent people who've been convicted because of it:
RELATED: See an excellent public policy report from The Justice Project detailing problems with eyewitness identification procedures and suggesting reforms.
An eight-month review by The News of previously closed prosecution files found, however, that the faulty identifications were the predictable consequences of a criminal justice system that ignored safeguards meant to protect the innocent. The files reveal a law-and-order machine that focused on securing and bolstering eyewitness testimony, regardless of the victim's doubt or the lack of corroborating evidence. ...That last bit about judges allowing testimony based on a witness expressing certainty in court is one of the most troubling aspects of this problem. Simply put: certainty is not a metric for accuracy. In fact, recent discoveries in brain science lead researchers to believe certainty is an emotionally based sensation, not generally a result of empirical observation and analysis. (See this prior Grits post on certainty.) Humans actually get a dopamine boost from feeling certain even when we don't really know the answer - an evolutionary adaptation which may stem from confronting abstract choices that have no clear-cut answers in the face of perilous threats.In addition to an almost slavish reliance on eyewitness testimony, a review of the Dallas County DNA cases showed that:
• Thirteen of the 19 wrongly convicted men were black. Eight of the 13 were misidentified by victims of another race. Police investigators and prosecutors in the cases were all white, as were many of the juries of the 1980s.
• Police officers used suggestive lineup procedures, sometimes pressured victims to pick their suspect and then cleared the case once an identification was made.
• Prosecutors frequently went to trial with single-witness identifications and flimsy corroboration. Some tried to preserve shaky identifications by withholding evidence that pointed to other potential suspects.
• Judges, governed by case law that has not kept pace with developments in DNA testing or research on eyewitness testimony, routinely approved even tainted pretrial identifications as long as an eyewitness expressed certainty in court.
So whether a witness is "certain" in the witness box has virtually nil to do with whether their testimony is accurate. If it's wrong but they've been convinced it's right because they've seen the same photo over and over or police told the witness "we've got the guy," a witness will be just as "certain" either way. Reported McGonigle and Emily:
Because juries respond so well to eyewitness testimony, even discounting strong alibi witnesses when a witness says "He did it," the system seizes on it to the exclusion of other evidence and has, they say, essentially become addicted to it:If an eyewitness exhibits certainty, records and interviews show, judges do not suppress a prior identification no matter how the photo lineup was conducted.
"The fact that some particular process might not have been as pristine as we'd like it to be does not in and of itself make them wrong," said state District Judge John Creuzot.
U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the 1960s and 1970s set a high bar for withholding an eyewitness identification from a jury. And in 1975, the Texas Legislature amended state law to make it easier to prosecute sexual assaults without evidence to corroborate eyewitness testimony.
The law was part of a national effort by women's groups to remove provisions deemed unfair barriers to the prosecution of sexual assaults. Each of the 19 Dallas County DNA exonerations occurred after that law change.
Except we now know that if the witness saw it, maybe they didn't see it, at least not just the way they remember it. Science has pretty thoroughly debunked the notion that our minds can take snapshots of what we see and catalog them away for future retrieval. The witness who says "I'll never forget that face" may be "certain" that's true, but actually humans don't nearly so much see the world on a moment to moment basis as project it - most of the imagery going to our visual cortex, scientists now believe, comes from the brain's memory banks and supplements what we see with past knowledge.Eyewitness testimony is the crack cocaine of the criminal justice system.
Law officers know the potential risks but are addicted to its power to convict.
"Eyewitness testimony was gold," said Kevin Brooks, who heads the district attorney's felony trial bureau. "If the witness said they saw it, they saw it."
That's why eyewitness IDs tend to be much more reliable where the witness already knew the offender from elsewhere, but not so much when they didn't previously know each other. Otherwise, as the teaser to an hour-long public radio piece on memory put it last year (highly recommended), "According to the latest research, remembering is an unstable and profoundly unreliable process. It’s easy come, easy go as we learn how true memories can be obliterated and false ones added."
A sidebar to the News story titled "Rape victim studying science of memory after man dies serving wrongful sentence" (Oct. 12) explores this budding science of memory in the context of the tragic Timothy Cole/Michelle Mallin case out of Lubbock, chronicled on Grits here, here, and here.
Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins has concluded from his experience that the same problems with misidentification undoubtedly still continue today and that these DNA exonerations likely represent just a fraction of the total number of innocent people who've been convicted because of it:
Really good stuff from McGonigle and Emily; here's their full series on Dallas DNA exonerations.Eyewitness testimony is not always flawed, but no one really knows how often it's wrong. But because the same identification procedures were routinely used in cases that lacked biological evidence to test, Mr. Watkins said, the number is "a lot more than 19."
It is likely, he said, that an innocent person has been convicted by faulty eyewitness testimony during his first two years in office. He is trying to instill in his prosecutors the need to be more skeptical and to seek out corroboration, Mr. Watkins said.
"We know that eyewitness identification is faulty," he added.
RELATED: See an excellent public policy report from The Justice Project detailing problems with eyewitness identification procedures and suggesting reforms.
Friday, October 10, 2008
AG says Tyler jail proponents can't keep plans secret
Via the blog for the What Part of No Don't You Understand Committee, we learn that Texas Attorney General Greg Abott ruled against the Smith County Commissioners Court who inexplicably wanted to keep secret detailed plans for the jail being proposed to voters on the ballot just 24 days from now. Today the Tyler Morning Telegraph reported that:
Just before last year's Smith County jail bond vote (this will be the third), County Judge Joel Baker literally shot himself in the foot - as in, with a firearm. For whatever reason, Judge Baker and his colleagues seem hell bent on shooting themselves in the foot politically over a third jail vote, despite two other jail bond proposals going down overwhelmingly in flames in each of the last two years.
To review just a smattering of the Smith County Commissioners Court's strategic and tactical errors:
Despite overwhelming public opposition in two elections running, jail plans were developed in secret then the commissioners court engaged in a public fight to keep from revealing them. The obvious question that springs to voters' minds: "What do you have to hide?"
Perhaps most critically, it was folly to schedule the plebiscite during a Presidential election when they'll assuredly see maximum turnout - the jail did better with voters (though still poorly) when it was on an isolated ballot the first time around instead of on the same ballot with candidates. What's more, the Obama factor will play against them. Predominantly black neighborhoods in North Tyler, one imagines, will turn out for Obama in record numbers, and those precincts strongly opposed the last two jail bond votes.
Meanwhile the Tyler Independent School District placed more than $100 million in bonds before the voters on the same ballot. Which do you think voters will choose: Schools or jails?
Finally, the economic panic on Wall Street will surely doom the vote if it had the remotest prayer before. For that matter, rising interest rates mean the project (and all debt-backed construction) will be a lot more expensive than voters were previously told.
My pre-election guess on the Smith County jail vote outcome: The over-under is about 68 percent against. In other words, I think there's an equal chance the number against will be higher or lower. I'll be amazed if fewer than 60 percent of Smith County voters oppose the jail, and I can't imagine it passing.
In a letter to Smith County Assistant District Attorney Stan Springerley, who advises the Commissioners Court on actions taken by the court, the attorney general's office threw out Springerley's argument that "executive session will be necessary to 'ensure that there are adequate security features for the new facility'" and ruled that the requested information "must be released."I can't believe the commissioners court is fighting them on this: Newspaper articles about secrecy three weeks before election day do nothing but harm to the jail builders' cause.
Just before last year's Smith County jail bond vote (this will be the third), County Judge Joel Baker literally shot himself in the foot - as in, with a firearm. For whatever reason, Judge Baker and his colleagues seem hell bent on shooting themselves in the foot politically over a third jail vote, despite two other jail bond proposals going down overwhelmingly in flames in each of the last two years.
To review just a smattering of the Smith County Commissioners Court's strategic and tactical errors:
Despite overwhelming public opposition in two elections running, jail plans were developed in secret then the commissioners court engaged in a public fight to keep from revealing them. The obvious question that springs to voters' minds: "What do you have to hide?"
Perhaps most critically, it was folly to schedule the plebiscite during a Presidential election when they'll assuredly see maximum turnout - the jail did better with voters (though still poorly) when it was on an isolated ballot the first time around instead of on the same ballot with candidates. What's more, the Obama factor will play against them. Predominantly black neighborhoods in North Tyler, one imagines, will turn out for Obama in record numbers, and those precincts strongly opposed the last two jail bond votes.
Meanwhile the Tyler Independent School District placed more than $100 million in bonds before the voters on the same ballot. Which do you think voters will choose: Schools or jails?
Finally, the economic panic on Wall Street will surely doom the vote if it had the remotest prayer before. For that matter, rising interest rates mean the project (and all debt-backed construction) will be a lot more expensive than voters were previously told.
My pre-election guess on the Smith County jail vote outcome: The over-under is about 68 percent against. In other words, I think there's an equal chance the number against will be higher or lower. I'll be amazed if fewer than 60 percent of Smith County voters oppose the jail, and I can't imagine it passing.
Attack on Jessica's Law vote in House race amounts to demagoguery
I don't live in Austin's District 47 or know much about either Texas House candidate in the Southwest Travis County race; one-term Democratic Rep. Valinda Bolton wasn't on any of the committees I watch closely in 2007, and while I've had extensive dealings with former Rep. Terry Keel, who previously chaired the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee and is now Tom Craddick's parliamentarian, I don't know a thing about his sister-in-law who's running against Bolton.
However, Donna Keel's cheapshotting Bolton over her vote against Jessica's Law, as reported by Kate Alexander in yesterday's Statesman, reveals either a profound ignorance of the issues by candidate Keel or the cynical mentality of a demagogue. This was a deeply flawed piece of legislation whose centerpiece - the death penalty for child molesters - was promptly deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. (SCOTUS first declared execution for rape unconstitutional in the '70s, and reaffirmed that conclusion this year.)
Texas' statutes in place before Jessica's Law were by no means lenient. The uncorroborated accusation of a child, even hearsay, already could earn a life sentence in Texas - any tuffer than that is just overkill. It's already hard enough to get familiy members to report these crimes and Jessica's Law foolishly made it more likely victims won't come forward.
Creating a phony wedge issue to use for cheap-shotting critics as "soft on crime" was the only reason the Lege passed this flawed and pointless law. It was a weird bill all the way through the process - even the prosecutors and crime victim groups opposed it along the the ACLU and other usual suspects. The ONLY people who seemed to want the bill were a handful of politicians, and they wanted it badly, while those who didn't like it mostly held their nose and voted for it anyway - either because of pressure from the leadership or because they were afraid somebody might do to them what Keel is trying to do to Bolton.
This is an issue where Texas pols have been grandstanding with "git tuff" bills for so many years that all reasonable penalty increases have long been exhausted. At this point, most new penalty hikes amount to overkill, in this case with unintended, negative consequences for crime victims.
Keel's attack is even more despicable because Bolton "spent her career working with victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse," reports the Statesman. So, like the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, Bolton opposed the bill because it made things worse for victims - that's an honorable vote, all the more courageous because she knew when she made it some cynical opportunist might use it later for demagoguing in a campaign, just like Donna Keel is doing now.
However, Donna Keel's cheapshotting Bolton over her vote against Jessica's Law, as reported by Kate Alexander in yesterday's Statesman, reveals either a profound ignorance of the issues by candidate Keel or the cynical mentality of a demagogue. This was a deeply flawed piece of legislation whose centerpiece - the death penalty for child molesters - was promptly deemed unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. (SCOTUS first declared execution for rape unconstitutional in the '70s, and reaffirmed that conclusion this year.)
Texas' statutes in place before Jessica's Law were by no means lenient. The uncorroborated accusation of a child, even hearsay, already could earn a life sentence in Texas - any tuffer than that is just overkill. It's already hard enough to get familiy members to report these crimes and Jessica's Law foolishly made it more likely victims won't come forward.
Creating a phony wedge issue to use for cheap-shotting critics as "soft on crime" was the only reason the Lege passed this flawed and pointless law. It was a weird bill all the way through the process - even the prosecutors and crime victim groups opposed it along the the ACLU and other usual suspects. The ONLY people who seemed to want the bill were a handful of politicians, and they wanted it badly, while those who didn't like it mostly held their nose and voted for it anyway - either because of pressure from the leadership or because they were afraid somebody might do to them what Keel is trying to do to Bolton.
This is an issue where Texas pols have been grandstanding with "git tuff" bills for so many years that all reasonable penalty increases have long been exhausted. At this point, most new penalty hikes amount to overkill, in this case with unintended, negative consequences for crime victims.
Keel's attack is even more despicable because Bolton "spent her career working with victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse," reports the Statesman. So, like the Texas Association Against Sexual Assault, Bolton opposed the bill because it made things worse for victims - that's an honorable vote, all the more courageous because she knew when she made it some cynical opportunist might use it later for demagoguing in a campaign, just like Donna Keel is doing now.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
A 'Barney Fife Exception' to the exclusionary rule?
A few items I'd blog about in more detail if I had more time:
- A 'Barney Fife Exception' to the exclusionary rule? See Crime and Consequences, Orin Kerr, and Simple Justice for details.
- Harris County Innocence Cases. From the Houston Press (Oct. 9): "Ronald Taylor Is One of Perhaps Hundreds of Innocent People Harris County Has Sent to Prison: Our local justice system would prefer to leave them there"
- Training police to handle mentally ill. From the San Antonio Express News (Oct. 9): "SA police to create mental health unit."
- More fines for no insurance. From the Houston Chronicle (10-3): "New system targets uninsured drivers." (When reading this, keep in mind that more than 10% of Texans already have outstanding arrest warrants, many of them because of high fines associated with no-insurance tickets. The fine-and-jail approach ignores more elegant and effective solutions.)
Local Texas law enforcement elections on the November ballot
With most voters focused on the presidential election, I thought it'd be worthwhile to scout about for news on the various law enforcement-related races in Texas, particularly in the largest counties.
The biggest prizes undoubtedly are the two top law enforcement spots in Harris County - Sheriff and District Attorney - whose jurisdiction is more populous than a majority of American states. Both incumbents are Republicans but the county's demographics have recently shifted strongly to favor Democrats. Incumbent Sheriff Tommy Thomas faces a strong Democratic challenger and suffers from what the Houston Chronicle called "the most troublesome year for the sheriff's department under his watch." I'm in the Anybody-But-Thomas camp on this one.
The Harris DA's race features former Houston police chief Clarence Bradford vs. a former judge, Pat Lykos - I was hoping for a Bradford v. Rosenthal dogfight this fall to keep us entertained, but Rosenthal's resignation this spring after a series of embarrassing revelations paved the way for this much tamer contest. Bradford is saying all the right things to attract my support, though I was no great fan of his tenure as police chief. (See Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center for coverage of the DA's race along with local judicial contests.)
I don't particularly have an opinion yet over which candidate would be better in the Dallas Sheriff's race. The Dallas News' endorsement of Republican Lowell Cannady was essentially a recitation of the failures of incumbent Lupe Valdez, most of which I'd agree with on its face. But Cannady has no experience that tells me he'll be able to step in and immediately run the jail any better than Valdez. What's more, even the News admits "she has shown some improvement." My concern would be that Cannady, or anybody, who didn't come straight outta jail management, would be able to step in to the Dallas jail's byzantine problems without a steep learning curve the county can ill afford. Things are a big mess there right now, and not all the fault falls on the Sheriff's shoulders. But Valdez's reign has been disappointing, so I'd be open to hearing more specifics from Cannady to convince me he has a vision of where to take the department and how to get there.
I've seen virtually no coverage of the Bexar County Sheriff's race, but the clear choice in terms of what's best for the county and its jail overcrowding crisis would be Dennis McKnight, the GOP candidate and former First Assistant Bexar County DA who managed the jail day-to-day under the previous Sheriff. McKnight exhibits a profound understanding of the system's problems. Even better, he's not afraid to propose bold solutions (he was an early backer of the idea for giving citations instead of arresting for low-level misdemeanors). He would step in on day one with innovative plans to reduce jail overcrowding, knowing exactly where are the levers of power within the organization and how to operate them - skills Lupe Valdez in Dallas, for example, hasn't been able to master in four years. Go Dennis!
There's a contested, open Sheriff's slot in El Paso which, like in Bexar, has received only sparse news coverage (that I've seen) so far. Unlike some other Texas counties, El Paso's jail problems aren't the only dominant issue, though still an important one, because the Sheriff provides plenty of actual on-the-ground enforcement in rural areas. I know little about either candidate. Democrat Richard Wiles is a former El Paso police chief who won his primary despite opposition from the local police union because of "tough discipline standards" when he ran the place. That doesn't sound too bad. The Republican, George Stoltz, was an El Paso police officer for 18 years befor spending "the last 18 months in Iraq as a contracted police adviser." His website contains more information about Iraq than his plans or El Paso. I'd be interested in learning more about the candidates from any readers following the race.
Out in East Texas there's a contested Sheriff's race in Gregg County (Longview) that received good coverage in The East Texas Review. The Democrat in the race criticized a long-term undercover drug sting targeting multiple, mostly black offenders for two years before securing a single arrest (they finally busted everyone at once in a big roundup). His concerns mirror those of theoreticians concerned that widespread use of confidential informants may actually increase crime, declaring, "Gregg County has the highest crime rate of any county in east Texas with drug dealers selling drugs for 2 years ever before there was a raid. During this time he said, 'Burglary increased.'" I'm particularly glad to see a critique of such common but problematic tactics making its way into electoral debates in a Sheriff's race.
Who do you support in these races and what other contested Texas Sheriffs or DA elections are you watching this November?
The biggest prizes undoubtedly are the two top law enforcement spots in Harris County - Sheriff and District Attorney - whose jurisdiction is more populous than a majority of American states. Both incumbents are Republicans but the county's demographics have recently shifted strongly to favor Democrats. Incumbent Sheriff Tommy Thomas faces a strong Democratic challenger and suffers from what the Houston Chronicle called "the most troublesome year for the sheriff's department under his watch." I'm in the Anybody-But-Thomas camp on this one.
The Harris DA's race features former Houston police chief Clarence Bradford vs. a former judge, Pat Lykos - I was hoping for a Bradford v. Rosenthal dogfight this fall to keep us entertained, but Rosenthal's resignation this spring after a series of embarrassing revelations paved the way for this much tamer contest. Bradford is saying all the right things to attract my support, though I was no great fan of his tenure as police chief. (See Life at the Harris County Criminal Justice Center for coverage of the DA's race along with local judicial contests.)
I don't particularly have an opinion yet over which candidate would be better in the Dallas Sheriff's race. The Dallas News' endorsement of Republican Lowell Cannady was essentially a recitation of the failures of incumbent Lupe Valdez, most of which I'd agree with on its face. But Cannady has no experience that tells me he'll be able to step in and immediately run the jail any better than Valdez. What's more, even the News admits "she has shown some improvement." My concern would be that Cannady, or anybody, who didn't come straight outta jail management, would be able to step in to the Dallas jail's byzantine problems without a steep learning curve the county can ill afford. Things are a big mess there right now, and not all the fault falls on the Sheriff's shoulders. But Valdez's reign has been disappointing, so I'd be open to hearing more specifics from Cannady to convince me he has a vision of where to take the department and how to get there.
I've seen virtually no coverage of the Bexar County Sheriff's race, but the clear choice in terms of what's best for the county and its jail overcrowding crisis would be Dennis McKnight, the GOP candidate and former First Assistant Bexar County DA who managed the jail day-to-day under the previous Sheriff. McKnight exhibits a profound understanding of the system's problems. Even better, he's not afraid to propose bold solutions (he was an early backer of the idea for giving citations instead of arresting for low-level misdemeanors). He would step in on day one with innovative plans to reduce jail overcrowding, knowing exactly where are the levers of power within the organization and how to operate them - skills Lupe Valdez in Dallas, for example, hasn't been able to master in four years. Go Dennis!
There's a contested, open Sheriff's slot in El Paso which, like in Bexar, has received only sparse news coverage (that I've seen) so far. Unlike some other Texas counties, El Paso's jail problems aren't the only dominant issue, though still an important one, because the Sheriff provides plenty of actual on-the-ground enforcement in rural areas. I know little about either candidate. Democrat Richard Wiles is a former El Paso police chief who won his primary despite opposition from the local police union because of "tough discipline standards" when he ran the place. That doesn't sound too bad. The Republican, George Stoltz, was an El Paso police officer for 18 years befor spending "the last 18 months in Iraq as a contracted police adviser." His website contains more information about Iraq than his plans or El Paso. I'd be interested in learning more about the candidates from any readers following the race.
Out in East Texas there's a contested Sheriff's race in Gregg County (Longview) that received good coverage in The East Texas Review. The Democrat in the race criticized a long-term undercover drug sting targeting multiple, mostly black offenders for two years before securing a single arrest (they finally busted everyone at once in a big roundup). His concerns mirror those of theoreticians concerned that widespread use of confidential informants may actually increase crime, declaring, "Gregg County has the highest crime rate of any county in east Texas with drug dealers selling drugs for 2 years ever before there was a raid. During this time he said, 'Burglary increased.'" I'm particularly glad to see a critique of such common but problematic tactics making its way into electoral debates in a Sheriff's race.
Who do you support in these races and what other contested Texas Sheriffs or DA elections are you watching this November?
How will UTMB layoffs affect prison healthcare?
As Galveston Island continues to dig itself out from the refuse, has anyone heard what effect Hurricane Ike has had on medical care delivery in Texas prisons? Recent news of up to 4,000 proposed layoffs makes me think the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston must be struggling to meet its contractual obligations for providing prisoner healthcare after the big storm destroyed more than $700 million dollars worth of facilities.
By contract, essentially acting as a capitated HMO, UTMB-Galveston provides medical care for 80% of prisoners in the state, much of it via "telemedicine" where inmates are seen via teleconferencing link by doctors in Galveston. The Texas Tech medical school handles the other 20%. But with Galveston Island devastated and UT's facilities there in tatters, UTMB just announced widespread layoffs, reports the Houston Chronicle:
Prisoners at the hospital in Galveston were evacuated to Tyler, where the UT-Tyler Hospital continues to handle their care. But it's not designed as a prison hospital, nor is it likely equipped to act as the center of UTMB's telemedicine services. The Chronicle reported that the prison hospital "wasn't badly damaged, but many of the required auxiliary services, including a pharmacy, aren't yet available."
Certainly the system must be flexible and I have tremendous sympathy for those in Galveston who've lost their homes and in many cases, now, their livelihood. But the medical school is also the health care system for 106 prison units holding more than 150,000 prisoners (from UTMB's perspective, read: "patients"), about 40 of whom die every month regardless of the weather. (That's more than California even though their prison system is larger.) It's one thing to scale back services for a month or so in response to disaster, but if UTMB lays off most of their staff and their facilities in Galveston are out of commission, is UTMB even capable of fulfilling its TDCJ contract anymore? Quien sabe?
I'll poke around today and see what else I can discover on this topic; check back for updates at the end of this post. And anyone with first-hand knowledge of what's going on inside the prisons with UTMB-delivered healthcare services, please let us know in the comments.
UPDATE (10/10) I put out some feelers and am still waiting to hear back. Most UTMB buildings, though, are currently not open even for employees. Also, in addition to buildings and labs, many computers were damaged and heaven knows how long it will take to sort out their information systems. Certainly it will be a profound test of their backup systems, at the very least.
By contract, essentially acting as a capitated HMO, UTMB-Galveston provides medical care for 80% of prisoners in the state, much of it via "telemedicine" where inmates are seen via teleconferencing link by doctors in Galveston. The Texas Tech medical school handles the other 20%. But with Galveston Island devastated and UT's facilities there in tatters, UTMB just announced widespread layoffs, reports the Houston Chronicle:
A day after elected officials claimed they had helped avert a planned layoff of thousands of employees at the University of Texas Medical Branch, the interim chancellor of the UT System said a "significant" portion of workers will lose their jobs.This announcement raises many more questions, especially for the state prison system, than the article answers. How will these layoffs affect UTMB's contract with TDCJ, which already was an underfunded, understaffed hodge podge of services held together by "telemedicine" out of Galveston? Has TDCJ reduced medical services in the wake of Ike, one wonders? And if so, how is that playing out in the field? After all, Ike hit Galveston on Sept. 12, nearly a month ago. (Thank heavens the main pharmacy is located in Huntsville; if it had been destroyed, I'm not sure how the agency would operate.)The layoffs will come as a direct result of damage inflicted by Hurricane Ike, which cost the academic medical center about $710 million in building damage, ruined equipment, revenue losses, cleanup and evacuation. Insurance will cover about $100 million, said Kenneth Shine, the interim chancellor and executive vice chancellor for health affairs, in a story Thursday in the Austin American-Statesman.
"We recognize there have to be significant reductions in force on the island," Shine said. "It's a very challenging situation."
According to Shine, some of the 85 buildings on campus took on as much as 8 feet of water, and storm damage essentially destroyed the hospital's kitchen, blood bank and radiology department.
In addition, the center's main revenue source, a 500-bed hospital at the campus, is expected to return as a 200-bed hospital for the foreseeable future. With the hospital and other revenue generators out of commission or at reduced capacity, the medical branch will likely operate at a deficit beginning as soon as next month, Shine said.
Prisoners at the hospital in Galveston were evacuated to Tyler, where the UT-Tyler Hospital continues to handle their care. But it's not designed as a prison hospital, nor is it likely equipped to act as the center of UTMB's telemedicine services. The Chronicle reported that the prison hospital "wasn't badly damaged, but many of the required auxiliary services, including a pharmacy, aren't yet available."
Certainly the system must be flexible and I have tremendous sympathy for those in Galveston who've lost their homes and in many cases, now, their livelihood. But the medical school is also the health care system for 106 prison units holding more than 150,000 prisoners (from UTMB's perspective, read: "patients"), about 40 of whom die every month regardless of the weather. (That's more than California even though their prison system is larger.) It's one thing to scale back services for a month or so in response to disaster, but if UTMB lays off most of their staff and their facilities in Galveston are out of commission, is UTMB even capable of fulfilling its TDCJ contract anymore? Quien sabe?
I'll poke around today and see what else I can discover on this topic; check back for updates at the end of this post. And anyone with first-hand knowledge of what's going on inside the prisons with UTMB-delivered healthcare services, please let us know in the comments.
UPDATE (10/10) I put out some feelers and am still waiting to hear back. Most UTMB buildings, though, are currently not open even for employees. Also, in addition to buildings and labs, many computers were damaged and heaven knows how long it will take to sort out their information systems. Certainly it will be a profound test of their backup systems, at the very least.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
More on Whitmire's TYC plans
Following up on this discussion of Sen. John Whitmire's idea for downsizing the Texas Youth Commission and shifting more responsibility to counties, an aide to Sen. Whitmire forwarded me a copy of this written testimony (pdf) from our pal Marc Levin with the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The accompanying email declares "it is along the same lines as [the senator's] thoughts on additional reformation of TYC and the strengthening of resources for the juvenile probation system." Those interested in where the Senator wants to take the agency should be sure to give it a read.
Poll: Fragmented voter attitudes on drug war solutions, consensus about its failures
While partisan politics can make the electorate appear deeply divided, regarding the war on drugs there appears to be a remarkable consensus among voters, according to the results of a Zogby interactive poll released last week:
These numbers represent a fragmented public, but I guess it's at least comforting to know that most voters in both parties strongly believe the current approach has failed. The question then becomes, "what to do instead?"
Three in four likely voters (76%) believe the U.S. war on drugs is failing, a sentiment that cuts across the political spectrum – including the vast majority of Democrats (86%), political independents (81%), and most Republicans (61%). There is also a strong belief that the anti-drug effort is failing among those who intend to vote for Barack Obama (89%) for president, as well as most supporters of John McCain (61%).But the nation remains sharply divided over what to do about it:
When asked what they believe is the single best way to combat international drug trafficking and illicit use, 27% of likely voters said legalizing some drugs would be the best approach -- 34% of Obama supporters and 20% of McCain backers agreed.It's a shocking result that voters who favor legalizing drugs outnumber those who think "stopping drugs at the border is the best tactic." Coupled with the 13% who favor foreign interventionism, that's 38% who chose essentially an "enforcement first" tactic. By comparison, combining those who favored outright legalization with those who favor "reducing demand through treatment and education," we find 46% of the public are looking for demand-side alternatives to combating drug abuse besides criminal enforcement.
- One in four likely voters (25%) believe stopping the drugs at the border is the best tactic to battle drugs -- 39% of McCain supporters, but just 12% of Obama backers agree.
- Overall, 19% of likely voters said reducing demand through treatment and education should be the top focus of the war on drugs.
- 13% believe that the best way to fight the war on drugs is to prevent production of narcotics in the country of origin.
These numbers represent a fragmented public, but I guess it's at least comforting to know that most voters in both parties strongly believe the current approach has failed. The question then becomes, "what to do instead?"
Has the 3rd Court of Appeals found a solution to the liquidity crisis?
Speaking of Judge Diane Henson and the Third Texas Court of Appeals, she spoke up recently to criticize her colleagues' decision in the Tom DeLay money laundering case - a ruling that's an almost caricatured, extremist example of appellate judges identifying the outcome they want, then crafting a contorted opinion to get that result.
In order to exonerate defendants in the Tom DeLay money laundering case, a three-judge panel (all Republicans, Henson is a Democrat) came to the conclusion that "money laundering" under Texas' law does not include transactions involving checks! I can't imagine that standard applied to any other type of money laundering, can you?
Now that I think of it, though, perhaps the judges hoped to solve the nation's raging liquidity crisis with this decision? It might work! Given the current credit crunch, perhaps if Texas excludes checks from its money laundering statutes it would encourage billions in new deposits from drug dealers around the planet into Texas banks and miraculously save the economy. I'm sure that was their intention, don't you think? ;)
In order to exonerate defendants in the Tom DeLay money laundering case, a three-judge panel (all Republicans, Henson is a Democrat) came to the conclusion that "money laundering" under Texas' law does not include transactions involving checks! I can't imagine that standard applied to any other type of money laundering, can you?
Now that I think of it, though, perhaps the judges hoped to solve the nation's raging liquidity crisis with this decision? It might work! Given the current credit crunch, perhaps if Texas excludes checks from its money laundering statutes it would encourage billions in new deposits from drug dealers around the planet into Texas banks and miraculously save the economy. I'm sure that was their intention, don't you think? ;)
How an appellate court works
Austin Third Court of Appeals Judge Diane Henson (no relation) spoke to a gathering of the state bar's Solo and Small Firm section recently, and Todd Smith from the Texas Appellate Law Blog posted the handout she distributed (pdf), which is a nice insider summary of how the six judges on the court assign cases, circulate opinions, and manage its docket. The document includes tips for practitioners on briefing and oral argument. Texas' fourteen Courts of Appeal hear both civil and criminal cases.
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
New Dallas crimjust advisory board: Send fewer people from city to county jail
Dallas County Commissioners are looking for advice from a new Criminal Justice Advisory Board to improve "efficiency" and combat rising local criminal-justice related costs, reports Kevin Krause at the Dallas News' Crime Blog, and they've already identified ways to reduce costs by reducing unnecessary pretrial detention for low-level offenders:
These data jibe with a theme I've hammered away at on Grits for several years - that the cause of jail overcrowding over the last decade hasn't been rising crime but mostly optional pretrial detention of low-level offenders - decisions made by judges who for whatever reason have become less and less likely to grant bail over the last decade or so, particularly in most of the bigger Texas counties. According to Dr. Tony Fabelo (see slide 21 - ppt), overall jail population increased 18.6% between 2000-2007, [while] the number of pretrial detainees increased 49.2% over the same period.
In the face of bloated jail costs drowning county budgets, these trends given me special motivation to advocate more widespread use of new discretion by officers to give citations instead of arresting for low-level misdemeanors. Each time they do so (and the officer decides whether it's safe to let the offender go with a ticket or if they need to go to jail to protect public safety), it saves the county both the cost of securely transporting a low-risk inmate and the tripled costs to the county for the inmate's processing and first day's stay.
In Austin, 37% of those brought to the Travis County Jail were optional arrests where the officer could have chosen to just give a ticket. That represents about 16,000 arrests per year for Class C or citation-eligible Class B offenses. Even cutting that number by 1/3 would result in a huge savings.
I asked yesterday how the credit crunch might affect criminal justice policy. Add to that list, as a couple of commenters noted, that it's a good bet we'll see a more enthusiastic embrace for prison and jail diversion strategies and strengthened probation programs, especially at the county level where support for new approaches has been excellent in some places but spotty in others. The new economic realities and reduced viability for new jail projects may combine to get locals more fully committed to the path being forged by the Texas Legislature on prison and jail diversion
If this new advisory board can help move the Dallas commissioners court away from their recent slash and burn approach and toward more creative, constructive solutions, more power to them. I've got a few offhand suggestions where the committee could start, as does Judge Cynthia Kent from Tyler.
Dallas County's biggest expense is administering the local criminal justice system. But with cooperation, there are innovative ways to reduce those costs and run the system smoothly and efficiently." That is the mission of the new Dallas County Criminal Justice Advisory Board, which met [yesterday] in the Old Red Courthouse downtown.Teleconferencing for small-time bond hearings may save a few dollars here and there, but the key bits of data are $95 for routine transportation costs and the fact that cost-per-inmate is triple the average for the prisoner's first day, an understandable fact (because of processing costs) that front-loads costs for prisoners who're only incarcerated a short time.The advisory board seeks to involve every part of the local criminal justice system: the police departments, sheriff, judges, probation, prosecutors, etc. This coordination will "allow us not to have surprises" when decisions are made, as Dallas County Commissioner Mike Cantrell put it.
The advisory board's organizational structure is still being worked on, but already the group has identified a way to cut the cost of prisoner transports to the county jails.
Research discovered that half of all prisoners transported from city jails to the county jails bond out within 24 hours. That begs the question: why pay more money to take them to the county jail when they're going to be released within a day?
The Sheriff's Department transports prisoners in a van. Each trip costs about $95, according to county budget director Ryan Brown. Let's say the sheriff averages one prisoner transport a day (a conservative guess). That comes to about $2,820 a month.
Then there is the cost of housing them in the jail, which is more than $40 a day. But the first day's costs are three times that due to medical screening and other related book-in costs, said Ron Stretcher, the county's criminal justice director.
A solution he's looking into is to have cities contract to use the county's magistrates, who would set bond for prisoners in city jails via a video conferencing system. That will save money and ease the jail population. A win-win, as politicians like to say.
The advisory board will hold its first operational meeting at the beginning of the year.
These data jibe with a theme I've hammered away at on Grits for several years - that the cause of jail overcrowding over the last decade hasn't been rising crime but mostly optional pretrial detention of low-level offenders - decisions made by judges who for whatever reason have become less and less likely to grant bail over the last decade or so, particularly in most of the bigger Texas counties. According to Dr. Tony Fabelo (see slide 21 - ppt), overall jail population increased 18.6% between 2000-2007, [while] the number of pretrial detainees increased 49.2% over the same period.
In the face of bloated jail costs drowning county budgets, these trends given me special motivation to advocate more widespread use of new discretion by officers to give citations instead of arresting for low-level misdemeanors. Each time they do so (and the officer decides whether it's safe to let the offender go with a ticket or if they need to go to jail to protect public safety), it saves the county both the cost of securely transporting a low-risk inmate and the tripled costs to the county for the inmate's processing and first day's stay.
In Austin, 37% of those brought to the Travis County Jail were optional arrests where the officer could have chosen to just give a ticket. That represents about 16,000 arrests per year for Class C or citation-eligible Class B offenses. Even cutting that number by 1/3 would result in a huge savings.
I asked yesterday how the credit crunch might affect criminal justice policy. Add to that list, as a couple of commenters noted, that it's a good bet we'll see a more enthusiastic embrace for prison and jail diversion strategies and strengthened probation programs, especially at the county level where support for new approaches has been excellent in some places but spotty in others. The new economic realities and reduced viability for new jail projects may combine to get locals more fully committed to the path being forged by the Texas Legislature on prison and jail diversion
If this new advisory board can help move the Dallas commissioners court away from their recent slash and burn approach and toward more creative, constructive solutions, more power to them. I've got a few offhand suggestions where the committee could start, as does Judge Cynthia Kent from Tyler.
Credit Crunch or Overstuffed Prisons? Why does Arnold Schwarzenegger want $7 billion from the feds?
Though the Governator linked his recent request for a federal bailout to falling housing prices and the crushing credit crunch, most of the cash will probably go to pay for inmate health care under a federal court order:
Their Legislature failed to provide a solution, so that clears the way for federal courts to simply order them into compliance. I don't know much about California state politics but I have to wonder, without an overstuffed prison system would they even have a budget crisis?
If my crystal ball is working properly, we could be watching something happen on the West Coast that presages Texas' future. UTMB officials have told the Legislature in public hearings they're "close" to not providing a constitutional level of health care for inmates, citing Texas' low per-inmate spending rates in UTMB's contract - less than half the per-inmate cost in California. More inmates die in Texas prisons even though California houses more people. They're not doing much better at TYC. I've speculated that once we no longer had a Texan appointing Attorneys General, Texas might see similar litigation succeed over prison healthcare no matter who becomes president.
Texas has at least temporarily avoided a California-style prison overcrowding crisis - though TDCJ units are essentially at max capacity - but I've seen no evidence Texas' prisoner health services are any better than California's and with UTMB-Galveston (which runs 80% of the prison health care system) devastated by Hurricane Ike, for the time being their focus won't be on launching any major improvements.
U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson made it clear Monday he expects California to pay $8 billion for seven new inmate medical facilities. But he stopped short of immediately holding Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Controller John Chiang in contempt for failing to turn over the money.California requests $7 billion in federal bailout aid at the same moment they're about to be held in contempt for not ponying up for an $8 billion prisoner health care tab. Unbelievable.
Their Legislature failed to provide a solution, so that clears the way for federal courts to simply order them into compliance. I don't know much about California state politics but I have to wonder, without an overstuffed prison system would they even have a budget crisis?
If my crystal ball is working properly, we could be watching something happen on the West Coast that presages Texas' future. UTMB officials have told the Legislature in public hearings they're "close" to not providing a constitutional level of health care for inmates, citing Texas' low per-inmate spending rates in UTMB's contract - less than half the per-inmate cost in California. More inmates die in Texas prisons even though California houses more people. They're not doing much better at TYC. I've speculated that once we no longer had a Texan appointing Attorneys General, Texas might see similar litigation succeed over prison healthcare no matter who becomes president.
Texas has at least temporarily avoided a California-style prison overcrowding crisis - though TDCJ units are essentially at max capacity - but I've seen no evidence Texas' prisoner health services are any better than California's and with UTMB-Galveston (which runs 80% of the prison health care system) devastated by Hurricane Ike, for the time being their focus won't be on launching any major improvements.
Balko on Obama on Crime
I've generally avoided presidential election discussions on Grits since many, many other blogs perform that function with much more focus and enthusiasm than I could ever provide. But like Doc Berman, I wanted to recommend Radley Balko's critique of Barack Obama's crime policy at Slate, "Bad Cop: Why Obama is getting criminal justice wrong," in particular because of his dead-on analysis of Democrats' backing for pork barrel grant programs designed to make them look tough on crime.
Of special interest to me was Balko's analysis related to the federally funded drug task forces like the ones in the infamous Tulia and Hearne cases. (He even cites a report I authored in 2002 on the topic for the Texas ACLU!) This entire portion of Balko's piece, in particular, falls under the category of "Wish I'd written it. Agree with all of it":
Of special interest to me was Balko's analysis related to the federally funded drug task forces like the ones in the infamous Tulia and Hearne cases. (He even cites a report I authored in 2002 on the topic for the Texas ACLU!) This entire portion of Balko's piece, in particular, falls under the category of "Wish I'd written it. Agree with all of it":
Obama and Biden also want to revive the Byrne grant drug eradication program, another block grant initiative. At a speech last month in Florida, Obama promised to ensure funding for the Byrne program, adding that it "has been critical to creating the anti-gang and anti-drug task forces our communities need." Although Byrne has not failed to achieve its stated goal (reducing the availability of illicit drugs), it has made drug policing more aggressive and militaristic and less accountable. And by prioritizing raw arrest statistics, the program tends to focus police efforts on low-level offenders instead of major distributors.
Because they tend to be multijurisdictional, no sheriff or police chief oversees the investigations of Byrne task forces. They are "effectively accountable to no one, least of all the communities they purportedly aim to serve and protect," says Graham Boyd, director of the Drug Law Reform Project for the ACLU, which has documented abuses by Byrne-funded task forces all over the country.
In Texas, Byrne-sponsored task forces created so many problems that much of the state has stopped participating in the program. A Byrne-funded operation was in charge of the 1999 debacle in Tulia, Texas, in which 46 people were arrested based on the word of a lying undercover police officer, Tom Coleman. Most of the 46 were later released and shared in a $6 million settlement. The next year, another Byrne task force arrested 28 people in Hearne, Texas, based solely on the word of a police informant who also proved to be a liar.
Because Byrne grants are given out primarily on raw arrest statistics, they also distort the way drug investigations are handled. Take the use of drug informants. Typically, police arrest a low-level drug offender, then try to make a deal with him to give up his supplier. They then continue their way up the ladder as far into the operation as they can go. But when funding for a task force depends on the number of arrests it makes, the incentive is instead to go down the ladder. A midlevel distributor may supply dozens of lower-level dealers, who boost the arrest numbers. Investigators thus have a reason to cut deals with bigger players in exchange for giving up the street dealers they supply.
The Byrne program has been opposed by analysts for the Heritage Foundation, the American Conservative Union, and the National Taxpayers Union on the right as well as civil rights groups like the National Black Police Association, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the National Council of La Raza on the left. The Bush administration has been phasing Byrne grants out, just as it has with COPS grants.
But Obama, Biden, and Democratic leaders (as well as several Republicans) in Congress want to bring the Byrne grants back. Perhaps one reason is that they're essentially federal job programs for blue-collar workers. They're also strongly backed by police unions and police organizations that, despite the GOP's image as the party that's tougher on crime, have traditionally supported Democrats. (The National Association of Police Organizations endorsed Obama last month and Kerry and Gore before him.) Members of Congress from both parties also benefit when they can put out press releases announcing a big federal grant for the police department back home.
Obama's support for these programs is particularly disappointing given the sensible things he said previously about crime, not to mention his experience as a law professor and community organizer. Sending big federal checks to local police departments may help repudiate GOP efforts to make Democrats look soft on crime. But it reinforces another Democrat cliché—that there's no problem that can't be solved with a wad of federal cash.
Travels in the Land of "Harmless Error": Hide your dildos, the Court of Criminal Appeals is in session
The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals earned coverage and some criticism lately from several corners of the blogosphere. Let's round up the highlights:
Robert Guest informs us that, at least for the moment, apparently, vibrators and dildos are illegal to sell in Texas, again, at least in the jurisdicition of the 13th Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi - this despite a Fifth Circuit ruling in February overturnings the CCA's rulings on the subject and declaring the law unconstitutional. Wrote Guest:
Meanwhile, former Dallas public defender Mike Howard, now an attorney at Howard & Woodruff, has begun profiling Court of Criminal Appeals cases on his law firm's blog, promising to analyze new cases on the hand-down list as they come up each week. An early post finds the court relying on its favorite stand-by decision - "harmless error" - to dismiss an objection to an "over the shoulder" critique by a prosecutor during closing argument that the defense attorney was a "liar." (A lot of people think Texas courts don't recognize the problems in the system, but that's not entirely true. The CCA routinely acknowledges that the system is rife with "error," they just consider a breathtaking amount of routine error "harmless.") Howard approved of another opinion reviewed, this one by Judge Cochran, which sustained a defense objection to including "conjecture" in a pre-sentence investigation report used in sentencing following a guilty plea.
In a blawggerly take on the Court of Criminal Appeals from outside Texas, Evidence Law Prof Blog looks on in amazement at a "seemingly misguided application of the prior consistent statement rule" by first the 2nd Texas Court of Appeals, then by the Court of Criminal Appeals which reversed the 2nd Court but injected its own erroneous analysis, says ELPB. Writes blogger and law prof Colin Miller:
Robert Guest informs us that, at least for the moment, apparently, vibrators and dildos are illegal to sell in Texas, again, at least in the jurisdicition of the 13th Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi - this despite a Fifth Circuit ruling in February overturnings the CCA's rulings on the subject and declaring the law unconstitutional. Wrote Guest:
The federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction in February declaring 43.23 unconstitutional. However, the Court of Appeals in Corpus Christi held that a federal court injunction is not binding on State courts. That is, until our state's highest criminal court, the Court of Criminal Appeals, rules that 43.23 is unconstitutional, the conviction still stands. ...Now Texas state courts don't consider federal injunctions binding? Can secession be far away?
So, for now, dildos are illegal in Texas, again.
Meanwhile, former Dallas public defender Mike Howard, now an attorney at Howard & Woodruff, has begun profiling Court of Criminal Appeals cases on his law firm's blog, promising to analyze new cases on the hand-down list as they come up each week. An early post finds the court relying on its favorite stand-by decision - "harmless error" - to dismiss an objection to an "over the shoulder" critique by a prosecutor during closing argument that the defense attorney was a "liar." (A lot of people think Texas courts don't recognize the problems in the system, but that's not entirely true. The CCA routinely acknowledges that the system is rife with "error," they just consider a breathtaking amount of routine error "harmless.") Howard approved of another opinion reviewed, this one by Judge Cochran, which sustained a defense objection to including "conjecture" in a pre-sentence investigation report used in sentencing following a guilty plea.
In a blawggerly take on the Court of Criminal Appeals from outside Texas, Evidence Law Prof Blog looks on in amazement at a "seemingly misguided application of the prior consistent statement rule" by first the 2nd Texas Court of Appeals, then by the Court of Criminal Appeals which reversed the 2nd Court but injected its own erroneous analysis, says ELPB. Writes blogger and law prof Colin Miller:
I'm skeptical of the [2nd] Court of Appeals' conclusion that there was no charge that the complainant's testimony was improperly influenced. It seems that a claim that the prosecution "tricked" her into saying that her father sexually abused her could be construed as at least an implicit charge of improper influence, which would suggest that I would agree with the majority opinion of Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas in Klein v. State, which reversed the Court of Appeals' disposition. The problem is that the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas made an even bigger error.
And its problem was that it did not find that defense counsel charged the complainant with being improperly influenced or having an improper motive; instead, it merely found that "[t]he record support[ed] a finding that these out-of-court statements were offered to rebut an implied charge of recent fabrication." In reaching this conclusion, the majority rejected the reasoning of Judge Cochran's dissenting opinion, which concluded "that the complainant's out-of-court statements to Todd and Cook 'could not possibly qualify as statements offered to rebut an explicit or implicit charge of recent fabrication' because no charge of recent fabrication 'for some improper reason' was made by the defense on cross-examination. ...
This reasoning is bizarre to me because it implies that you can have a recent fabrication due to a proper or at least benign reason. The word "fabricate" is generally defined as "to make up for the purpose of deception." Thus, if a party claims that a witness, like the complainant in Klein, rendered incorrect testimony because she was mistaken, her testimony would not be a fabrication because she would not have the purpose to deceive. ...
I think that defense counsel's position could be construed as an argument that the complainant was subject to an improper influence, but I don't see how it could be construed as an argument that the complainant's testimony was a recent fabrication that was somehow not based upon an improper influence or motive.
I'm not a lawyer, but a plain reading of rule 801(e)(1)(B) seems to support Prof. Miller's contention that a finding of improper influence instead of fabrication fits better with the facts of the case. However I don't know enough about the topic to say whether their error is "harmless." It certainly wouldn't be if the ruling later precluded claims of "improper influence" where "fabrication" is not an issue.
Finally, on the death penalty front, Capital Defense Weekly notes in passing an "Atkins remand" (to investigate whether the defendant is mentally retarded) by the Texas CCA in a death penalty case, and brings word of a dozen certs denied by the US Supreme Court in Texas death penalty appeals (i.e., cases the court declined to review). One case the Supremes decided not to consider included a bizarre church-state angle in which the jury foreman pulled out his Bible and began quoting scripture to convince fellow jurors to vote for a death penalty verdict.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Cartel violence so far stays in Mexico but corruption has crossed the river
Will Mexican drug cartels really stop at the Rio Grande because they're afraid of American law enforcement? To believe so seems like hubris to me, but the Houston Chronicle ran a piece over the weekend putting out this theme that's long been conventional wisdom. The article begins ("Juarez's drug bloodbath rarely spills over into neighboring El Paso," Oct. 4):
That's exactly why I think new "border security" funding should go first to fight official corruption, not just to subsidize whatever the local sheriff decides to do. If that local Sheriff turns out to be corrupt, as has sometimes been the case, then that strategy just takes money meant to protect the border and gives it to those aiding smugglers.
It would be a terrific error to equate a relative lack of violence by Mexican cartels in the United States with a lack of their presence - the truth is they they have a great deal of infrastructure on the US side.
Speaking of US-side cartel infrastructure, Daniel Hopsicker over at Mad Cow News must feel vindicated after the MSM finally picked up the story he first broke a year ago, in which he revealed that an American-registered plane that had earlier been used by the CIA for rendition flights and trips to and from Guantanamo Bay went down in the Yucatan carrying large amounts of cocaine. Hopsicker's reporting was validated by the official record uncovered by Mexican investigators, and he continues at MCN to track American aircraft allegedly involved in drug smuggling. So I wanted to alert readers to several items from Mad Cow News updating the saga since we discussed the topic last year:
That analysis ignores the extent to which cartels maintain extensive smuggling networks within the United States. Though we've seen a few documented examples of outright violence, including murders by Los Zetas as far north as Dallas, the Chronicle story is right that stories of cartel-related violence on the US side have so far been exaggerated, frequently for political purposes by those seeking re-election or federal grants to fund their local departments. But the article only mentions in passing the biggest problem with cartels on the US side - corruption of police has so far been a lot bigger deal along the border than violence against them. The Chron alluded to the problem with this caveat:Ciudad Juarez, Mexico's sprawling industrial city of 1.3 million, has notched more than 1,000 killings so far this year amid a gang war for control of its smuggling routes and street-corner sales. Just 13 killings have been logged across the river in El Paso, an Army garrison community about half the size of Juarez.
Juarez now easily ranks as one of the hemisphere's most dangerous cities. El Paso boasts of being the second safest large city in the U.S., behind San Jose, Calif.
"We are joined at the hip, and we have such a contrasting situation," said Lucinda Vargas, a Juarez community development specialist, as she compared her city to El Paso. "The difference is institutions — the lack of rule of law on one side and its existence on the other."
North of the river, John Lanahan, a retired chief of the El Paso police homicide division, said the drug gangsters "pretty much toe the mark when they're on this side." He explained, "They know that law enforcement in the United States has a lot of resources and will go to no ends to solve some of these crimes."
That assessment belies the alarms about border violence ringing from Washington and Austin to sheriff's offices and city halls along the border.
Many more stories of corruption could be added to that list, starting with the head of the FBI field office in El Paso earlier this decade losing his job over corruption allegations. Hundreds of law enforcement officers along the border and elsewhere in the state have succumbed to corruption in recent years, and those are just the ones we know about.Not that El Paso has been squeaky clean.
A three-year federal corruption investigation — aimed at government contracts and not involving narcotics trafficking — already has netted nine guilty pleas
Some 30 El Paso police officers, [former El Paso Police Chief and current Sheriff's candidate Richard] Wiles said, were fired for corruption or misconduct during the four years that he was chief of the department.
That's exactly why I think new "border security" funding should go first to fight official corruption, not just to subsidize whatever the local sheriff decides to do. If that local Sheriff turns out to be corrupt, as has sometimes been the case, then that strategy just takes money meant to protect the border and gives it to those aiding smugglers.
It would be a terrific error to equate a relative lack of violence by Mexican cartels in the United States with a lack of their presence - the truth is they they have a great deal of infrastructure on the US side.
Speaking of US-side cartel infrastructure, Daniel Hopsicker over at Mad Cow News must feel vindicated after the MSM finally picked up the story he first broke a year ago, in which he revealed that an American-registered plane that had earlier been used by the CIA for rendition flights and trips to and from Guantanamo Bay went down in the Yucatan carrying large amounts of cocaine. Hopsicker's reporting was validated by the official record uncovered by Mexican investigators, and he continues at MCN to track American aircraft allegedly involved in drug smuggling. So I wanted to alert readers to several items from Mad Cow News updating the saga since we discussed the topic last year:
How will economic meltdown affect the justice system?
As the nation watched, aghast, first at Wall Street's economic meltdown and then Washington's ill conceived bailout, I've wondered what effects the financial mess might have on the criminal justice system. Here are some initial thoughts:
Possible prosecutions?
Clearly there may have been flat-out fraud involved in some of these financial institution failures. (I sat up and took notice when Wachovia went down since a subsidiary was accused last year of laundering money for a Mexican drug cartel.) A few angry folks have called for prosecutions of investment bank CEOs and their minions, but it seems to me the main problem is that de-regulation eliminated most of the laws they might be accused of violating, which is why we're in this mess in the first place.
Pressure to delay new jail construction
Since I've been tracking local votes on jail bond initiatives in Texas, including an important upcoming vote in Tyler on a new jail, it's worth mentioning the most immediate criminal justice dilemma created by the crisis - rising cost of commercial paper (debt) used to finance government construction. Some jurisdictions are already canceling debt issues approved by voters. In Houston, "the City Council [decided to] draw $100 million out of cash reserves to fund construction projects, rather than use commercial paper on which interest rates had spiked." According to a Harris County source, "the commercial paper rate was 1.74 percent a week on Sept. 11 and jumped to 5.25 percent a week later. The county also uses commerical paper."
This news makes new jail construction projects like Tyler's a lot more expensive than voters were previously told, and thus a lot less likely to pass, if I had to bet. What's more, past projects without fixed interest rates are likely to cost a lot more than officials or voters expected and could even be canceled as a result.
Rising crime? Maybe not
While the relationship between crime and economics is indistinct, to the extent economic distress worsens crime, crime might worsen, particularly property and addiction-related offenses. The US Conference of Mayors portrays this as a certainty (pdf), but for my part I'd not label that assessment a prediction so much as identifying a possibility. Some argue there's a strong relationship between the economy and property crimes, in particular, but that's not set in stone. Regular readers know that crime has declined in recent years despite a slowing economy. According to the Heritage Foundation:
Trouble paying the bills
Corrections and public safety spending makes up a much more substantial portion of local and state-level budgets than they do for the feds, which means declining revenues from property taxes and new housing starts will dramatically reduce the revenue to pay for prisons, jails and cops. Municipalities and counties will immediately feel the pinch, though Texas' state budget will be somewhat protected in the short-term from the fallout because of $100 per barrel oil. Even oil revenues will decline, though, if we enter a full-scale global recession. Plus, reduced consumer demand will reduce sales tax revenues, doing further damage to state and local budgets.
Nationally, states haven't been building many new prison units with private prisons accounting for most of the new growth recently. But those companies, too, rely on commercial paper to build new facilities, so expect either A) a reduced expansion rate for private prison capacity or B) increased costs for their customers.
Gas prices fuel budget woes
Though not directly related to the credit crunch, rising fuel costs remain a core dilemma for criminal justice agencies of all stripes: Police and Sheriffs must pay more for patrols while jails and prisons must pay more to transport prisoners and supplies. High fuel prices can also alter policing tactics. Lewisville PD told the Conference of Mayors that:
What else can you think of? How else might a faltering economy and the credit market collapse affect the criminal justice system?
BLOGVERSATION: Anne Reed wonders if the economic downturn will make juries less diverse, while Scott Greenfield considers how economic distress might influence jurors decisionmaking, advising "If there is any possible way to avoid going to a trial now, do it."
Possible prosecutions?
Clearly there may have been flat-out fraud involved in some of these financial institution failures. (I sat up and took notice when Wachovia went down since a subsidiary was accused last year of laundering money for a Mexican drug cartel.) A few angry folks have called for prosecutions of investment bank CEOs and their minions, but it seems to me the main problem is that de-regulation eliminated most of the laws they might be accused of violating, which is why we're in this mess in the first place.
Pressure to delay new jail construction
Since I've been tracking local votes on jail bond initiatives in Texas, including an important upcoming vote in Tyler on a new jail, it's worth mentioning the most immediate criminal justice dilemma created by the crisis - rising cost of commercial paper (debt) used to finance government construction. Some jurisdictions are already canceling debt issues approved by voters. In Houston, "the City Council [decided to] draw $100 million out of cash reserves to fund construction projects, rather than use commercial paper on which interest rates had spiked." According to a Harris County source, "the commercial paper rate was 1.74 percent a week on Sept. 11 and jumped to 5.25 percent a week later. The county also uses commerical paper."
This news makes new jail construction projects like Tyler's a lot more expensive than voters were previously told, and thus a lot less likely to pass, if I had to bet. What's more, past projects without fixed interest rates are likely to cost a lot more than officials or voters expected and could even be canceled as a result.
Rising crime? Maybe not
While the relationship between crime and economics is indistinct, to the extent economic distress worsens crime, crime might worsen, particularly property and addiction-related offenses. The US Conference of Mayors portrays this as a certainty (pdf), but for my part I'd not label that assessment a prediction so much as identifying a possibility. Some argue there's a strong relationship between the economy and property crimes, in particular, but that's not set in stone. Regular readers know that crime has declined in recent years despite a slowing economy. According to the Heritage Foundation:
there's little evidence to suggest that good economic times have much effect on crime. Crime rates rose every year between 1955 and 1972, even as the U.S. economy surged, with only a brief, mild recession in the early 1960s. By the time criminals took a breather in the early 1970s, crime rates had increased over 140 percent. Murder rates had risen about 70 percent, rapes more than doubled, and auto theft nearly tripled.If crime declined during the Great Depression, there's little reason to think this economic downturn must automatically boost crime rates. I'd expect a handful of specific offenses to increase - particularly stuff like theft of copper and other metals or siphoning gasoline. But there's no inherent relationship between being poor and being a criminal.
By the same token, a bad economy doesn't always bring more crime. Crime rates fell about one third between 1934 and 1938 while the nation was struggling to emerge from the Great Depression and weathering another severe economic downturn in 1937 and 1938. Surely, if the economic theory held, crime should have been soaring.
Trouble paying the bills
Corrections and public safety spending makes up a much more substantial portion of local and state-level budgets than they do for the feds, which means declining revenues from property taxes and new housing starts will dramatically reduce the revenue to pay for prisons, jails and cops. Municipalities and counties will immediately feel the pinch, though Texas' state budget will be somewhat protected in the short-term from the fallout because of $100 per barrel oil. Even oil revenues will decline, though, if we enter a full-scale global recession. Plus, reduced consumer demand will reduce sales tax revenues, doing further damage to state and local budgets.
Nationally, states haven't been building many new prison units with private prisons accounting for most of the new growth recently. But those companies, too, rely on commercial paper to build new facilities, so expect either A) a reduced expansion rate for private prison capacity or B) increased costs for their customers.
Gas prices fuel budget woes
Though not directly related to the credit crunch, rising fuel costs remain a core dilemma for criminal justice agencies of all stripes: Police and Sheriffs must pay more for patrols while jails and prisons must pay more to transport prisoners and supplies. High fuel prices can also alter policing tactics. Lewisville PD told the Conference of Mayors that:
When the current fiscal year concludes, the police department budget for fuel is expected to be double the amount budgeted. The police department has implemented measures to conserve fuel such as limiting idling, doubling up officers at times, and requiring each officer during each shift to spend 15 minutes without the vehicle running each day.I've been hoping the dilemma over gas prices might spur more Texas law enforcement agencies to utilize new authority to issue citations instead of arresting for low-level misdemeanors, saving departments gas money transporting penny ante offenders to and from jail and keeping officers out on the streets for greater periods. I'd expect more departments to revisit that option the longer gasoline prices remain at current levels.
What else can you think of? How else might a faltering economy and the credit market collapse affect the criminal justice system?
BLOGVERSATION: Anne Reed wonders if the economic downturn will make juries less diverse, while Scott Greenfield considers how economic distress might influence jurors decisionmaking, advising "If there is any possible way to avoid going to a trial now, do it."
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Prison Poster Project in Austin
I found the prisoner-produced artwork above via an email notice this morning for a neat looking prisoner art project on exhibition in Austin today:
Sunday, October 5th, at 8 pm there will be a presentation of the Prison Poster Project, a 5 year long process involving contributions of more than 100 people and artists in prisons across the US. the presentation will happen during regular volunteer hours at the Inside Books Project, located at the Rhizome Collective, 300 Allen St. (for more detailed directions, go to www.insidebooksproject.org).See the Prison Poster Project's website and examples of the artwork.
The event is FREE and will be presented by Etta Cetera, from Pittsburgh's Book'Em prison book project, & FED UP!
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Dallas police cameras focused on petty crime, public relations
I've spent quite a bit of time on this blog looking at evidence of whether surveillance cameras "work" to reduce crime - most long-term studies say they have no significant effect. But aggregate trends don't mean cameras never help, so it's useful to examine stories put out by camera proponents to see what's really going on regarding whether and how crime is actually reduced.
Tanya Eiserer at the Dallas News Crime Blog has an item about cameras assisting in the capture of four suspects after they burgled a coin operated vending machine in downtown Dallas. When officers arrested them, one of the youth turned out to be a Fort Worth murder suspect.
Eiserer quotes the department's oft-repeated but utterly undocumented claim that cameras have reduced crime by 20% in Dallas' central business district. Nothing in Dallas' aggregate crime stats supports that, but they keep saying it, probably confident that Dallas has so many problems with arrest data that their statements are impossible to verify.
One thing's for sure, if crime in the central business district really declined 20%, that means the cameras displaced a great deal of crime from the central business district into into other neighborhoods. From 2006-2007, e.g., citywide Dallas saw a 1.9% decline in property crimes, a roughly similar pattern as found in natonal trends. So a 20% reduction thanks to enforcement focused in one area would mean most of that crime was pushed into other neighborhoods, increasing their crime rate to make up the difference. Because police camera proponents at DPD have never told us which neighborhoods' crime rates increased as a result of their downtown cameras, which would be the only way to explain their data, I continue to doubt the 20% claim.
Anyway, back to the vending machine burglary. Here's Eiserer's account, which to me it does not lead to any strong conclusion supporting cameras:
While everyone's glad a possible murderer was caught, let's not overstate the camera's role. The same thing would have happened if a witness saw them committing the crime and called it in. (Let's face it, people: Somebody breaking into a newspaper box in plain view in downtown Dallas when they've got an outstanding capital murder warrant against them isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.)
Teenagers will, no doubt, continue to commit petty theft in downtown Dallas, and indeed three of the four thieves won't be charged. (Nobody will be charged with the break-in, Eiserer reports.) Despite the happenstance of catching an alleged murderer more or less by accident, at least in this anecdote it appears the cameras are being used to pursue comparatively small-time stuff.
Many people wanted for more serious offenses are identified when they're arrested for something minor, so it's a bit of a stretch to give cameras too much credit. This guy was caught because his acting out made it inevitable. Four teens out on a binge breaking into a newspaper bin on a public street in downtown Dallas are pretty likely to get noticed and arrested anyway.
Two of the thieves were released at the scene; for all we know they moved to another neighborhood the following night. A third won't face charges if he snitches against his compadre. (I use the term "snitch" not as a synonym for "testify," but to describe the exchange of testimony for reduced culpability in the witness' own criminal case.)
But the key point here is that the cameras didn't catch a murderer except by chance; they really caught a bunch of dumb teenagers breaking into a coin-operated newspaper bin - a crime so de minimus half the perpetrators were let go on the spot. It's better to be lucky than good, but it's also unwise to confuse the two.
Tanya Eiserer at the Dallas News Crime Blog has an item about cameras assisting in the capture of four suspects after they burgled a coin operated vending machine in downtown Dallas. When officers arrested them, one of the youth turned out to be a Fort Worth murder suspect.
Eiserer quotes the department's oft-repeated but utterly undocumented claim that cameras have reduced crime by 20% in Dallas' central business district. Nothing in Dallas' aggregate crime stats supports that, but they keep saying it, probably confident that Dallas has so many problems with arrest data that their statements are impossible to verify.
One thing's for sure, if crime in the central business district really declined 20%, that means the cameras displaced a great deal of crime from the central business district into into other neighborhoods. From 2006-2007, e.g., citywide Dallas saw a 1.9% decline in property crimes, a roughly similar pattern as found in natonal trends. So a 20% reduction thanks to enforcement focused in one area would mean most of that crime was pushed into other neighborhoods, increasing their crime rate to make up the difference. Because police camera proponents at DPD have never told us which neighborhoods' crime rates increased as a result of their downtown cameras, which would be the only way to explain their data, I continue to doubt the 20% claim.
Anyway, back to the vending machine burglary. Here's Eiserer's account, which to me it does not lead to any strong conclusion supporting cameras:
Early Sunday, the cameras helped lead to the capture of Kelson Wayne Steels, 18, who was suspected of being involved in burglarizing a newspaper stand. Police quickly determined that he was wanted on a Fort Worth capital murder arrest warrant.Let's review. Four teenagers break into a newspaper bin to steal the change. Police cameras spot them and the cops send patrol officers to chase them down. In this case, one of them happened to have other, more serious charges against him; another won't be charged because he's a "witness" against the first guy, and other two were cut free at the scene.
About 3:30 a.m., Dallas police officials monitoring the downtown surveillance cameras were notified that several people had just broken into a coin-operated newspaper machine on South Harwood. On the camera monitors, the officials spotted several suspected thieves running and trying to conceal themselves on the east side of the downtown library.
Patrol officers were told where they could find the suspects, whom they took into custody. Mr. Steels and Benny Evans, 18, were arrested on suspicion of burglary of a coin-operated machine. Another man and woman were released.
Police did not seek to file a burglary charge against Mr. Steels and instead listed him as a witness on the arrest reports for Mr. Evans. Mr. Steels has been turned over to Fort Worth police.
Details about the Fort Worth slaying were not available.
While everyone's glad a possible murderer was caught, let's not overstate the camera's role. The same thing would have happened if a witness saw them committing the crime and called it in. (Let's face it, people: Somebody breaking into a newspaper box in plain view in downtown Dallas when they've got an outstanding capital murder warrant against them isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.)
Teenagers will, no doubt, continue to commit petty theft in downtown Dallas, and indeed three of the four thieves won't be charged. (Nobody will be charged with the break-in, Eiserer reports.) Despite the happenstance of catching an alleged murderer more or less by accident, at least in this anecdote it appears the cameras are being used to pursue comparatively small-time stuff.
Many people wanted for more serious offenses are identified when they're arrested for something minor, so it's a bit of a stretch to give cameras too much credit. This guy was caught because his acting out made it inevitable. Four teens out on a binge breaking into a newspaper bin on a public street in downtown Dallas are pretty likely to get noticed and arrested anyway.
Two of the thieves were released at the scene; for all we know they moved to another neighborhood the following night. A third won't face charges if he snitches against his compadre. (I use the term "snitch" not as a synonym for "testify," but to describe the exchange of testimony for reduced culpability in the witness' own criminal case.)
But the key point here is that the cameras didn't catch a murderer except by chance; they really caught a bunch of dumb teenagers breaking into a coin-operated newspaper bin - a crime so de minimus half the perpetrators were let go on the spot. It's better to be lucky than good, but it's also unwise to confuse the two.
Friday, October 03, 2008
DOJ BJS: Private prisons dominated recent prison construction growth but provide fewer services
Thanks to Doc Berman for pointing out the newly released national Census of State and Federal Corrections Facilities from the Bureau of Justice Statistics at the Department of Justice, which provides a number of interesting insights into 21st century prison expansion and practices. The census basically covers the first half of the decade, comparing data between June 30, 2000, and December 30, 2005. Let's run through some highlights. (All quotes are from the report - pdf)
For starters, governments aren't building prisons much any more, but corporations are. "Private correctional facilities (up 151) accounted for nearly all of the increase in the number of adult correctional facilities between June 30, 2000, and December 30, 2005. Most of the growth in private correctional facilities during this period was in facilities under contract to the Federal Bureau of Prisons."
As a result, private facilities have expanded their market share over a very short period of time, DOJ reports, mostly thanks to federal contracts. "From 2000 to 2005, the number of private facilities increased from 16% (264) to 23% (415) of all institutions. About two-thirds of all private facilities were under contract to state authorities and a third were under contract to the Federal Bureau of Prisons."
That said, private facilities tend to be smaller, and while they account for a large percentage of facilities they don't house the same proportion of prisoners. "Inmates housed in private facilities increased from 91,184 in 2000 to 105,451 in 2005. In both years, inmates housed in private facilities made up about 7% of the nation’s average daily prisoner population."
During the first half of this decade, most prison growth came in very small and very large facilities. "Between 2000 and 2005, facilities housing fewer than 500 inmates as an average daily population increased by 86. Facilities housing 500 to 999 inmates was relatively unchanged between 2000 (305) and 2005 (304). Facilities housing 1,000 to 2,499 inmates increased by 57 and the number of facilities housing 2,500 inmates or more rose by 11."
States are substituting minimum and maximum security facilities for medium security ones. "The number of minimum (up 155) and maximum (up 40) security facilities increased between 2000 and 2005. The number of medium-security facilities declined (down 42) during this period."
Confirming my sense that the Bush Administration has been less aggressive than its predecessors in pursuing prison abuse litigation, the census found that, "The number of facilities under court order or consent decree to limit the size of their inmate population declined from 145 in 2000 to 44 in 2005. Facilities under court order or consent decree for specific conditions alsodeclined, from 320 to 218."
Unfortunately, staffing of prisons hasn't kept pace with the growth in inmate numbers. "The overall inmate population in adult correctional facilities operating under state or federal authority increased by 10% between the 2000 and 2005 CSFCF. The number of correctional staff rose by 3% during this period."
Finally, according to these data, private prisons appear to do a poorer job at providing meaningful programming for prisoners than state run facilities. "About 9 in 10 public correctional facilities and about 6 in 10 private correctional facilities offered academic and vocational training programs in 2005."
See the full report (pdf).
For starters, governments aren't building prisons much any more, but corporations are. "Private correctional facilities (up 151) accounted for nearly all of the increase in the number of adult correctional facilities between June 30, 2000, and December 30, 2005. Most of the growth in private correctional facilities during this period was in facilities under contract to the Federal Bureau of Prisons."
As a result, private facilities have expanded their market share over a very short period of time, DOJ reports, mostly thanks to federal contracts. "From 2000 to 2005, the number of private facilities increased from 16% (264) to 23% (415) of all institutions. About two-thirds of all private facilities were under contract to state authorities and a third were under contract to the Federal Bureau of Prisons."
That said, private facilities tend to be smaller, and while they account for a large percentage of facilities they don't house the same proportion of prisoners. "Inmates housed in private facilities increased from 91,184 in 2000 to 105,451 in 2005. In both years, inmates housed in private facilities made up about 7% of the nation’s average daily prisoner population."
During the first half of this decade, most prison growth came in very small and very large facilities. "Between 2000 and 2005, facilities housing fewer than 500 inmates as an average daily population increased by 86. Facilities housing 500 to 999 inmates was relatively unchanged between 2000 (305) and 2005 (304). Facilities housing 1,000 to 2,499 inmates increased by 57 and the number of facilities housing 2,500 inmates or more rose by 11."
States are substituting minimum and maximum security facilities for medium security ones. "The number of minimum (up 155) and maximum (up 40) security facilities increased between 2000 and 2005. The number of medium-security facilities declined (down 42) during this period."
Confirming my sense that the Bush Administration has been less aggressive than its predecessors in pursuing prison abuse litigation, the census found that, "The number of facilities under court order or consent decree to limit the size of their inmate population declined from 145 in 2000 to 44 in 2005. Facilities under court order or consent decree for specific conditions alsodeclined, from 320 to 218."
Unfortunately, staffing of prisons hasn't kept pace with the growth in inmate numbers. "The overall inmate population in adult correctional facilities operating under state or federal authority increased by 10% between the 2000 and 2005 CSFCF. The number of correctional staff rose by 3% during this period."
Finally, according to these data, private prisons appear to do a poorer job at providing meaningful programming for prisoners than state run facilities. "About 9 in 10 public correctional facilities and about 6 in 10 private correctional facilities offered academic and vocational training programs in 2005."
See the full report (pdf).
Immigration notes
I'd be more sympathetic to the position of those who polemicize against illegal immigration if the same folks weren't typically indifferent to making legal immigration easier. The New York Times has an editorial making this point, that many folks who "rage against illegal immigrants ... are strangely uninterested in helping people who 'play by the rules' and 'wait in line.'” The Grey Lady's editorial board criticizes the fact that:
Every year thousands of potential green cards vanish, like unused cellphone minutes. The huge backlogs in legal immigration, which span years or even decades for applicants from some countries, continue to fester. ...Relatedly, I noticed a fascinating recent suggestion by Alan Greenspan for bolstering the tumbling housing market. He says that expanding immigration for skilled workers would boost demand for homes and help prop up the economy, which when you think about it makes a lot of sense.
Teachers, nurses, engineers, researchers and other aspiring immigrants who follow the rules, file their paperwork, pay their fees and wait — and wait — get the chilly message that they are not wanted. Some of them feel great pressure to go illegally around the immigration system, instead of through it, as their wait to rejoin their loved ones becomes intolerable.
Blakeslee profiles prosecutor who ignored TYC cases
A reader directed me to Nate Blakeslee's article in Texas Monthly about Randy Reynolds, "The Reluctant Prosecutor" whose refusal to pursue TYC sex abuse cases investigated by a Texas Ranger put the agency in the crosshairs of angry legislators for the last year and a half. (Nate is the reporter who first broke the TYC sex abuse scandal in the Texas Observer.)
To point out a few highlights from the story:
To point out a few highlights from the story:
The uglier the case, it seems, the less likely Reynolds is to put somebody in prison. In the past six years, 58 cases of indecency with a child or sexual assault of a child have been referred to his office. Reynolds has obtained a conviction in only one of them: the case of the former sheriff of Loving County, Richard Putnam, who pleaded guilty to molesting a teenager. Reynolds offered him probation.The story cites AP declaring that
according to court records, [Reynolds] had declined to prosecute more than 80 percent of the cases brought to his office over a two-year period. (The average Texas prosecutor had declined to prosecute 18 percent during the same period, the AP reported.)And going forward,
voters in the 143rd District ... may be stuck with Reynolds for a while. One-hundred-dollar-a-barrel oil has brought many things back to this region—new motels, fast-food chains, drilling rigs, roughnecks, landmen—but attorneys are not among them. The State Bar of Texas lists only seven lawyers in Monahans. One of them is dead, one is disbarred, one is the district judge, and one is the county judge. Of the eleven listed in Pecos, there are only four still practicing, leaving aside Reynolds, the county attorney, and the county court-at-law judge. There are simply not that many people around who are qualified, much less willing, to do Reynolds’s job.See the full story here.
Evins JCO charged with peddling cocaine
As if the Texas Youth Commission doesn't have enough problems, a Juvenile Corrections Officer (JCO) at TYC's Evins Unit in South Texas was arrested along with his spouse for dealing cocaine, reports the Brownsville Herald:
Alfonso Ibarra, a correctional officer with the Texas Youth Commission, and Melba Ibarra, an employee with the La Feria Independent School District, were both charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute, police said.
Death row inmate claiming innocence will get new trial thanks to prosecutorial misconduct
This has been quite a month for death penalty cases in Texas, or at least for screwing them up.
In September, Texans witnessed a death row inmate exonerated by DNA evidence proving he didn't commit the crime, and another case where the DA and judge appear to have carried on a romantic relationship during the defendant's trial then covered it up. Now we discover another instance where a death row inmate was convicted after prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence discrediting the sole witnesses against him, revelations which most likely will earn him a new trial.
That's an impressive hat trick of official incompetence and corruption cropping up in a single month, don't you think?
In this latest example, Michael Toney was convicted in 1999 of placing a bomb on the steps of a trailer home that killed three people in 1985. No physical evidence connected him to the crime and now it turns out the prosecution failed to disclose information in their possession about discrepancies in witness' stories and information that corroborated Toney's testimony. The only other evidence against Toney was a jailhouse snitch. Reported the Dallas News ("Tarrant DA admits evidence was withheld in 1985 murder case," Oct. 3):
In September, Texans witnessed a death row inmate exonerated by DNA evidence proving he didn't commit the crime, and another case where the DA and judge appear to have carried on a romantic relationship during the defendant's trial then covered it up. Now we discover another instance where a death row inmate was convicted after prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence discrediting the sole witnesses against him, revelations which most likely will earn him a new trial.
That's an impressive hat trick of official incompetence and corruption cropping up in a single month, don't you think?
In this latest example, Michael Toney was convicted in 1999 of placing a bomb on the steps of a trailer home that killed three people in 1985. No physical evidence connected him to the crime and now it turns out the prosecution failed to disclose information in their possession about discrepancies in witness' stories and information that corroborated Toney's testimony. The only other evidence against Toney was a jailhouse snitch. Reported the Dallas News ("Tarrant DA admits evidence was withheld in 1985 murder case," Oct. 3):
Police never established a motive for the bombing and finally came to believe it was meant for someone else.
The crime remained unsolved for 12 years. Then Mr. Toney, in jail on an unrelated charge, told another inmate about it. The inmate informed authorities. Mr. Toney later said he was only engaging in a ruse to help the other inmate get out of jail.
No physical evidence connected Mr. Toney to the crime. But his ex-wife and his former best friend testified they had seen Mr. Toney with a briefcase near the mobile home park on the night of the bombing.
The best friend, Chris Meeks, has since recanted – and reaffirmed – his testimony. The ex-wife, Kim Toney, has stuck to her story but has admitted to memory loss caused by exposure to toxic chemicals during military service in the Persian Gulf War.
Defense attorneys say the documents the district attorney failed to produce show that prosecutors were aware of inconsistencies in the stories of Ms. Toney and Mr. Meeks.
"And those were the only two witnesses tying Michael to the crime," said Jared Tyler, a lawyer for the Texas Innocence Network.
Mr. Tyler and Ms. Windsor jointly filed "agreed proposed findings of fact" with State District Judge Everett Young on Thursday.
"The State failed to turn over to the defense no less than 14 documents containing exculpatory or impeaching evidence," the proposed findings said. "Those documents included evidence of prior inconsistent statements of trial witnesses ... and evidence corroborating Mr. Toney's testimony at trial."
The suppression of this evidence favorable to Mr. Toney, the district attorney now acknowledges, "violated his due process rights."
The lead prosecutor in the original case, Mike Parrish, has retired from the district attorney's office. Efforts to reach him for comment Thursday were unsuccessful.
Just as with innocence cases where old prosecutions were disproven by DNA, Toney's case provides a window into how errors get made in such high-stakes cases: Prosecutorial misconduct and a jailhouse snitch combined to convict Toney without giving him a fair trial, a fact even the Tarrant DA now admits.
I've never heard of the Texas state bar disciplining a prosecutor for Brady violations (failing to turn over exculpatory evidence), but surely at this point it's time for them to start. This happens way too often with too few consequences for attorneys who engage in such behavior.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
What do you mean "Abolish TYC"? A conversation with John Whitmire
We've seen several bouts of news coverage this year in which Houston Sen. John Whitmire openly proposed "abolishing" the Texas Youth Commission and moving its functions to the counties (possibly along the lines of what's being proposed in California). Today in the Houston Chronicle, columnist Lisa Falkenberg again raises this specter ("Situation still murky at TYC," Oct. 2):
Bottom line: Given how close we are to session and how improbably the stars would have to align to make his vision happen, even Sen. Whitmire granted that "abolishing" TYC likely couldn't happen next session, although he held out hope, he said, that the Sunset Advisory Commission report might recommend changes in that direction. He said the Sunset bill would be the obvious vehicle for any radical transformations to the agency.
Even so, Whitmire currently has no written proposal, not even a set of bullet points, for what transforming TYC might look like - no draft set of principles, to hand around to garner support. "It's all up here in my head," said the Senate Dean, though he insisted his ideas had been well received among the county officials and juvenile court judges with whom he'd discussed them.
The closest thing to a concrete, written plan, he told me, came a couple of months ago when there were serious, behind the scenes discussions at the highest levels, including the Governor's office, over whether TYC should simply be merged into the Juvenile Probation Commission. These meetings never got beyond the discussion phase, said Whitmire, because state attorneys determined the merger would require legislative action and couldn't simply be done by gubernatorial fiat, even during a conservatorship.
For the record, to assuage fears oft repeated by TYC employee commenters, Whitmire agreed that it would be a "mistake" to merge TYC with TDCJ, and said that possibly putting it under the Juvenile Probation Commission's control was the only serious proposal on the table. Even if TYC didn't exist as an agency, though, he said there would still be a need for state facilities like the one in Giddings to house the most serious, violent offenders.
Otherwise, said the senator, TYC facilities should be located closer to urban centers with better access to services necessary for taking care of the kids and staffing rehabilitation programs. He spoke approvingly of TYC re-opening a new privately-run facility at Eagle Lake in Colorado County near Houston. He also was gratified that the new regionalization plan proposed by TYC was "adopting some of my ideas."
At a minimum, Whitmire would like to see several rural TYC facilities closed - especially Victory Field, Crockett and the smaller West Texas units, with one main West Texas facility left to serve that region. He's particularly unhappy at the overreliance on rural facilities because he thinks it will "never" be possible to provide them adequate health care, mental health or rehabilitation services. There's simply no pool of professionals to draw on and no incentive for quality people to move there, he said, and he thinks UTMB's "telemedicine" system where inmates are examined by video isn't getting the job done.
Most of Whitmire's ideas sound good when he describes them, and his intentions are noble, not nihilistic - he thinks busting up the existing structure and radically changing how juvenile justice operates is the only way to actually shift toward a "Missouri-model" approach, and maybe he's right. But the devil is always in the details, so as previously I'll continue to reserve judgment until seeing what's actually proposed.
I've got a nagging fear the Senator may be a surprised to learn that shifting TYC youth to counties will probably cost more than the current set-up, despite what he portrays as a bloated central office bureaucracy at TYC. That's because of reduced economies of scale and increased reliance on private vendors in a market where there are few available private beds. Plus, as TYC learned with the Coke County debacle, even when you privatize operations, the state still must pay for staffing to provide aggressive oversight or be liable for their failings.
As an aside, though the senator and I didn't discuss it, one thing I'd like to see shifted entirely to counties, no matter what, are TYC's parole functions. Some counties already contract to perform them and it only makes sense to have the same folks supervising youth before and after they get out to maximize continuity and seamlessness of transition from a facility to community supervision.
In all, it sounded like Sen. Whitmire would like to move more radically toward decentralizing the juvenile justice system and shifting the maximum amount of control and responsibility to the counties, but his fallback position, to me, doesn't sound dramatically different from the direction the conservator's "regionalization" plan would take the agency.
Toward the end of the hearing, new TYC Executive Director Cherie Townsend reported for her first day on the job, telling lawmakers she was ready to work hard on reforms but that she wasn't "a magician or a miracle worker."We've seen such statements often enough now for me to become frustrated with the combination of sweeping, profound and unresolved implications coupled with a complete lack of specific detail about what such a transformation might look like. So I called up Sen. Whitmire at his Houston district office to get some answers straight from the horse's mouth, and we had a good chat.At this point, maybe that's about all that could save TYC. Whitmire told me Wednesday he's ready to abolish it, go back to the drawing board and completely remodel the place, maybe merge it with another agency.
After all the scandal, all the reform, all the new blood, it's inexcusable that the agency spends hours in a bureaucratic fight rather than tackling real issues affecting troubled youth.
All the while, as the number of offenders within the agency has dropped by half in the past year to about the size of my high school in Seguin — about 2,200 inmates — its bureaucracy has become bloated and administrators' salaries have increased.
Maybe it's time to face the fact that rehab isn't working for TYC. This may be one agency that can't be reformed.
Bottom line: Given how close we are to session and how improbably the stars would have to align to make his vision happen, even Sen. Whitmire granted that "abolishing" TYC likely couldn't happen next session, although he held out hope, he said, that the Sunset Advisory Commission report might recommend changes in that direction. He said the Sunset bill would be the obvious vehicle for any radical transformations to the agency.
Even so, Whitmire currently has no written proposal, not even a set of bullet points, for what transforming TYC might look like - no draft set of principles, to hand around to garner support. "It's all up here in my head," said the Senate Dean, though he insisted his ideas had been well received among the county officials and juvenile court judges with whom he'd discussed them.
The closest thing to a concrete, written plan, he told me, came a couple of months ago when there were serious, behind the scenes discussions at the highest levels, including the Governor's office, over whether TYC should simply be merged into the Juvenile Probation Commission. These meetings never got beyond the discussion phase, said Whitmire, because state attorneys determined the merger would require legislative action and couldn't simply be done by gubernatorial fiat, even during a conservatorship.
For the record, to assuage fears oft repeated by TYC employee commenters, Whitmire agreed that it would be a "mistake" to merge TYC with TDCJ, and said that possibly putting it under the Juvenile Probation Commission's control was the only serious proposal on the table. Even if TYC didn't exist as an agency, though, he said there would still be a need for state facilities like the one in Giddings to house the most serious, violent offenders.
Otherwise, said the senator, TYC facilities should be located closer to urban centers with better access to services necessary for taking care of the kids and staffing rehabilitation programs. He spoke approvingly of TYC re-opening a new privately-run facility at Eagle Lake in Colorado County near Houston. He also was gratified that the new regionalization plan proposed by TYC was "adopting some of my ideas."
At a minimum, Whitmire would like to see several rural TYC facilities closed - especially Victory Field, Crockett and the smaller West Texas units, with one main West Texas facility left to serve that region. He's particularly unhappy at the overreliance on rural facilities because he thinks it will "never" be possible to provide them adequate health care, mental health or rehabilitation services. There's simply no pool of professionals to draw on and no incentive for quality people to move there, he said, and he thinks UTMB's "telemedicine" system where inmates are examined by video isn't getting the job done.
Most of Whitmire's ideas sound good when he describes them, and his intentions are noble, not nihilistic - he thinks busting up the existing structure and radically changing how juvenile justice operates is the only way to actually shift toward a "Missouri-model" approach, and maybe he's right. But the devil is always in the details, so as previously I'll continue to reserve judgment until seeing what's actually proposed.
I've got a nagging fear the Senator may be a surprised to learn that shifting TYC youth to counties will probably cost more than the current set-up, despite what he portrays as a bloated central office bureaucracy at TYC. That's because of reduced economies of scale and increased reliance on private vendors in a market where there are few available private beds. Plus, as TYC learned with the Coke County debacle, even when you privatize operations, the state still must pay for staffing to provide aggressive oversight or be liable for their failings.
As an aside, though the senator and I didn't discuss it, one thing I'd like to see shifted entirely to counties, no matter what, are TYC's parole functions. Some counties already contract to perform them and it only makes sense to have the same folks supervising youth before and after they get out to maximize continuity and seamlessness of transition from a facility to community supervision.
In all, it sounded like Sen. Whitmire would like to move more radically toward decentralizing the juvenile justice system and shifting the maximum amount of control and responsibility to the counties, but his fallback position, to me, doesn't sound dramatically different from the direction the conservator's "regionalization" plan would take the agency.
MADD identifies its 2009 TX Lege agenda
In a Dallas News article ("Texas DWI bills gain support after tragedies," Oct. 2), Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) laid out their Texas legislative agenda for 2009, framing their bills around a tragic case of two newlyweds killed by a drunk driver in Dallas. The group's perennial anti-DWI agenda, which at times appears more like an outright prohibitionist agenda, has crept along achieving solid incremental success for more than two decades, ratcheting up penalties and fines on offenders nearly every biennium whenever the Legislature meets.
Despite MADD's past legislative successes, "Last year, Texas had 1,292 alcohol-impaired driving deaths, more than 100 people greater than California, which ranked second." To put that number in perspective, 1,501 people died of homicide in Texas in 2005, so you're more likely to be murdered in Texas than accidentally killled by a drunk. About twice as many people commit suicide each year in Texas as are killed in alcohol-impared accidents.
In 2009, MADD cites two main agenda items, says the News: roadblocks to check for drunks and installing ignition interlock devices after drivers' first DWI. Said the News:
Simply put, to me an attempt to sweep the whole population (or everyone in a given area, like a road, a neighborhood, or the YFZ Ranch) for criminal offenses is repugnant to democratic values and the notion of liberty, no matter how many states have passed the law. I like the idea, a LOT, that the state must have reasonable suspicion before I can be detained.
I'd support a budget item for the state to pay for ignitition interlocks for repeat offenders when judges think they're warranted. I think that approach makes sense without breaking the bank. But I don't approve of MADD's agenda as they've laid it out here and think they'd do more to reduce DWI by expanding use of strong probation like we're seeing done in drug courts.
Despite MADD's past legislative successes, "Last year, Texas had 1,292 alcohol-impaired driving deaths, more than 100 people greater than California, which ranked second." To put that number in perspective, 1,501 people died of homicide in Texas in 2005, so you're more likely to be murdered in Texas than accidentally killled by a drunk. About twice as many people commit suicide each year in Texas as are killed in alcohol-impared accidents.
In 2009, MADD cites two main agenda items, says the News: roadblocks to check for drunks and installing ignition interlock devices after drivers' first DWI. Said the News:
Texas is one of only 11 states that prohibit sobriety checkpoints – roadblocks set up by law enforcement to test whether drivers have been drinking.
But advocates, who have pushed similar bills for the past 13 years, noted progress last legislative session. The Senate passed a bill in a day that would permit sobriety checkpoints. The bill was left in committee in the House last year, but officials with Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless, say he will lead sponsorship on it again this session.
Another bill that would have required the installation of a breathalyzer in cars for first-time offenders was left in committee in both the House and Senate last year. But Rep. Linda Harper-Brown, R-Irving, said she intends to strongly push it when the Legislature starts up in January. ...
Few studies have yet been done on ignition interlocks for first-time offenders – the bill was just presented to the legislature last session – but advocates point to a 2001 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that says sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol fatalities by 20 percent. The goal, they say, is prevention rather than reaction.
Although Texas is one of 10 states that have an ignition interlock device requirement for repeat offenders, Chris Johnson, a member of MADD's Texas state policy committee and vice chairman of its national board of directors, said the current law's wording leaves too much to judicial interpretation.
"There are no legislated set of standards," he said. "A judge can choose interlock or can choose jail. Right now there are quite a few loopholes."
Uriel Perez Palacios, the 22-year-old man charged in the death of Dallas newlyweds German and Erika Clouet, drove while intoxicated on numerous occasions but was not ordered to get a breathalyzer ignition device until after at least three violations. Even then, he did not install the device in his car.
The MADD proposal, on breathalyzers in particular, appears to avoid the crux of the problem, which is that current law puts the cost of a breathalyzer on the probationer instead of having the state pay for the device. So if the offender can't pay, you get situations like the guy who killed the Clouets where even though a court has ordered the device, the offender is still driving around without it.
So, rather than make everyone get such a device after their first offense - a vastly expensive proposal for which even proponents admit there is no evidence-based support - why not leave the requirements as they are and make the state pay for the device instead of the probationer? If that had happened for Uriel Palacios, perhaps the Clouetts might still be with us?
Bottom line: The only way to make sure breathalyzers are always installed is for the state to pay for them. I've never understood why we don't - after all, if the drunk goes to jail, the taxpayers must pay his or her full freight, including room, board, healthcare, etc.. By comparison, the cost of the breathalyzer ignition device is a de minimus one.
As for setting up roadblocks, I've always disliked this idea at more of a gut level than an intellectual one. Back in the days of the Cold War this was an easier argument to make because totalitarianism had a face so we knew what to compare ourselves to. "Can I see your papers, comrade" used to be a joke Americans made about Russian authoritarianism. MADD would have us turn it into the American way of life.Simply put, to me an attempt to sweep the whole population (or everyone in a given area, like a road, a neighborhood, or the YFZ Ranch) for criminal offenses is repugnant to democratic values and the notion of liberty, no matter how many states have passed the law. I like the idea, a LOT, that the state must have reasonable suspicion before I can be detained.
I'd support a budget item for the state to pay for ignitition interlocks for repeat offenders when judges think they're warranted. I think that approach makes sense without breaking the bank. But I don't approve of MADD's agenda as they've laid it out here and think they'd do more to reduce DWI by expanding use of strong probation like we're seeing done in drug courts.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Ombudsman's report may overstate improper abuse case closures
My old boss from ACLUTX, TYC Ombudsman Will Harrell, took a lot of heat today at the Lege for his department's report last week alleging abuse cases were closed without proper investigation. (See prior Grits coverage.)
"It's too early to say" how many cases were improperly closed, said TYC Inspector General Bruce Toney, but of more than 300 cases sent to his office to check if the proper criminal authorities were notified, 94 files did not contain enough information to tell if they should have been closed, he revealed under questioning from Rep. Sylvester Turner.
Sen. Whitmire chastised Harrell for alarming the public unnecessarily and even more so for the fact that the senator first learned of the report from a journalist.
Sen. Whitmire and Rep. Madden were both unhappy to discover that the Ombudsman's report overstated the case when it declared hundreds of cases were not referred to law enforcement. In fact, in many cases there were referrals but they hadn't been properly documented. When the Inspector General began going through them file by file, in the majority of instances there was paper documentation buried in there somewhere. It just hadn't been recorded in the database.
That discussion only refers to criminal allegations, I should mention, not administrative violations. Toney said the state auditor should be brought in to determine whether TYC performed administrative investigations in these cases, that it was impossible to tell from the available documentation (if you disbelieve information in the database that the agency says is flawed).
Meanwhile, having written this morning about the TDCJ grievance system, another data discrepancy showed up in this afternoon's discussions about TYC's grievance process: Assistant Ombudsman Kim Bennink said that 1,072 grievances at TYC remain unaddressed, some of them going back to 2004. However, chief of staff Alphonso Royal said there were only 581 outstanding grievances, not 1,072.
Apparently the source of the discrepancy is that the Ombudsman includes numbers from an older database that contains cases that were never closed but also never transferred into the new grievance database. Legislators asked for more clarification of this discrepancy at some future date.
"It's too early to say" how many cases were improperly closed, said TYC Inspector General Bruce Toney, but of more than 300 cases sent to his office to check if the proper criminal authorities were notified, 94 files did not contain enough information to tell if they should have been closed, he revealed under questioning from Rep. Sylvester Turner.
Sen. Whitmire chastised Harrell for alarming the public unnecessarily and even more so for the fact that the senator first learned of the report from a journalist.
Sen. Whitmire and Rep. Madden were both unhappy to discover that the Ombudsman's report overstated the case when it declared hundreds of cases were not referred to law enforcement. In fact, in many cases there were referrals but they hadn't been properly documented. When the Inspector General began going through them file by file, in the majority of instances there was paper documentation buried in there somewhere. It just hadn't been recorded in the database.
That discussion only refers to criminal allegations, I should mention, not administrative violations. Toney said the state auditor should be brought in to determine whether TYC performed administrative investigations in these cases, that it was impossible to tell from the available documentation (if you disbelieve information in the database that the agency says is flawed).
Meanwhile, having written this morning about the TDCJ grievance system, another data discrepancy showed up in this afternoon's discussions about TYC's grievance process: Assistant Ombudsman Kim Bennink said that 1,072 grievances at TYC remain unaddressed, some of them going back to 2004. However, chief of staff Alphonso Royal said there were only 581 outstanding grievances, not 1,072.
Apparently the source of the discrepancy is that the Ombudsman includes numbers from an older database that contains cases that were never closed but also never transferred into the new grievance database. Legislators asked for more clarification of this discrepancy at some future date.
Lack of private beds shouldn't stop Texas from using treatment, diversion strategies
At a hearing this morning in reaction to testimony from TDCJ officials about difficulties finding new aftercare beds and delays in opening authorized treatment facilities, Chairmen Turner and Whitmire expressed concern that if TDCJ can't get all its allocated treatment beds online by the time the Legislature starts, a) somebody will try to raid the unspent money and b) it will be difficult to argue for expanding treatment programs.
The debate, unfortunately, avoided discussion of the most obvious solution. A central aspect of the 2007 reforms was to rely entirely on privatized contracts to expand treatment capacity. The problem has come when literally no vendors at all bid on some of the contracts. TDCJ chief Brad Livingston replied that the supply of beds had dried up in the short run.
But just because the market won't provide a service doesn't mean the government shouldn't fulfill those functions. Government policy shouldn't be limited by what vendors are willing to offer.
I'm not an inherent critic of privatization and tend to consider its merits on a case by case basis. But when that strategy can't meet the state's needs, there's nothing wrong with the state operating those beds itself just like the government owns most Texas' prison facilities. If private capacity has all dried up, that's exactly what they should do.
The debate, unfortunately, avoided discussion of the most obvious solution. A central aspect of the 2007 reforms was to rely entirely on privatized contracts to expand treatment capacity. The problem has come when literally no vendors at all bid on some of the contracts. TDCJ chief Brad Livingston replied that the supply of beds had dried up in the short run.
But just because the market won't provide a service doesn't mean the government shouldn't fulfill those functions. Government policy shouldn't be limited by what vendors are willing to offer.
I'm not an inherent critic of privatization and tend to consider its merits on a case by case basis. But when that strategy can't meet the state's needs, there's nothing wrong with the state operating those beds itself just like the government owns most Texas' prison facilities. If private capacity has all dried up, that's exactly what they should do.