tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post5588983189831405630..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: LBB recommends sentencing commission to enhance consistency, contain costs of criminal sentencesGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-90245705260818748662013-01-21T01:54:46.252-06:002013-01-21T01:54:46.252-06:00(CONTD)
He is just one example of probably 100’s ...(CONTD) <br />He is just one example of probably 100’s if not more. However, let’s say that there are 100 inmate’s total that who are identical to him and would fall under the same category. Same amount of set-offs and all up for review again. If instead of just stamping their file “DENIED: Nature of Offense” due to it being a 3g offense, if they actually went by the guidelines when they voted and if they actually do meet all of the criteria and were released. That would save $2,939,000.00, which is what it would cost tax payers per year to keep them in prison! That’s a lot of tax dollars that could be spent elsewhere on much more needed programs that are hurting. Inmates are basically just cash commodities for the state. <br /><br />There should be a statewide audit throughout all prisons of all the inmate’s who have served a certain amount of time and have already been reviewed but, have received more than one set-off and if it is determined that they do fit all the requirements for release..then RELEASE THEM! Otherwise, as far as I am concerned.. find someone else to pay to keep them because I sure as hell don’t want to pay to keep those that don’t need to be!!Seaamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08954421666573833416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-19150737153260405862013-01-21T01:52:00.491-06:002013-01-21T01:52:00.491-06:00If the parole board was to actually follow the gui...If the parole board was to actually follow the guidelines and recommendations issued by the Sunset Advisory Commission when they vote on an inmate’s file that is up for review it would have a considerable affect on the population and the amount of tax payer dollars needed. Not all people that have been convicted for a violent crime/3g offense are actually violent offenders. There are many that have been incarcerated for nearly 20 years or more for a 3g offense that had happened when they were basically still a kid. They work the system, have completed all classes that are available, Have held a consistent job within the prison. Have no disciplinary cases. Overall they are the model the model inmate. <br /><br />However, they just get “set-off” after “set-off”. Even though, according to the point system that the board is supposed to use as a guideline when they vote, they meet all the criteria for release. Their age at the time they were convicted, no prior violent offenses and/or no prior criminal history period! With each review they demonstrate the existence of a solid support system in place upon their release and even have employment set up. Many that are incarcerated for cases that are not a 3g offenses, like drug cases will get paroled without meeting even close to the same criteria that a lot of the 3g offenders have. They also have the biggest risk for reoffending and the majority of them do. The parole board spends about a minute and half scanning through each file. You cannot even request a face to face unless you have been incarcerated 20 years or more. Therefore, when they see that the inmate is a 3g offender…that’s all they see. They simply stamp their file.. “Denied: Nature of Offense.” The Nature of Offense will never change however, people ARE capable of changing!! <br /><br />What needs to be done is an in-depth audit of all the inmates that have been denied two or more times for parole. Any inmate that does meet the criteria according the point scale that they are “suppose” to use as a guideline for voting, should be released.<br /><br />*Length of time they have been incarcerated<br />*The age that they committed the offense they were incarcerated for.<br />*What they have done during the time they have been in prison; classes, employment, amount of disciplinary cases, trustee status… etc.<br />*The amount of support they have established if they were to be released <br /><br />I don’t mind my tax dollars being used to house those that are a danger to society and due to their history are likely to re-offend given the opportunity. However, at an average cost per year of $21, 390 per inmate….that’s a lot of money being spent to house an inmate that by all other means does demonstrate that they have been rehabilitated and no longer would be a threat or danger to society if they were to be given the opportunity to be released. <br /><br />For example, I do have a loved one that is incarcerated for a 3g offense that he was convicted for when he was just 19 years old. He will be 40 years old next year. By the time he comes up for review again it will be his 3rd time since he became eligible, receiving a 2 year set-off (Nature of Offense) for both his 1st and 2nd reviews. He has had no disciplinary cases in over 10 years. He has completed all and any courses that are offered and has taken many additional courses through correspondence. He has maintained consistent employment for 15 years and has even received many promotions. He has also achieved a level 2 trustee status (the highest a 3g offender can receive) and has a strong established support system as well as employment once he is released. By all other means he is the ideal example of a “successfully rehabilitated inmate.” However, because his crime is a 3g crime they don’t even take the time to consider his case further. Meanwhile, by the time of his next review he will have cost the tax payers $128,340.00. That is a $128,340.00 to house an inmate that according to TDCJ’s own guidelines is deemed releasable nor is he or would he be considered a continued threat to society.Seaamyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08954421666573833416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-20943500468565818202013-01-19T19:00:35.171-06:002013-01-19T19:00:35.171-06:00Here we go again. Adding another bloated bureaucr...Here we go again. Adding another bloated bureaucracy (wasn't it called Punishment Standards Commission in 1992?) to rehash every cockamamie sentencing idea ever pitched. I think you are too optimistic, Grits, that another sentencing commission might come up with ideas that the legislature will buy into that steer us toward more probation/parole rehab programs. The biggest problem in Texas with building any kind of common sense into sentencing is that there is such a disparity in sentencing in the different counties in Texas. You are correct that the legislature doesn't help matters by increasing penalties and adding offenses without thought or input from both the defense and prosecution. I could go on but I think I'll just wait and play off other comments. I appreciate your coverage of events. Skifoolnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-65137464027713749322013-01-19T11:49:42.140-06:002013-01-19T11:49:42.140-06:00With do many finally being paroled, most who never... With do many finally being paroled, most who never should have been sent to prison, how are they going to make a living? When will the Lege start hiding the conviction from employers who can see the conviction and refuse to hire that person?<br /><br />It's great the Lege finally, sorta realizes these people should not have been locked up, but give them the chance to get a life. Hide the conviction from employers. Give everyone paroled a chance for a life>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com