Grits never thought we'd see this day come: Texas conservatives lecturing Canadians that "tough on crime" policies are ineffective. Said Texas House Corrections Committee Chairman Jerry Madden, "It's a very expensive thing to build new prisons and, if you build 'em, I guarantee you they will come. They'll be filled, OK? Because people will send them there. But, if you don't build 'em, they will come up with very creative things to do that keep the community safe and yet still do the incarceration necessary."
Read the whole piece. I found it quite a hoot. Further evidence, if more were needed, that public attitudes are changing, even (especially?) among conservatives, about the criminal justice system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
27 comments:
Do as I say, not as I do. At least there appears to be a shift in attitude. Now if only TDCJ can figure this out.
This was a hard and very expensive lesson for Texas to learn. Changing the attitude that incarceration is the only true alternative is a tough sell. The instant gratification of locking someone up and throwing away the key is now being trumped by making the offender responsible for their actions. Hopefully Canada will take the lesson to heart.
What did Texas actually learn from the lessons? Until options other than prisons are adequately funded it is difficult to believe that Texas is learning from mistakes. Did anyone send the memo to prosecutors, you know the one that says "Tough on Crime is a failing and expensive approach..."?
I would hope the first lesson would be that being tough on crime does not necessarily mean locking everyone up. We can't afford to do that. Never could really. And, other than keeping offenders out of circulation for a few months, it never did any good, other than to make us feel better. It doesn't address the problem. I think we all learned that. Putting the lesson into practice for those who still retain the tail 'em, nail 'em and jail 'em philosophy will be a slow process, but one that will prove to be a lot more effective in the long haul.
On 10/18/2011 09:36:00 AM Jim Stott said...
"The instant gratification of locking someone up and throwing away the key is now being trumped by making the offender responsible for their actions."
Even with something as non-violent as hot check writing, I had the courts order the defendant to pay back as little as 10 bucks a month on a one thousand dollar hot check. Meanwhile, they still drive the county writing more hot checks. So, please tell me, how are we now making the offender responsible for their actions?
Unless the hot check writers learn to not write hot checks, they will still write them, regardless of how long they are in jail. For hot checks, it's not long. And at the least the victim will get the satisfaction of getting some of their money back, even if it is at $10.00 per month. Sounds as though a thousand dollars worth of restitution at $10 bucks per month should have required a little more common sense negotiation. If they are writing more hot checks and are not being held accountable for that, perhaps the justice system in your county is not doing their job.
I think Texas should bring back public hangings for serious offenses ......just sayin...
Sure wish they would have had that attitude when they decided my husband "failed" a polygraph because they didn't like his answers. Not that he lied, they just didn't like the answers, said he violated his probation and put him in jail for 3 years. Where was this attitude then? It sure hasn't filtered down to Harris Co.
There was a show last night about how Texas was going broke because of prisons. Here is a link: http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000050096
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44706333/CNBC_PRESENTS_BILLIONS_BEHIND_BARS_INSIDE_AMERICA_S_PRISON_INDUSTRY
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44762286?__source=vty|prisonindustry|par=vty
It's actually a new investigative series: BILLIONS BEHIND BARS: INSIDE AMERICA'S PRISON INDUSTRY
Anon at 9:36
I share your frustration which raises the issue of "accountability" versus "meaningful annountability." Paying back what you stole can and should be a part of meaningful accountability but there's more to it than that. How has the offfender been made to understand the nature of the harm they've caused?
Anon... Saw the "BILLIONS BEHIND BARS" too. What a load of bull shit the public has been sold regarding prison industry. Even more repulsive is the lie perpetuated by private industry in prison to build more prisons to make the community safe! Private industry is driving policy to increase profits and prison population at the taxpayers expense. I want to know why in the hell prison budgets continue to grow exponentially while profits are growing exponentially. Private prison industry is playing monopoly with taxpayer money. Wake up taxpayer, we have been fed a crock of shit for years. Truth be known, privatization like this is responsible for more government expansion than any other factor. GET YOU SOME OF THAT TEA PARTY!
20 years from now the 'get tough approach' will be back in full swing.....and I suspect the pendulum will swing back and forth every twenty / thirty years. The arguments being made for alternatives to incarceration were made back in the late 60s and early 70s. Legislators bought into the hype and it resulted in a drastic increase in crime over the next couple of decades. Finally in the mid 90s, people had had enough and they started locking up criminals. Not surprisingly, crime has been dropping ever since.
Now advocates and liberal foundations are using studies tainted by ideology to make the their case for less incarceration....and somehow they have convinced conservatives they can have their cake and eat too.
Anon... it is about the rancid smell of corruption and waste of taxpayers dollars by overutilization of prison to fund private ventures that is the issue of contention. Criminals that need to be taken out of the communtiy does not change simply because of who is running the prison be it a private company or the government itself. Both are being funding with tax dollars but private entities are driving government costs up to maximize their profits. Explain to me how that fits into conservative thinking, if you can...
By the way... its not "get tough on crime" it is "get rich on crime through cronyism." NEVER WAS AND NEVER WILL BE ABOUT GETTING TOUGH ON CRIME. And the pendelum won't swing back that direction because we will be bankrupt funding expansion of the prison enterprise.
There have been several well-written articles about how the correctional officers union in California lobbied for three strikes laws and all other laws requiring long incarceration. Costs of incarceration are also bankrupting California.
4:05, is the Texas Public Policy Foundation one of those "liberal foundations" you're talking about? They've churned out tons of research on these subjects but I seldom hear them characterized as "liberal."
So, in using the "hot check" scenario, there really is no accountability to be had. And, I would well imagine that if a thief stole a car and chopped it up for parts, I seriously doubt he would be able to pay that back either out of his minimum wage paycheck. That is, assuming he ever gets a job.
So again I ask: what accountability?
Anon...I've come to the conclusion that the accountability you want to understand only involves a prison cell. Fortunately, there are people who choose to believe the evidenced based facts about treatment and have a definition of accountability that does not match yours. There are those who choose to hold on to theoretical speculations about justice and want to lock everyone, believing it will stop them from commiting criminal acts. I choose to believe that changing people's lives through treatment and making them own up to their mistakes (accountability) helps to steer many of them away from the CJ system much more that a prison cell. From many years of experience, making them accountable is much more punishment than the prison cell.
I agree that we disagree.
Anon 7:27, Anon 8:43, Anon 4:05... Going out on a limb here but, sounds like you are pretty much a lock em up and throw away the key advocate?
Ironically you probably raise hell about your taxes going up too.
Justone question, if you are a "build more prisons" advocate how exactly is that supposed to happen without costing more money?
Anyone that opposes reform is a lock'em up and throw away the key advocate, right?
Wrong! I believe that most in the profession look for alternatives; however, the simple fact is, many people choose their lifestyle and have no desire to change. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink could not be anymore true when dealing with probationers.
The advocates and liberal foundations believe that racism and capitalism are to blame for crime and the disproportionate representation of minorities in the criminal justice system. Their goal is anti-incarceration, not evidenced based practices. They package it with catchy little phrases and terms and then point to studies they fund to back their arguments.
And please don't point to the TPPF to contradict my statement. Mark Levin makes multiple references to liberal foundations in his reports.
Jim Stott said...
"Anon...I've come to the conclusion that the accountability you want to understand only involves a prison cell."
Well, you can take the easy way out and dodge my question if you wish, but if the perp does no jail time, and/or doesn't pay restitution to the victim, then there is no accountability that I can see.
Not dodging your question at all, Anon. I agree that if NOTHING results from or happens to the offender as a result of his or her crime, there is no accountability. That's called "getting away with it." From your prior comments, I see nothing where you say that treatment might actually work. I doubt I can ever convince you that treatment is a viable and proven alternative to prison or a part of your definition of accountablity, even if 80% of all offenders successfully complete their probation terms and all of those repay their victims.
As I said, I agree that we disagree.
Treatment is only successful when the person receiving treatment wants to engage in the process.
A judge signing an order making someone particpate in treatment is a waste of time.....and is seldom successful.
Anon 8:30, fortunately it is still true...
Credit does not belong to the throng of critics and armchair quaterbacks. Credit goes to the person in the areana who valiantly strives to succeed.
Strangely, opinions abound and everyone has one. Notably, it takes very little committment to air an opinion out. But when it comes to putting muscule behind the rhetoric, well that is what separates the leaders from the loudmouths.
Youve made your contribution, but know this... it didn't do one single thing to solve a problem.
Good Day
This comment is wrong, plain and simle, "Treatment is only successful when the person receiving treatment wants to engage in the process. A judge signing an order making someone particpate in treatment is a waste of time.....and is seldom successful." Most people don't want to do what the Court orders. However, once they engage whether it is voluntary or not, most offenders like what they learn. Waiting around for an offender to "want to engage" will never happen. The problem is funding and how different parts of the system are held accountable through the revenue stream. Until prosecutors and judges have some accountability in their pocketbooks, they won't change. For example, the Lege making CSCDs create commitment reduction plans (it won't stay optional,I promise you that) without the Lege making prosecutors and judges being part of the commitment reduction plan with funding tied to the requirement is ridiculous. CSCDs are powerless over the plea agreement. Yes, Judges approve Community Justice Plans, but they approved them usually with a rubbe stamp, not through a critical thinking process of discussion with true stakeholders.
Privatization is inevitable. It is the American way. Everyone wants to make a buck. It is only a matter of time before someone has the chutzpah to organize a proposal to the legislature -- one that is palatable and the legislature will buy regarding privatization of community corrections. It is already happening with electronic monitoring and ignition interlocks. Who do you think is working for such corporate entities, ex community corrections professional, that's who. The problem is the customer is who pays for these services with that customer being the defendant. Give it time, and we will be debating private prison and private community corrections in Texas.
Post a Comment