The title of this post is the headline of an effective
op ed in the Dallas News by Marc Levin of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Here's how the piece opens:
Public safety is job one, but recent improvements in Texas parole outcomes demonstrate that we can be safer while saving money.
In 2008, 1,016 fewer Texas parolees were alleged to have committed a new crime than in 2007. Net savings may exceed $96 million. These gains continued in 2009, though scaling back parole supervision could reverse this progress.
Why are so many fewer parolees committing crimes? For starters, substance abuse treatment resumed in 2005. Prior to 2007, drug tests were sent to a laboratory, creating a delay of a few weeks. Now, results are instant and most parolees with a drug problem admit to it before being tested. Violators who do not pose a public safety risk are immediately referred to outpatient treatment.
Graduated sanctions such as curfews and increased reporting have been enhanced, ensuring a swift but commensurate response to each rule violation. Parolees who repeatedly violate the rules or commit a misdemeanor are often sent to an Intermediate Sanctions Facility for approximately 90 days, in lieu of being revoked to prison. Some parolees at these facilities receive drug treatment along with follow-up counseling upon release. Literacy, GED and workforce preparation programming are available at some facilities.
Parole officers have increasingly been oriented towards helping parolees succeed while some states are known for simply "trail'em, nail'em, and jail'em." Funding for parole chaplains was restored in 2007. Parole resource centers emphasize decision-making based on concern for others and the victim. Texas also has smaller caseloads than many states, ranging from 15 to 75.
Employed ex-offenders are far less likely to re-offend, and 65 percent of Texas parolees are working. In contrast, 80 percent of California parolees are unemployed. Job placement and training for parolees has been enhanced since 2007 through closer ties between parole offices and local workforce centers.
.jpg)
17 comments:
New York Times
January 6, 2010
ALBANY — In an unusually blunt address to the New York State Legislature on Wednesday, Gov. David A. Paterson chastised the lawmakers before him, saying they had spent the state into near fiscal ruin.
If you want to lower costs and spending these days you are going against a strong tide.
I'm glad to see Texas Correctional Industries, Windham Schools, and Project RIO programs are working. Texas needs to expand the TCI & Windham programs. These programs work by teaching offenders work ethics and basic education skills. A big thanks to the Senate CJ Committee and the House Corrections Committee for making this happen. Too bad the rest of the legislature is asleep at the wheel.
As being a former parole officer, I would not necessiarly agree that parolees are committing less new crimes. Everytime that an offender test positive for drugs means that they had to have drugs in their possession, therefore having committed a new crime. I always thought that it was interesting that the parole division does not allow its officers to charge a parolee for committing a new crime, if they tested positive for drugs.
If a parolee test positive for cocaine, it could reasonably be considered that they committed a new felony while they were in possession of the drugs.
One thing I have noticed about the debate around the issue of probation and parole, individuals who supervise offenders seem to have an entirely different perspective than those who write editorials or blog about corrections.
One thing I've noticed, 8:56, is that anonymous commenters often say that right up until someone with a community supervision background supports evidence-based practices, then the same folks flame them in blog comments.
FairPlay, do you believe dirty UAs should be prosecuted as a new crime? What benefit would that incur for anybody compared to handling them with progressive sanctions?
That's all well and good, except that Texas doesn't criminalize "use" of prohibited drugs, rather it criminalizes "possession" of prohibited drugs. They are not the same, and a positive urine test merely shows the metabolites raising an inference of "use." Moreover, criminal prosecutions require a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard; which urine testing cannot hope to demonstrate due to the multitude of factors unrelated to drug use which can lead to a positive result. However, at least one jurisdiction has passed a law criminalizing "use" as demonstrated through a urine test. State v. Schroeder, 674 N.W.2d 827 (S.D. 2004). Maybe you could lead the charge in the next legislature to create yet another felony since we obviously don't have enough?
My prior post was addressed to the person promoting the charging of persons who test positive for drug use with possession of drugs.
Mark#1, how dare you confuse the issue with actual facts! ;)
The parole conditions say, "Don't commit new crimes." They also say, "Don't use drugs." There is nothing in the Penal Code charging a crime for "drug use." To charge drug possession, the person must be caught with drugs.
Mark #1: Interesting. But note the info that they are no longer using lab testing. This might be a big problem in light of a recent S. Ct. case, Melendiz-Diaz, which requires the govt. to present direct testimony from the lab person who tested the drugs (Melendez-Diaz). Yes I know they deemed the Tx law as OK, but a smart defense lawyer could run a big truck through the statute.
Also, those do-it-yourself drug tests, even when they double test, can be successfully attacked in a criminal case.
sorry, that S. Ct. case is Melendez-Diaz (not Melendiz-Diaz)
Grits, you seem to have a problem with all of these anonymous posts. It's your blog, don't allow them.
@10:33 - As long as the minority of anons engaged in trollish behavior don't mind me pointing out when they're hiding behind anonymity like a coward to take cheap shots, I don't mind letting the majority of anons who contribute constructively do so unimpeded.
Actually, even if the trolls DO mind that's the case.
FairPlay, drug use is increasingly viewed as a mental health issue rather than a crime, as it should be. Treatment is far less expensive and far more effective than incarceration. I suppose I'm glad you are a "former" parole officer.
Crime and drug/alcohol abuse go hand in hand. I don't agree it's a sickness or mental illness...it's a choice regardless of the reason. Sickness and mental illness are used as excuses for people that just don't want to admit they lack the self control to stop. I agree that treatment of drug and alcohol users is much cheaper for tax payers if it is provided by community based programs; however some will never stop unless they are locked up and can not get access to it. Continuous drug use and other repetitive parole violations must have consequence, otherwise the court order is useless.
Post a Comment