tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post4081353038743973780..comments2024-03-25T20:06:39.794-05:00Comments on Grits for Breakfast: 'Reasonably Suspicious': Check out latest Just Liberty podcastGritsforbreakfasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-80083661797198107492017-07-25T05:43:31.108-05:002017-07-25T05:43:31.108-05:00@12:01 - use whatever term you want. "Freeloa...@12:01 - use whatever term you want. "Freeloader" works for me, since the meaning is precisely on point. Urban taxpayers subsidize rural prosecutions and this change will make the rurals begin to pay (only part of) their freight. I don't want to foot their bills.<br /><br />@11:51, no one said it was. I said urban taxpayers were paying twice and the new change promotes equity.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-8171150752645285282017-07-24T12:01:26.337-05:002017-07-24T12:01:26.337-05:00Grits, the large counties can utilize the DPS labs...Grits, the large counties can utilize the DPS labs for "free" and actually do in some instances. The fact that their governing bodies have made a policy decision to fund their own crime labs so they can get quicker results does not make the other counties "freeloaders" as you put it. It just means the large counties have more resources and their taxpayers/voters evidently support those expenditures. If memory serves I can remember a time when you were especially critical of the degree of influence local law enforcement agencies had over their locally funded crime labs... See, for example, the Houston Police Dept. Crime Lab. <br /><br />On a semi-related note, we do have a state police force. It's called DPS. Any idea how the new crime lab charging policy is going to work with lab submissions made by DPS, Parks and Wildlife and the Rangers? Just wondering.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-81689760955571244982017-07-24T11:51:51.000-05:002017-07-24T11:51:51.000-05:00I believe all these urban agencies chose to have t...I believe all these urban agencies chose to have their own labs, this is not required.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-68419580143443245562017-07-24T11:09:54.324-05:002017-07-24T11:09:54.324-05:00Uh, so where do my "loyalties lie," `10:...Uh, so where do my "loyalties lie," `10:53, if that's so easy to see? With fiscal-responsibility and pay-as-you-go conservatism?<br /><br />You say that, "EVERY Texas taxpayer has an interest in making sure that only the truly guilty are being convicted in EVERY county." Maybe. But then why not just have a state police force? Why have 2,500 different local agencies?<br /><br />More to the point, why do you believe that some jurisdictions should foot the bill, subsidizing the freeloaders, while others should get crime-lab services free? Nothing you've said here justifies that.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-65298518630436684302017-07-24T11:07:43.207-05:002017-07-24T11:07:43.207-05:00Thanks for this. Excellent info! How can we get ...Thanks for this. Excellent info! How can we get y'all on the Stitcher podcast app? Wise Texanhttp://wisetexan.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-21204317059481901172017-07-24T10:53:35.486-05:002017-07-24T10:53:35.486-05:00I think the issue is probably a little more comple...I think the issue is probably a little more complex than you suggest here, Scott. People in rural counties typically don't have the luxury of having a ship channel and petro-chemical refineries in their county, a GM or Toyota manufacturing plant, or multiple high computer or computer related manufacturing facilities. Nor do rural counties have the luxury of having well funded probation departments with lots of in an out patient treatment and counseling programs to use as sanctioning options in lieu of prison sentences. The argument you're spinning out here is pretty typical of the ongoing urban vs. rural tension manifested in the current Texas legislature; and with your abode in Travis County, it's pretty easy to see where your loyalties lie. What you're failing to recognize here though is that EVERY Texas taxpayer has an interest in making sure that only the truly guilty are being convicted in EVERY county. Among other consequences, it's the STATE who pays the compensation for those who are wrongfully convicted and incarcerated. It's actually kind of surprising to me that a progressive such as yourself would take such a myopic view on this issue. This should not be a rural vs. urban or us against them debate. The state involves itself in lots of aspects of local law enforcement and corrections which cost local jurisdictions money. Whether it's the requirement for dash cams for patrol cars, staffing ratios at jails, inmate health care requirements, etc.; it's not like the state isn't already costing the counties and municipalities money. The state, however, is uniquely suited--and funded--to take the lead where the counties are incapable of adequately providing government services on their own (what if the Feds started charging the states extra for military protection?). Whether it's long term incarceration, provision of additional treatment options for probationers or providing quality and professional forensic laboratory services thereby reducing the likelihood of wrongful convictions, it would seem to me that you would support the state taking the lead on these fronts. Can you imagine the state of affairs which would exist if each county was responsible for the provision and funding of these services? I wonder how long it would take for public hangings on the courthouse lawn to return to fashion? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-82183950321209141532017-07-24T09:35:10.821-05:002017-07-24T09:35:10.821-05:00They pay taxes, but forensics for their police inv...They pay taxes, but forensics for their police investigations are subsidized (until Sept. 1, when they'll still be be subsidized, just less than 100% for the first time). The larger agencies perform their own or contract out. So forensics are free for rurals and agencies that use DPS for forensics, while folks in jurisdictions with their own crime labs pay twice and subsidize the rurals.<br /><br />Urban taxpayers also subsidize the rurals because the incarceration rate from rural counties is several times higher than urban ones, with longer average penalties to boot. So folks in urban counties pay for rural politicians to pander to voters with an outdated and toxic, "tuff on crime" ideology. And the reasons are less ideological than economic - they're reacting to structural incentives embedded in how the money is allocated. Change those, and behavior would change.Gritsforbreakfasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10152152869466958902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8597101.post-7600689053076853292017-07-24T09:17:45.775-05:002017-07-24T09:17:45.775-05:00I'll be darn, Grits! I never knew before now t...I'll be darn, Grits! I never knew before now that people in rural Texas counties didn't pay state taxes like the city folk! I think I'm gonna move to the country! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com