Travis County looks forward to cite and summons authority

In Travis County (Austin), "The Sheriff's Department estimates booking people caught with four ounces or less cost more than $1 million in 2006," reports KVUE-TV.

That doesn't even include thousands of other low-level, non-violent misdemeanants who cycle in and out of the county jail. That's why some law enforcement agencies in Travis County will begin issuing citations instead of arresting pot users starting September 1 under a new statute signed by Gov. Perry this spring. Offenses where citations can be given in lieu of arrests include:

• Marijuana possession, (up to 4 oz)
• Criminal mischief with less than $500 damage
• Graffiti with less than $500 damage
• Theft by check with less than $500 stolen
• Theft of service with less than $500 stolen
• Driving With an Invalid License

Unlike Bexar and Harris Counties, where the District Attorneys are thwarting the Texas Legislature's most important jail overcrowding initiative (and the subsequent savings in jail costs) in Austin local officials apparently are welcoming the change in policy. Travis DA Ronnie Earle told me not long ago he strongly supports the new law, however I've never heard the position of County Attorney David Escamilla, who actually prosecutes misdemeanors. Sounds like he must be on board.

The big question on how much this could save will depend on whether the Austin PD will participate, which itself depends a lot on the city council (God help us!) and Austin's new police chief. I suspect, though, that they'll go along with it because Travis jail overcrowding problems are pretty severe. (Plus, let's face it, this is Austin - I'll bet most residents would prefer Matthew McConaughey had been ticketed then left alone instead of arrested that night in 1999.)

Travis joins several smaller counties which have announced they'll implement the new law, and if the policy demonstrates savings without significant public safety harm, I hope the Legislature would mandate citation instead of jail for these offenses in 2009.

My bet: the change will improve public safety, not harm it. Most Texas police departments including Austin's are understaffed, and it's more important to keep officers out on the street looking for real bad guys than it is to have them spend hours locking up some pothead or a guy with an expired drivers license.

If not snitching is criminal, who will prosecute the FBI?

Here's an interesting idea: A crime you don't commit, where you can violate the law simply by remaining silent, minding your own business and doing nothing.

Well before the current "stop snitching" fad, Texas legislators had already decided that people who didn't report serious violent felonies deserved to be prosecuted. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports ("Police: Man didn't report beating," Aug. 25) Tarrant County man has been charged with:

failing to report a felony, a relatively new and rarely used Class A misdemeanor charge punishable by up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine. Enacted in 2003, the law makes it a crime to not tell law enforcement about a felony involving serious bodily injury or death.

I'd forgotten all about that bill, and don't think I've heard of a case actually brought under it before. Recalling it in the context of today's "stop snitching" debates I find it interesting on several levels, not the least of which is that the "act" of not coming forward, at least regarding specific crimes, has been criminalized in Texas. I wonder if that's the case in other states? Any readers who know, help me out on this one.

Second, I wonder if a "witness" simply not telling should be a crime? If that person themself is involved, then they are an accomplice and partially culpable. But if a witness does not report a violent crime for whatever reason - out of fear, familial loyalty, or any number of motives - I think there may be unintended consequences that haven't been fully considered if such folks are subsequently prosecuted. Will this threat compel more people to come forward, or will it cause them to band together with the criminals in view of their common carceral threat from the DA?

Finally, I can't help but recall that we learned recently from Congressional testimony in Washington D.C. that the FBI does not always report "serious violent felonies" committed by their informants to state or local law enforcement. Does this mean FBI agents who do that in Texas are committing a crime? And who is responsible for prosecuting that omission?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. There are a lot of reasons people don't volunteer to become a witness, from the neighbor fearful for their safety to the FBI agent who fears exposing an informant. Prosecuting an omission, a failure to act, is a tricky business. Indeed, it seems like we already have enough crimes actually committed without prosecuting too many folks whose sin is to do nothing.

Hickman: TYC General Counsel should have prevented wrongful incarceration of TYC youth

Problems at the Texas Youth Commission, without question, have plummeted to depths beyond my own ability to adequately analyze many important details, so I've asked some folks to guest blog on Grits periodically over the next few weeks to gain additional perspective on this troubled agency and efforts to reform it.

To kick off this series, former Texas Youth Commission contracts attorney Howard Hickman, who left the agency this summer, explains the backstory of what should have happened to 150 TYC youth who are presently wrongfully incarcerated, and wonders why administrators charged with reforming the system have allowed this unnecessary SNAFU to happen. Thanks, Howard, for contributing these important points to the discussion over TYC:

* * *

It is perhaps the greatest irony that Texas' most liberal newspaper, the American Statesman, is editorializing that even though TYC has no jurisdiction it should continue to incarcerate 150 nineteen and twenty year old sentenced offenders in order to preserve the "public safety." I have been somewhat bemused by the reaction to the on again off again release of the sentenced offenders and who is to blame for the problem - TYC or the legislature. Regardless of the merits of SB 103 whether good or bad (I might add I have seen more bad than good come out of the legislature during my lifetime.) there was a time TYC could have complied with SB103's mandate on sentenced offenders without resorting to what is, in my opinion, the illegal incarceration of youth over whom TYC has no legal jurisdiction.

One only need know four things: (1) the content of the sentenced offender change was set in stone by the middle of April; (2) TYC has the power to ask a court for early release to parole of sentenced offenders at any time; (3) TYC can ask for the transfer of a sentenced offender to the Institutional Division of TDCJ at any time, and (4) courts have the power to expedite their dockets to schedule hearings on short order.

With this knowledge what should have been done? Beginning in April, the files of the sentenced offenders should have been reviewed to determine which would be affected by the age change to 19 from 21. The courts could then have been advised in writing of the potential problem with each youth that court had adjudicated and given the option of allowing the release to parole of that youth by operation of law or having TYC request a transfer hearing or early release hearing. If the courts requested that TYC request a hearing, then the courts could hold a hearing between the time SB 103 was passed(5/25/07) and the time SB 103 was signed (6/8/07). I might add that the governor could even been asked to delay the signing until the last possible day (6/17/07) if more time was needed for the courts to act.

Why did this legal method not happen? I have no explanation other than the incompetence or inemptitude of TYC's General Counsel. In April I told TYC's Acting General Counsel, Kathryn Knight, that TYC's experienced attorneys needed to meet and discuss the problems presented by SB 103 and its implementation. She told me that that was something that should wait for the new General Counsel. I later told the new General Counsel, Steve Foster, the same thing. He told me he would schedule a meeting. He did not do that until even more TYC attorneys told him the same thing. He subsequently scheduled several meetings, all of which he canceled at the last minute since he was never present in the Central Office at the time that he designated for each meeting. And thus no meeting was ever held.

For the want of sound legal judgment, 150 youth are inappropriately incarcerated. Some legal foresight could have easily prevented TYC's reform administrators from enduring much unneeded bad press and animosity from judges, prosecutors, and legislators. The American Statesman has called for legislative hearings. The first question those hearings should ask is "Why did the TYC reform administrators allow this problem to happen?"

Texas jail news

Several recent jail related items deserve Grits readers attention:

Val Verde jail deaths, illnesses not related?
Kathleen at Texas Prison Bidness has an update on the unexplained jail deaths at the Val Verde detention facility operated by the Geo Group, a private prison company. It turns out the main reason they don't know what's going on yet is that the Bexar County Medical Examiner declined to perform an autopsy on the Honduran inmate who was first to die. "Has anyone asked why the medical examiner's office declined to perform an autopsy?" wrote Kathleen. I think someone just did. It's a damn good question. Meanwhile at the Texas Observer blog Forrest Wilder suggests that Geo's efforts to keep profits up may cause them to neglect expensive medical care. See prior Grits coverage.

Cameron tent jail: Second time's a charm, nearly
After he was forced to tear down Cameron County's first tent jail because he built it without approval from state regulators, Cameron County Sheriff Omar Lucio may begin moving inmates into another version of his tent jail next week. His new tent failed state and local inspections Thursday, but apparently there's only a short checklist of items to be completed before they can open the facility. Counties are allowed to operate tent jails on an emergency basis for up to three years, but Cameron is the only county right now doing so. The Sheriff says he hopes the Lege will change the law in 2009 to let him go longer - personally, I wouldn't count on that.

So who will fill this tent jail? Perhaps predictably, nonviolent misdemeanor defendants awaiting trial. Reported the McAllen Monitor (8/23), "Nearly three dozen nonviolent inmates facing misdemeanor charges are expected to be housed in the tent facility." My question: Wouldn't it be cheaper and smarter to let nonviolent misdemeanor defendants out on personal bonds awaiting trial? I've been considering instituting annual Grits "Smart on Crime" and "Dumb on Crime" awards, and Sheriff Lucio would definitely be a candidate for the latter prize.

Family to police: Tell us what happened
After police told the family of a Pasadena man who died in custody that he may have died of an heart attack or a stroke, an autopsy revealed bruising, abrasions, blood splatters and two knocked out teeth that the defendant still had when taken into custody. Now the family wants the officers to explain what happened in court, reports the Houston Chronicle. Here's an example of how stronger open records laws might prevent civil litigation: Current law puts families in such cases in the position of having zero information, being asked to trust officials who've already misled them, and the only way they can find out what really happened is to sue. Opening records in closed investigations would solve that dilemma once and for all, and probably reduce litigation against police departments.

Munoz to Howard County: Build a new jail
Howard County's jail is old and fundamentally out of compliance with current jail architecture and safety standards. For years the Texas Commission on Jail Standards gave the facility variances, but now the Big Spring Herald reports ("Munoz to Howard County: Build a new jail," Aug. 24) that a letter from TCJS chief Adan Munoz raised the specter of closing the jail if voters do not approve a bond election in November. Howard voters rejected a new jail last year, but as in Tyler, commissioners plan to place it on the ballot again. The Howard County Judge said closure of the jail would bankrupt the county "within a year."

Rangers search Bexar sheriff's home over commissary bribe scandal
Texas Rangers yesterday searched the home of Bexar County Sheriff Ralph Lopez and his wife Nancy (both were named in the warrant as search targets) hoping to find more information regarding alleged bribes and improper gifts and trips relating to Bexar's jail commissary contract. Rangers also executed a search warrant at the home of the Sheriff's campaign manager John Reynolds, a central actor in the bribery allegations. I'm glad to learn DA Susan Reed has outsourced the investigation to the Texas Rangers. It enhances her credibility to have the investigation performed by an outside party. Which is precisely why she should have outsourced the investigation in the Ruben Cantu case when her own office's credibility was in question.

California Lege passes reforms to juvie system

California will soon implement sweeping juvenile justice reforms to address problems of abuse and poor outcomes that mirror many of the problems faced by the Texas Youth Commission, particularly slashing the number of "wards" sent to youth prisons and focusing more funding on local solutions. Reports the San Francisco Chronicle ("Sweeping reforms of state's juvenile justice system get green light from Legislature," Aug. 23):

The measure, SB81, which the governor is expected to sign, is designed to ultimately shrink the troubled state juvenile prison system nearly out of existence.

Under the bill, all but the most violent youths convicted of the most serious crimes, such as murder and certain types of sexual assault, would be dealt with in their home counties. The counties generally operate an array of programs, ranging from camps where some youth offenders are incarcerated and treated, to strict after-school programs providing various forms of education, therapy and family treatment.

"We've been working on this for 20 years, some of us," said David Steinhart, executive director of the Commonweal's Juvenile Justice Program in San Francisco, who was a key player in negotiating elements of the program. "There are bugs that need to be worked out, but we've climbed the mountain. It's a major milestone."

The network of eight juvenile prisons operated by the Department of Juvenile Justice has gone from 10,000 wards, as inmates are known, a decade ago to fewer than 2,600 now. That is partly a result of declining crime rates and partly because counties have been so appalled by the conditions in the juvenile prisons and the lack of rehabilitation that some have chosen to simply keep offenders at home as much as possible.

Bill Sifferman, head of San Francisco's Juvenile Probation Department, said the city has sent just two youth offenders to the state system in three years "because of the atrocities at the state system and the lack of sufficient therapeutic programs."

The Department of Juvenile Justice has been operating under a state court consent decree since 2004, when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger decided to end years of litigation and find a solution to the system's serious problems.

While there has been some progress, reports provided to the court by outside experts and reports by the department's own inspector general still have found deep problems, such as widespread violence, deep racial tensions and shortcomings in education and rehabilitation programs. Many wards spend all but an hour of each day in their cells, reports have said.

Steinhart said the newly approved bill would cut the ward population roughly in half within three years, which means that the state system would hold only one-tenth of the number of wards it had in 1996.

There's not a lot of difference between the overall thrust of these recommendations and what experts told the Legislature this spring amounted to "best practices" from Missouri, Ohio and other states. TYC employees may quaver at that thought since it might mean additional unit closures. But if the Texas Legislature can't fix the agency under its own steam I wouldn't be surprised to see the courts force them to take more draconian actions down the line, as has happened in California.

See additional SF Chronicle coverage of the legislation.

Statesman: TYC pepper spray policy violates 1984 court order

The history of the Texas Youth Commission's 2007 "reforms" so far is mostly a history of policies announced and then retracted. When Jay Kimbrough was conservator, he at least had the cojones to make a decision in the face of serious problems, but his successor Ed Owens seems to flinch whenever he sees his shadow.

First they're going to shift 19-21 year olds to TDCJ, then for some reason they can't get there from here. Then they're going to privatize prisons for 10-13 years olds, then announce they won't. Then they're going to parole offenders who've remained past their minimum length of stay, then they're not. Over and over TYC announces some new reform then almost immediately retracts the idea the first time it's criticized.

Now I'll bet dollars to donuts the same thing happens with the recently announced policy to use pepper spray more widely on TYC youth, which I've argued is an excuse not to address the agency's serious understaffing problems. Providing further evidence the present TYC administration simply cannot handle the job they've been assigned, the Austin Statesman's Mike Ward today reports ("Pepper spray use at Youth Commission draws ire," Aug. 24):

National experts are questioning whether expanded use of chemical agents will limit injuries or cause further trouble inside Texas' juvenile lockups.

"It's not a reform at all. It's a step in the other direction," said Patricia Arthur, a senior staff attorney at the National Center for Youth Law who is considered an expert on chemical agents in juvenile lockups.

"It doesn't address a problem. It will only compound it."

Steve Bercu, an Austin bookstore executive who was a lead attorney in a landmark lawsuit two decades ago against the state over unconstitutional conditions in Texas' juvenile lockups, was more blunt: "That's something they shouldn't be doing. It's definitely a violation of the settlement agreement. No question."

Youth Commission officials said Thursday that its lawyers are looking at whether the change conflicts with the 23-year-old court settlement and said the pepper spray is a water-based formula that is milder than the one used at Texas' adult prison system.

So the new pepper spray policy apparently contradicts a longstanding court settlement governing TYC's use of force. Hmmmm. I guess when your general counsel has no background in juvenile law, these things happen. And happen. And happen.

Let me say this plainly as a close observer: TYC today is dysfunctional and paralyzed by incompetent management, and the "reforms" implemented by the Legislature did nothing to solve its fundamental problems. This agency is in crisis.

Expect the pepper spray issue to figure prominently into next week's legislative hearing on TYC, but I hope it doesn't dominate the discussion - the agency has too many other serious problems for this to be the only thing they talk about. Hell, they could talk about TYC for a week and not discuss all its problems. I'm beginning to wonder, God help us, if a special session won't be needed to sort out the mess.

Adidas: Graffiti is legitimate art

Having written recently about the need to create legitimate public spaces for graffiti art as part of the solution to uninvited graffiti, I was interested to notice that shoemaker Adidas was receiving backlash in Australia for hiring a graffiti artist to paint a billboard in Melbourne.

While critics say "It's trying to legitimise what is illegal activity," Adidas retorted that graffiti is a legitimate form of art:

The sportswear giant has commissioned graffiti artists from around the world to design a range of sneakers to be sold in Foot Locker stores.

The company said it did not endorse illegal graffiti, but wanted to provide a legal avenue for graffiti artists to display their work.

Adidas spokesman Cameron Baranski said the project encouraged young people to make a living out of graffiti art, instead of writing on walls illegally.

"There's a big difference between what Nuroc's done up there and vandalism and tagging," Mr Baranski said.

"What Nuroc has done up there is a piece of art. I challenge anyone to say it's not a legitimate piece of art."

I think Adidas is on the right track here for public policy reasons, not because I think the ad campaign will work (who knows on that score): Outlawing graffiti only contributes to the outlaw mythos that fuels it. Mainstreaming graffiti - and giving incentives to graffiti artists through payment, access to public spaces, etc. - will help control the medium.

Giving serious artists public space reinforces the key distinction between invited and uninvited graffiti, between legitimate art and art that is simultaneously vandalism and a crime. That public education process cannot occur in an environment where even commissioned graffiti art is demonized.

UPDATE: Graffiti is going upscale! Here are the $175 per pair sneakers Adidas is promoting with its graffiti art, dubbed Adidas Originals. Yikes! For $175 I can buy a pair of decent, white sneakers, hire a graff artist to paint them, then take us both out to dinner on the leftover cash.

See Grits' recent series on graffiti law and policy solutions:

• Graffiti, art, vandalism and subversion
  
• Toward a restorative graffiti policy
• Graffiti solutions: A cost-benefit analysis
• Paint responsibly: Museum offers hands-on graffiti exhibit
• Graffiti on the brain and around the world
  
• Digital graffiti, or, Is there something to a wall that wants us to write on it?
• R.I.P. Victor Montano: Houston graffiti artist
• Can you be arrested for public knitting?
• Amarillo PD pressures businesses to file graffiti charges
  
• Out of our minds: Isn't felony graffiti overkill for sixth graders?
• Charging graffiti as a state jail felony?

TYC under the microscope

As a couple of folks mentioned in the comments, Texas legislators on a joint oversight committee will return to Austin next Wednesday to hear testimony about reforms at the Texas Youth Commission, reports the Austin Statesman:

Amid growing controversy over the proposed release on parole of more than 150 youth offenders, a majority of them serving time for violent crimes, a special legislative committee on Tuesday scheduled a public hearing to review ongoing reforms at the scandal-racked Texas Youth Commission.

The Capitol hearing is set for 10 a.m. Aug. 29, committee officials said.

Rep. Jerry Madden, R-Richardson, a committee co-chairman, said the panel will hear from Youth Commission officials and members of the public on issues at the agency, which is in charge of incarcerating and rehabilitating teenage offenders in Texas.

Many questions I might pose to the agency and the committee should have already been answered in a FAQ document created from TYC's much-ballyhooed State of the Agency tour. Every time I ask about the FAQ, I'm told it will be released soon - yesterday I was told it would be released "today" - but so far, nada. TYC should release that document immediately so the information can inform testimony at next week's public hearing. Here are a few of my own unanswered questions, offhand:

• Where is the rehabilitation plan?
• Where is the conservator's report?
• Where is the State of the Agency FAQ?
• Where is the agency's use of force policy?
• Does TYC still plan to privatize incarcerating 10-13 year olds?
• If not, how will stated reduction goals for inmate populations be achieved?
• If inmate populations don't go down as much as anticipated, how will the agency address understaffing?
• Why have so many senior staff positions been filled with TDCJ employees instead of juvenile justice experts?

Let me know in the comments what you think the best thing that could come out of this hearing would be - what questions should the committee be asking and what stewing issues need to be addressed at the legislative level? What could they do that would help instead of hurt?

The 400

Last night's execution of Johnny Ray Conner was the 400th since Texas resumed the death penalty.

In theory I don't oppose the death penalty, but I oppose the way we carry it out in Texas. It's supposed to be reserved for the worst of the worst, but instead it's applied arbitrarily to those with crappy lawyers, no money, and disproportionately depending what county you live in.

Let's face it: There aren't any rich guys on death row. The death penalty in Texas is the poor man's justice. Or really, the poor and unlucky. Even in Texas, the nation's most prolific capital punisher, less than 2% of murderers receive the death penalty.

The clearance rate for murders nationally (the number of crimes solved and prosecuted) has declined to 60%. So there's a 40% chance a murderer won't get caught, and a greater than 98% chance if they're caught that even Texas won't apply the death penalty. That's not an even-handed administration of justice, and it certainly creates no meaningful deterrent.

Texas has three more executions scheduled before the end of August, including Kenneth Foster who didn't actually kill anyone, and five presently scheduled for September. Given that, perhaps the title of this post should have been "The 400 ... and counting."

Texas Criminal Justice News Roundup

I've been a little busy today but here are several news items that deserve Grits readers attention:

Investigator calls for HPD crime lab special master
With problems continuing to surface at the Houston Police Department Crime lab, investigator Michael Bromwich told a joint legislative committee that the agency needed a "special master," a move opposed by Chief Harold Hurtt and Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal.

TYC intake facility officially transfers to TDCJ
The Texas Youth Commission's Orientation and Assessment duties have been officially transferred from the unit in Marlin to the facility in Mart, near Waco. The Marlin unit has been transferred to the adult prison system. Good luck to all the former Marlin employees.

Shaquanda featured in Seventeen
TYC's most celebrated former inmate, Shaquanda Cotton, told her story in a two-page spread in the current issue of Seventeen magazine, reports the Paris News. It's a full-page article written in the first person with Veronica Byrd.

El Paso bribery scandal
Since I've been writing recently about bribery I should point out coverage of a simmering payola scandal in El Paso County involving the commissioners court. A commissioner and the county judge's chief of staff have already been indicted.

Prison warden dies in accident
Prison warden Clarence Mosley died in an apparent accident in the employee swimming pool at the Ferguson Unit in Madison County. Condolences to his friends and family. Mosley had been with TDCJ for 22 years.

Texas jail capacity expanding
Nicole at Texas Prison Bidness has an item on jails currently planned or under construction in Texas. She also provides an interesting chart detailing the 18 Texas counties where jail operation has been privatized.

Houston, Dallas must change local juvie policies to "fix" TYC

The Texas Youth Commission this spring announced plans to reduce its youth inmate population, but decisions about who goes to TYC are made locally, and recently the number of youth committed to TYC has grown annually.

From data on the TYC website I compiled this spreadsheet listing the ten largest contributing counties to TYC:



As one might expect, Houston and Dallas led TYC's growth over the last five years, with the number of commitments from Harris County increasing 57% and the number in Dallas increasing 27%. By comparison, Bexar (San Antonio) and Tarrant (Fort Worth) Counties' number of commitments have remained flat, while Travis County (Austin) commitments increased 66%, though overall numbers were much lower than in the larger cities.

(Harris County also leads the state, by far, in the number of juveniles who are charged as adults for their crimes.)

TYC can use parole mechanisms to reduce the inmate population, and in the short-term that's probably what they'll do. But the idea has already drawn backlash, and Texas youth prisons will fill back up pretty quickly if recent growth in commitments doesn't subside. (The average length of stay per commitment is around two years, so over time there's an aggregating effect.)

Though I've been plenty critical of TYC on this site, what's often overlooked is that the juvenile justice system deals with most kids at the local level. When local jurisdictions begin sending more kids to TYC, that's a sign their local systems are failing at a greater rate. So whatever happens at TYC, Texas' juvenile corrections problems won't be solved until Texas' major cities begin to improve local outcomes.

Speed Reading on Death Row

In the future inmates in Texas prisons can read about Jackie Robinson, even if the Texas Department of Criminal Justice wouldn't let Kenneth Foster.

I just got off the phone with TDCJ public information officer Jason Clark who assured me that the refusal of the book on sports history to death row inmate Kenneth Foster that I wrote about yesterday was an accident, that it should have been approved.

Clark said the book was flagged in the mailroom because of racial content (historical passages about baseball great Jackie Robinson and boxer Jack Johnson), but that supervisors should have approved it under current policies. They didn't (no one knows why), so a denial letter went out citing the passages flagged by the mailroom.

He added that after the book's author wrote about the episode in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, a notification/correction was sent to both the publisher and the inmate to let them know it was okay if the author wanted to re-send the book.

That's cutting it pretty close, isn't it? Kenneth Foster is scheduled to be executed nine days from now on August 30, so if they're going to get him that book they'd better hurry. :-/

Clark and I talked through what information TDCJ keeps on rejected books, and I think I'll go ahead and file an open records request for the data tomorrow. After this episode, I want to see for myself the complete list of books TDCJ is rejecting and their policies.

Do irresponsible vetoes count as 'high crimes and misdemeanors'?

Via Burnt Orange Report we learn of a new effort by veteran activist Linda Curtis and the group Independent Texans to impeach Governor Rick Perry, and I was interested to see that complaints about his criminal justice vetoes made the list of top ten reasons they want the Governor gone:

10. A series of vetoes put the Perry poison pen to bipartisan criminal justice reform that would slow the pace of incarceration and provide for alternative funding mechanisms. Meanwhile prison guards remain some of the worst paid workers in the state and, as a result, the state prisons are dangerously under guarded. (In fact, we hear the Governor thinks prison guards should be paid minimum wage for the privilege of putting their lives on the line every day.)

Like several other items listed, I don't think this qualifies as "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is the standard required for impeachment. But it does tell us that the Governor's ineffable and harmful veto decisions on criminal justice haven't escaped public notice.

Warders, Plods and Grassing: British law enforcement jargon

In the "You learn something new every day" department, most everybody knows that in England a "bobbie" is a policeman, but did you know that another common synonym for policeman is a "plod"?

Recently I've run across bits of UK law enforcement slang used in lieu of common American terms by British sources I've been reading. I had to look these terms up to figure out what they were talking about, so on the assumption others might not know them either, I thought I'd mention them:

Grassing
"Grassing" in the UK means snitching, as it turns out, and a "supergrass" is the equivalent of American police calling an informant a "supersnitch." E.g., the BBC recently quoted a police expert declaring that "Grassing has always been a high-risk business. Why anybody would wish to do it nowadays is beyond me, yet they do." To have someone snitch on you is to be "grassed up."

Perhaps not surprisingly, whether you call them a grass or a snitch, informant use in the UK runs up against the same problems there as in the US. One police source told the BBC: "A lot of units turn a blind eye to these sources committing crimes. In fact they sometimes say to them, 'Just make sure you don't get caught'."

Warders
A "warder" in the UK is a prison guard. This one always trips me up reading news stories because my brain wants to transform the word into "warden," but a warder is not the head of a prison, just a regular C.O., in US lingo. (Incidentally, though in recent years Texas prison guards have been more likely than any of their US counterparts to be arrested, I've yet to see one of our TDCJ folks attempt anything as bold as what this British warder was planning, helping inmates escape prison vial helicopter in exchange for 5,000 pounds sterling.) This source adds that a "zombie" is a "particularly nasty prison officer - more dead than alive."

Nick
This is an especially flexible, context-driven term: To "nick" something means to steal it, to be "nicked" means you've been arrested, and to be "in the nick" means you're in jail or prison.

Perhaps Sunray's Wench or other British readers can supply additional terms or context in the comments.

Assistant AG: Edit CI out of video to avoid "confrontation" issues

Do you really have a right to confront your accuser if the government doesn't tell you who they are? That question came to mind today when I saw a request on the Texas DA's message board from a Longview prosecutor asking for help:

We have a case pending where we cannot find a confidential informant. The CI is not crucial to the case as we have a video of the illegal acts by the defendant. Can we play the video, with the CI in it, without calling the CI as a witness? Could we argue that the CI's statements in the video are nontestimonial?

Trial tomorrow... need help.

Upon further questioning from peers, the Longview ADA revealed that he wasn't worried about revealing the informant's identity, but about "his statements in the video as they relate to Crawford and confrontation" - i.e., the right of the defendant to face his accuser.

In other words, the informant apparently played a more significant role in the undercover arrangement than prosecutors had planned to reveal. The informant's statements on tape, though not exculpatory, could lead the defense to claim the charges were brought in part based on the snitch's accusation. Under the confrontation clause in the Constitution, that would mean the defense is allowed to confront him in court and cross-examine his testimony.

I should mention before going on, the Longview ADA could have saved himself a lot of trouble by revealing the CI to the defense earlier and giving them a chance to interview the witness before trial. Now, when they can't produce the CI, prosecutors are caught looking either a) unprepared or b) like they're concealing something.

But more surprising was this suggestion from a forum participant identified as an Assistant AG at the Texas Attorney General's office: "If the CI does say something cross-Crawford," he suggested, "then you could edit the tape to take it out, possibly."

Hmmmm. Some of you lawyers help me out and tell me if I'm translating the legalese correctly: If the defendant should be allowed to confront the CI-accuser in court (i.e., if evidence on the tape is "cross-Crawford"), the Assistant AG's advice is to edit it out? Really? Not to seek a continuance and find the CI. Not to inform the court the witness isn't available. But to hide the evidence?

I'm not a lawyer; maybe I'm misinterpreting; perhaps that's somehow kosher in legal circles. But something about that doesn't smell right.

As always, I've copied the discussion string onto this Google document in case the association removes the link. UPDATE: See Houston defense attorney Mark Bennett's clarifications in the comments on why this might be okay.

Amarillo PD pressures businesses to file graffiti charges

When it comes to graffiti, the Amarillo PD does not consider forgiveness a virtue, reports the Globe-News ("Vandals mark city with graffiti," Aug. 21):

"We've had several cases over the last several years where the businesses have backed out of filing charges," [a police spokesman] said. "They forgave (the taggers). That'll teach 'em.

"We have to get organized and deal with (graffiti). Once we do catch them, please meet us halfway and file charges and stick with the charges."

Amarillo police sound more worked up over the issue than the crime victims, one of whom declared, "It's a shame people have to do that to get attention for their group ... Things happen. ... It's just a pain to have to deal with it." That person doesn't come off nearly so angry or vindictive as the police officer, who basically wants to punish somebody as harshly as possible to set an example.

I'm guessing, but possibly the reason folks won't press charges is that graffiti penalties are so high that victims don't believe the punishment is proportionate to the crime. They'd rather see no one prosecuted than have someone penalized too harshly. After all, when you start talking about felony charges that can ruin the rest of someone's life, who really thinks graffiti is worth that?

To err is human, said the poet, to forgive, Divine. Given the circumstances, with punishments for graffiti so over the top (the pictured graffiti, says the paper, will be prosecuted as a felony if they can find the perpetrators), do those business owners really deserve criticism for refusing to cooperate? Perhaps they realize something the Amarillo police spokesman doesn't?

* * *

Speaking of graffiti, I often refer to graff artists as "kids" or "youth," because they usually are, but in Staten Island, NY police arrested what must be the oldest tagger in existence - 42 years old! "I've been doing this my whole life," he told the officers, though this was apparently his first arrest. (Now I'm sure authorities, as in Amarillo, will call for his harsh punishment on the grounds that jail is a deterrent.) Most taggers have outgrown the habit by sometime in their 20s, so you've got to give the fellow credit for persistence, at any rate.

* * *

UPDATE: A new graffiti ordinance in San Angelo ("City moves forward on graffiti-cleaning ordinance," SA Standard Times, Aug. 21) will require property owners:

to make arrangements to clean graffiti off their properties -- even if it's through the free service soon to be provided by the city's Municipal Court.

The ordinance, aimed at counteracting an alarming increase in gang-related graffiti in recent months, would create the Municipal Court program, make arrangements for private-property owners to sign a waiver allowing city crews to clean vandalism, and prohibit anyone other than a parent or legal guardian from providing spray cans to anyone younger than 17. ...

Under the ordinance, city crews would clean graffiti on public property within seven days of notification, while private landowners would have 10 days to remove graffiti on their property before being issued a citation.

The city plans to distribute abatement and indemnification forms for residents to report graffiti and give permission for cleanup work on their property, said Municipal Court prosecutor Jason Jares, who crafted the ordinance.

I think San Angelo is getting this half right. To me, part of the answer must be publicly funded graffiti removal, as with the new Graffitibusters truck in Corpus Christi. (Though I'd prefer a faster response time than the seven days proposed in San Angelo.) However the ordinance as drafted would punish property owners who didn't report graffiti to the municipal court or pay to clean it up themselves.

That punishes the victims of crime in a way that doesn't seem justified. As one commenter at the Standard Times accurately put it, "If you're the city - it's a win/win deal. If you are the victim of a crime - it's a lose/lose deal." I think that's right. That's why I'd proposed offering municipal cleanup services, but without the coercion. Let the kids in juvenile probation work off their community service scrubbing walls. Why punish property owners for what criminals did to their property?

I suppose the concern is that some property owners will tolerate graffiti or that absentee property owners simply won't care. I don't know how to get around that hurdle without coercion - perhaps when the owner is unavailable, neighbors could be empowered to request graffiti removal. But punishing victims of crime seems small-minded given that law enforcement has itself found policing graffiti nearly impossible.

See Grits' recent series on graffiti solutions linked here.

Debate over eyewitness reforms based on conflicting agendas, not disputed science

Ben Hiltzheimer at the Eyewitness ID blog rightly says that when it comes to debates about reforming eyewitness identification procedures, "the 'disagreement' is one of conflicting agendas, not unresolved questions of science." Eye ID insightfully compares prosecutors' position to that of the tobacco industry:

To the extent that there is disagreement on this point, it is not a disagreement among scientists or any sort of conflict in empirical findings. Rather, it is an objection by prosecutors at the audacity of scientists who dare to suggest that science should inform criminal justice policy. After all, the Chicago Police Department has been doing lineups for decades. Who are these scientists to tell them their procedures are flawed? It's like a bunch of M.D.s telling cigarette manufacturers that smoking causes cancer. ...

To characterize the status of the debate as "not yet resolved" is to fall prey to the prosecutorial agenda to resist reform at any cost; it's tantamount to concluding that the smoking/cancer link has yet to be established because Philip Morris executives find that fact to be in conflict with their profit motive. Except that it's a little less clear what interest is being protected by the prosecutors who resist lineup reforms, since presumably they share the interest in prosecuting actual criminals, while protecting the innocent.

In my experience with Texas government, Hiltzheimer nails the political dynamic: Police and prosecutor lobby groups resist reform "at any cost" save for supporting the twin, one-way ratchets of reducing civil liberties and increasing criminal penalties, their solutions to every problem.

On the question of eyewitness identification procedures, I also agree that prosecutor opposition to procedural improvements seems insensible considering their job is to accuse the guilty and protect the innocent. Police and DA interest groups frequently seem to oppose such reforms reflexively, more out of habit than from any thoughtful consideration.

A bill to create a study group in Texas to propose lineup reforms, SB 799, passed the Senate and the House Law Enforcement Committee in 2007, but was never scheduled by the House Calendars Committee for a floor vote. (Related legislation to create a statewide "Innocence Commission" died in the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee.) I'm hoping some committee chair in the Texas Legislature will select this as an interim study topic.

We know Texas has experienced wrongful convictions, probably many more than we know about. We know that faulty eyewitness testimony has been at the center of most of these cases. Finally, writes Hiltzheimer, we know that "Every peer reviewed study on the topic" agrees that "that sequential lineup procedures are less likely to put innocent people in prison." In Dallas, "almost all of those exonerated were convicted with eyewitness testimony that proved to be wrong." That includes victims' testimony as well as independent witnesses.

So why would those in law enforcement risk their credibility by opposing research-based best practices? Perhaps it's because they fear old cases done under old methods might be put in jeopardy, but honestly I'm often perplexed at their motive, not to mention the intensity with which they dislike legislation aimed at reducing wrongful convictions.

NIMBY legislator hounds halfway house out of her neighborhood

Collin County neighbors led by state Rep. Jodie Laubenberg hounded a local halfway house until it finally shut its doors, reports WFAA-TV.

So, Ms. Laubenberg, you'd rather have these folks homeless on the street, perhaps burglarizing your house instead of receiving re-entry services? Where would you have them go? For once the Texas Department of Criminal Justice called a spade a spade:

A spokesperson for the TDCJ told us "there's such a 'not in my neighborhood mentality' that it's impossible for these people to get back on their feet."

"That is absolutely not true. The way you get someone back on their feet and rehabilitated is you put them somewhere where there is accountability, where there is structure," Laubenberg said.

She and the sheriff say they are fine with halfway houses in Collin County, as long as it's in an appropriate place, not a half block away from where kids play.

Uh, so where in any community isn't near somewhere that kids play? Or perhaps we're just concerned with Rep. Laubenberg's kids?

Men are from Mars, Dogs are from Venus

I've always been a dog person. Indeed, I like most dogs more than most people, if ever forced to choose. So I strongly support the recent trend in some prisons of teaching inmates to train dogs while they're incarcerated.

The patience and discipline required to train dogs, combined with the companionship and unconditional love a dog can give, teaches inmates values like selflessness and responsibility that prison life usually discourages. In some cases this can be a transformative experience. Last week in Venus, TX, the Cleburne Times reports ("Paws in prisons holds first graduation," Aug. 19), inmates:

showed off the skills of dogs they trained at a graduation ceremony Wednesday at the Sanders Estes Unit ...

The eight week Paws in Prison program ended with inmates thanking Warden David McComis and other prison employees for allowing them to train the dogs.

“This has given me a whole different outlook on life,” said Mario Perez, an inmate who trained a dog named Midnight. “I am planning to stay in the program for one more round.”

Deputy Warden Michael Ringer said the Sanders Estes Unit plans to build the program and bring in more dogs over the next few months.

“This has had a positive impact on our facility,” he said.

The Sanders Estes Unit is the third GEO-run facility to implement Paws in Prison.

Wally Swanson, founder of the Camp Wolfgang dog rescue, donates dogs to the program, and Maximum K9 trainer Gayle Justice teaches inmates to train the dogs.

“There have been less disciplinary issues in the prison since the program began,” Swanson said. “Over the decades I have rarely had an involvement that is win-win like this is.”

Justice said inmates who handle the dogs have a deep concern for them.

“They really love the dogs,” she said. ...

The inmates train the dogs to be more social so they are more likely to be adopted, said GEO K9 Program Manager Michelle Gaconnet. ...

Dixon said the program taught him more about responsibility.

“This has brought a lot into my life,” he said through tears.

Inmate Bradley Waltermire agreed.

“You learn to give care to someone other than yourself,” he said.

Words are dangerous things: Jackie Robinson too subversive for TDCJ reading list

If the pen is mightier than the sword, then words must truly be dangerous things.

Which must explain why the Texas Department of Criminal Justice wouldn't let death row inmate Kenneth Foster read a book on sports history that quoted Jackie Robinson, author David Zirin writes in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram ("Are words dangerous?," Aug. 19). TDCJ informed Zirin that his book"contains material that a reasonable person would construe as written solely for the purpose of communicating information designed to achieve the breakdown of prisons through offender disruption such as strikes or riots." Here's the offending passage from Robinson:

On Page 44, the radioactive quote in question was from that seditious revolutionary Jackie Robinson -- you know, the guy whose number is retired by all of Major League Baseball. I quoted Robinson's autobiography, I Never Had It Made, when he wrote about suffering racism early in his rookie season:

"I felt tortured and I tried to just play ball and ignore the insults. But it was really getting to me. ... For one wild and rage-crazed moment I thought, 'To hell with Mr. Rickey's "noble experiment." ... To hell with the image of the patient black freak I was supposed to create.' I could throw down my bat, stride over to that Phillies dugout, grab one of those white sons of [expletive] and smash his teeth in with my despised black fist. Then I could walk away from it all."

The other verboten passage made an historical reference to race riots in the US after Jack Johnson became the first black man to win the heavyweight boxing title.

I wonder what other titles have been denied by TDCJ on such flimsy grounds? These "Publication review/denial notification" forms sound like a good topic for an open records request, don't they? If Jackie Robinson and Jack Johnson don't make the cut, it makes me wonder what other history or ideas TDCJ thinks it's too dangerous for inmates to learn about.

As mentioned previously, there's a rally in Austin at the capitol tomorrow opposing Foster's execution, which is scheduled to take place at the end of this month.