The Texas District and County Attorneys Association was called out in the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee today for "demagoguery" on its Twitter feed by Rep. Matt Schafer, while Rep. Steve Toth called their lobbyist Shannon Edmonds "totally disingenuous" and "dishonest" for some of his Twitter comments accusing committee members of being sympathetic toward cop killers.
The episode reminded me of John Bradley's posts on the DA's user forum coming back to haunt him in the Senate Nominations Committee last session, except this essentially happened in real time, with Shannon tweeting from the back of the room and legislators calling him out for it on the dais.
Over the years I'm afraid Grits has become jaded. I've heard that sort of demagoguery so often from prosecutors' representatives at the Lege that it almost seems normal. But clearly most of the legislators on the dais hadn't been exposed to such attitudes.
They were debating SB 23 remaking sentences for capital offenses
committed by juveniles to comply with the Supreme Court's ruling in
Miller v. Alabama. The bill passed out of committee 7-2 in the same form it
cleared the Senate but will likely be amended on the House floor.
UPDATE: Go here to watch the exchange, which begins with comments by Rep. Toth at the 43:50 mark. Rep. Schafer chimed in on the topic at the 53:10 mark, followed by Reps Carter and Canales.
MORE: See SA Express-News coverage of the hearing. The bill is scheduled for a House floor vote on Friday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
20 comments:
One particular tweet seems to have caused it and it was admittedly deleted? What was it?
They actually quoted from 3 or 4 different objectionable tweets. One was, "Does #CrimJur lower penalties for teen killers of cops and kids under 10? Stay tuned!"
This should not surprise anyone. You hear that same type of rhetoric coming out of the mouths of prosecutors all the time. Shannon was just saying what his buddy prosecutors would have been thinking had they been there.
@2:26, the same type of rhetoric (albeit less pointed)has, in effect, been coming from Grits too during this session--at least as it relates to the positions of some of these tea party "Republicans." In the name of "fiscal conservatism," some of them have become nothing more than criminal coddlers. What did Shannon say that was untrue? Anyone who saw this committee meeting on SB 23 could have easily wondered at times whether they were in a committee meeting at the California Legislature. At several times they seemed to be seriously contemplating the merits of reducing the punishment range for capital murder for 17 year olds to that of a regular first degree felony. Why have capital murder at all? The fact of the matter is that the positions taken by some tea party House members during this session were right there in line with liberal Democrats. In other words, "soft on crime." It's past time that someone called them out for their liberal positions and hopefully word will get back to their districts.
You got it 2:55. What Texas really needs to do is spend more money locking more people up. I say we double the size of the prison system - I have no doubt we could fill it up in a matter of months. Heck, look at all the jobs that would create. Of course, at some point everybody would either be a prisoner or a guard, but hey, what's wrong with that? That would keep everyone under control and under the watchful eye of the government, wouldn't it? The streets would be perfectly safe then (maybe empty, but safe). I don't mind paying a lot more in taxes to support a massive criminal justice bureaucracy and prison system, do you? I don't mind paying more in taxes to support the kids of prisoners, do you? Although, you know if we just got rid of those pesky trials that would save a lot of money. Police arrest, prosecutors sentence, and we're done - don't even really need judges, do we? Sounds just like paradise to me.
I just don't have much use for those who engage in fearmongering as a way to protect and increase their power.
Whenever someone resorts to using terms like "criminal coddlers" or "teen cop killers" I just always assume they are some bully who has long ago lost the argument.
No Robert, they're just people who toil daily in our criminal justice system and know all too well the horrific reality of violent crime. We don't deal in budgetary "best practices," and cute little fiscally irresponsible cliches like "smart on crime." How about you come forward and explain to the grieving parents of a murdered child or the widow and children of a murdered officer how they've "lost the argument?" Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that in your world (and that of people like you) these horrific crimes no longer occur. Unfortunately, they still do in mine.
Police officers are less likely to die on the job than garbage collectors, 7:59, let's not get carried away.
Ironically, the version Bryan Hughes proposed would have allowed for HARSHER punishment than the version Shannon was backing, it just also gave juries discretion to go lower. If a 17-year old kills a cop, TDCAA will have been arguing AGAINST a bill that could guarantee they'd never get out. But somehow you call TDCAA's critics soft on crime - just bizarre.
Y'all don't want to be tuff on crime, you just want all the discretion to yourselves instead of sharing it with a jury who might consider mitigating circumstances, as the Supreme Court insisted they should.
So you're okay with trusting juries when it comes to the consideration of evidence that mitigates against the punishment of 17 year old capital murderers, but juries shouldn't be trusted when it comes to the consideration of extraneous sex crimes as they may relate to the guilt of an accused child molester? Maybe I'm wrong but that just seems a little hard to reconcile to me.
Well...if it's good for the goose then it's good for the gander. Toth himself slandered our Texas Voices folks (mothers and fathers, registrants, sisters and brothers as well as a few professionals)who chose to exercise their right to testify. He referred to us as "convicted pedophiles"pedophile packs" and "whiners". I have a sneaky feeling that he has not the slightest idea of what the word "pedophile" means.
Check out his post on Facebook:
TOTH Writes: you probably heard of the Romeo and Juliet provision that has been adopted in most states. It acknowledges that a 19 year old and the 17 year old who mutually agrees to the relationship-the 19year old would not longer be considered a 'pedophile'. REALLY??? First of all, 19 and 17 is legal. Secondly, the 19 year old would NOT have been considered a pedophile. Geeeezzzz....this man has a lot to learn.
Texas district attorneys are tough on child sex crimes UNLESS they are committed by police officers, then they offer probation or refuse to prosecute: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Tribute-to-survivors-of-child-sexual-assault-by-law-enforcement-officers/180584842010594
"How about you come forward and explain to the grieving parents of a murdered child or the widow and children of a murdered officer how they've "lost the argument?""
Using victims to further your own need for power is despicable. How about you try making your arguments on the merits instead. Btw, I am the grieving parent of a murdered child and I don't appreciate being used by some power hungry moron like you. Those who can't carry on a legitimate debate on the merits of the issue must resort to arguing purely on emotion, hatred, and the need for revenge. You should be ashamed of yourself.
@8:57. You're wrong. Difference is the word "extraneous" in your comment.
"...his Twitter comments accusing committee members of being sympathetic to cop killers."
Actually, if you read Pro Libertate, you *will* be sympathetic to cop killers.
~~
LAVA
~~
@11:23, what is debate? That the survivors of 17 year old capital murderers are somehow less deserving of justice than the survivors of 18 year old capital murderers? The Supreme Court has already taken the death penalty off the table for those killers without you ever having the opportunity to vote on it. Next they've taken the automatic life without parole sentence off the table for them without you having any input into that matter. Now, for some absurd reason, some members of the state House of Representatives seemed to be okay with allowing them to serve as little as 5 years in prison for the murder of a cop, a young child, or a murder committed during a rape or a robbery. I suppose there may be some survivors who would be okay with a 5 year sentence under those circumstances, but I've yet to run across them. I gather you're just fine with legislators--who have little or no interaction with victims at all-- having opinions and deciding these important policy matters? But you think prosecutors and other criminal justice officials, who deal with victims on a daily basis, have no right to express their opinions? I'm sorry, but I don't think there's anything improper or "moronic," as you suggest, with that.
1:35, I don't believe for one minute it is concern for victims that motivates you. You use victims to justify your rhetoric which is intended to increase your own power.
I gather you haven't spent as much time with victims as you claim or you'd realize the importance of forgiveness. Hanging onto the hate and anger that you espouse will tear a person apart.
Nope, you don't care about victims - you care about your own power and you shameless use victims to push your own brand of hate and ignorance.
1:35, I bet the only time you've spent with victims is that which was necessary to get your convictions and maybe to appear in the press.
Btw, the prosecutor in my case never consulted with me on what I wanted to happen. Those laws that say prosecutors are supposed to include victims have no consequences when a prosecutor decides to ignore them because it doesn't fit his agenda.
Prosecutors only care about victims when doing so helps them rack up another conviction or helps them politically.
"I gather you're just fine with legislators--who have little or no interaction with victims at all-- having opinions and deciding these important policy matters?"
Darn this system of representative government we have. Isn't it about time we got rid of that.
1:35, why do you have so much mistrust of juries? Don't you trust the people in your community to do the right thing? Isn't that who should be making these decisions instead of legislators or prosecutors? But, instead, you want to take that out of the hands of the jury and have the punishment decided before the trial. Apparently, its only the prosecutor who is capable of imposing the right punishment. Why are you so against empowering juries? Do you doubt your skills that much? Are you so insecure in your abilities that you are afraid you can't convince a jury to give an appropriate punishment?
To many prosecutors thing that justice = revenge. And, they are too shallow to consider anything else.
@4:29-4:53...You really shouldn't stereotype. You have no idea how much time I spend with victims or how I feel about them. And I can honestly say I don't hate anyone I've ever prosecuted. With that said, there are a lot of people I've prosecuted who've done terrible things. They wrecked lives and scarred others for life. And they're very dangerous. I don't have to hate them, or like them, to recognized that they need to be locked up for a very long time. Since you're so familiar with the role of the legislators in our representative democracy, then I suppose you're also quite content with prosecutors, as part of the executive branch of government, having the power and discretion that's vested in them by the legislature. And while they don't technically "represent" victims, they're generally the only real advocate the system affords them. I obviously don't know enough about your personal experience with prosecutors to have any opinion on that. I don't have a problem with juries. I'm usually much more pleased with the jury verdict than the defense attorneys are--by a long shot. But I do believe very strongly in the deterrent effect of mandated punishment. I believe in the death penalty without reservation. I also believe people who commit certain violent homicides need to know, beyond any doubt, that even if the law won't allow us to kill them, they at least are darn sure going to prison for a really long time. Keeping in mind here that we aren't just talking about "garden variety" killings, but Capital Murder. That doesn't make me feel politically empowered in the least. That just makes me feel a little safer as a citizen and better about our justice system.
Post a Comment