I just heard a rumor that the bill creating a registration system for Violent Offenders in Texas modeled on the Sex Offender registration program (HB 105 by Rep. Debbie Riddle, which I discussed previously in this blog post) will likely be pulled from the Corrections Committee agenda on Monday and not heard on that day.
The reason, says my source: The idea is unworkable and law enforcement already can't handle the workload from so many sex offender registrees. Plus, the DPS criminal convictions database already lists all violent felons.
Friday, February 16, 2007
'Round the blogs
Looking to satiate your need for Texas criminal justice and legislative news? Read these other blogs for a while and I'll get back to you soon:
While you're surfing, visit Kuff to tell him congrats on the birth of his new daughter Audrey, seen here under the bili lights.
While you're surfing, visit Kuff to tell him congrats on the birth of his new daughter Audrey, seen here under the bili lights.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Sex Offender Tuesday in House Criminal Jurisprudence
It looks like Tuesday is sex offender day in the Texas House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee. See their agenda here. What a heavy topic for their first day of real committee work!
When I see all these git-tuff proposals targeting child molesters and sex offenders, I can't help but think of James Waller, who was the 12th recent person exonerated in Dallas County by DNA evidence. Waller was convicted in 1982 of the rape of a child, and he was lucky there happened to be DNA evidence available to disprove his conviction 24 years later. Many such cases are made solely through eyewitness identifications, as in Waller's case, which are notoriously inaccurate.
Given Waller's case, as Texas prepares to make sentences for child molesters more "tough," I wonder why isn't more attention being paid to making sure the right person is being punished?
Sometimes it seems like public safety really isn't the goal. I mean, it's not as though Texas isn't plenty tough on sex offenders already, especially those who commit crimes against children. According to the House Research Organization (p. 3):
Given documented problems with eyewitness testimony, it would especially concern me to expand the statute of limitations to 20 years after the victim's 18th birthday, as Rep. Riddle proposes. That means cases would be more likely to turn on eyewitness testimony and less likely to involve DNA or other tangible evidence. I just turned 40, and events that occurred when I was ten years old, I assure you, aren't clear enough to me for anyone to rely upon in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
I hear all sorts of ill-informed, do-gooder rhetoric supporting these types of laws, particularly from liberal Dems. On the Burnt Orange Report, Todd Hill, who courageously recounts his own experience with child abuse, improperly draws conclusions from his own experience that just don't hold up to scrutiny. "Trust me," he writes, "a pedophile never stops no matter how old they are." But it's just not true.
The best research on the subject says child molesters are far less likely to recidivate than other types of offenders. This recent study from Washington State (see the chart on p. 12) found that:
So I'm sorry, Todd, I won't "trust" your word over those who have applied social science methodologies to the question. I regret your pain and the trauma you went through, but there is a reason an enlightened society does not allow crime victims to decide sentencing. It's too easy for emotion to trump facts and logic. That's the point I think we've reached in the sex offender debate. It's ridiculous to be "tougher" than we are - we've reached the maximum level of "tuffness" that generates any public safety benefit and now politicians are just grandstanding on the topic, often in ways that make us less safe.
Of the other sex offender bills up Tuesday, all by Democrats, two would implement new residency restrictions on sex offenders and another attempts to keep them out of public parks. (Regular readers know I think such residency restrictions harm public safety more than help it by boosting absconder rates and driving sex offenders underground instead of complying with their supervision because they can't find a place to live.)
The last bill up, by Chairman Peña, would allow anonymity for victims receiving compensation from the state victim compensation fund. I don't know much about how that fund is administered, but I've gotta say I don't like the idea of a state fund doling out compensation to anonymous people, you know what I mean? If the victim went to the authorities with a complaint and the accused person was convicted, their name is already public - certainly the offender, who is the only person a victim might fear, already knows who they are.
So in sum, I don't like any of these bills. None are necessary; all risk potentially greater harm than any likely benefit. But I'm discouraged that I suspect one or more will pass, especially with Democrats like Mr. Hill urging their legislators to "Steal the legislation" in an ill-conceived strategy to out-tough the Republicans.
If Democrats, who control the committee with a 7-2 majority, did want to "steal" this legislation, they should do so by remembering James Waller and making sure that, for the toughest penalties on the books in Texas, safeguards are in place to ensure that no innocent person is ever convicted again. Those reforms might include:
Ask Mr. Waller.
BLOGVERSATION: See excellent commentary on the subject from Corrections Sentencing, which calls for differentiating punishments for sex offenders in much the same fashion as suggested by the Texas House Corrections Committee interim report, and another post supporting Jessica's Law from Todd Hill at BoR. Also, meet the Sex Offender Issues blog.
When I see all these git-tuff proposals targeting child molesters and sex offenders, I can't help but think of James Waller, who was the 12th recent person exonerated in Dallas County by DNA evidence. Waller was convicted in 1982 of the rape of a child, and he was lucky there happened to be DNA evidence available to disprove his conviction 24 years later. Many such cases are made solely through eyewitness identifications, as in Waller's case, which are notoriously inaccurate.
Given Waller's case, as Texas prepares to make sentences for child molesters more "tough," I wonder why isn't more attention being paid to making sure the right person is being punished?
Sometimes it seems like public safety really isn't the goal. I mean, it's not as though Texas isn't plenty tough on sex offenders already, especially those who commit crimes against children. According to the House Research Organization (p. 3):
Offenders convicted a second time of the two most serious offenses against a child – sexual assault of a child or aggravated sexual assault of a child – automatically receive a life sentence under Penal Code, sec. 12.42(c)(2). Inmates sentenced to life in prison are eligible for parole only after serving 35 years, without consideration of time off for good conduct. Parole can be granted to these offenders only upon approval by at least five of the seven members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles.Even so, Reps. Riddle and Phillips would get tougher on sex offenders, still, by removing their few remaining options for parole. (That's problematic for at least two reasons: it makes inmates more dangerous while inside prison and massively boosts healthcare costs for elderly prisoners.)
Given documented problems with eyewitness testimony, it would especially concern me to expand the statute of limitations to 20 years after the victim's 18th birthday, as Rep. Riddle proposes. That means cases would be more likely to turn on eyewitness testimony and less likely to involve DNA or other tangible evidence. I just turned 40, and events that occurred when I was ten years old, I assure you, aren't clear enough to me for anyone to rely upon in court beyond a reasonable doubt.
I hear all sorts of ill-informed, do-gooder rhetoric supporting these types of laws, particularly from liberal Dems. On the Burnt Orange Report, Todd Hill, who courageously recounts his own experience with child abuse, improperly draws conclusions from his own experience that just don't hold up to scrutiny. "Trust me," he writes, "a pedophile never stops no matter how old they are." But it's just not true.
The best research on the subject says child molesters are far less likely to recidivate than other types of offenders. This recent study from Washington State (see the chart on p. 12) found that:
Sex offenders who victimize children have the lowest felony recidivism rates as well as the lowest sex (2.3 percent) and violent felony (5.7 percent) recidivism rates.By contrast, Texas' statewide felony recidivism rate is 28.3%.
So I'm sorry, Todd, I won't "trust" your word over those who have applied social science methodologies to the question. I regret your pain and the trauma you went through, but there is a reason an enlightened society does not allow crime victims to decide sentencing. It's too easy for emotion to trump facts and logic. That's the point I think we've reached in the sex offender debate. It's ridiculous to be "tougher" than we are - we've reached the maximum level of "tuffness" that generates any public safety benefit and now politicians are just grandstanding on the topic, often in ways that make us less safe.
Of the other sex offender bills up Tuesday, all by Democrats, two would implement new residency restrictions on sex offenders and another attempts to keep them out of public parks. (Regular readers know I think such residency restrictions harm public safety more than help it by boosting absconder rates and driving sex offenders underground instead of complying with their supervision because they can't find a place to live.)
The last bill up, by Chairman Peña, would allow anonymity for victims receiving compensation from the state victim compensation fund. I don't know much about how that fund is administered, but I've gotta say I don't like the idea of a state fund doling out compensation to anonymous people, you know what I mean? If the victim went to the authorities with a complaint and the accused person was convicted, their name is already public - certainly the offender, who is the only person a victim might fear, already knows who they are.
So in sum, I don't like any of these bills. None are necessary; all risk potentially greater harm than any likely benefit. But I'm discouraged that I suspect one or more will pass, especially with Democrats like Mr. Hill urging their legislators to "Steal the legislation" in an ill-conceived strategy to out-tough the Republicans.
If Democrats, who control the committee with a 7-2 majority, did want to "steal" this legislation, they should do so by remembering James Waller and making sure that, for the toughest penalties on the books in Texas, safeguards are in place to ensure that no innocent person is ever convicted again. Those reforms might include:
- Improving eyewitness identification procedures.
- Requiring corroboration for eyewitnesses that did not previously know the defendant.
- Giving indigent defendants access to independent crime lab experts.
- Require District Attorneys to maintain an open file policy to ensure disclosure of exculpatory evidence.
Ask Mr. Waller.
BLOGVERSATION: See excellent commentary on the subject from Corrections Sentencing, which calls for differentiating punishments for sex offenders in much the same fashion as suggested by the Texas House Corrections Committee interim report, and another post supporting Jessica's Law from Todd Hill at BoR. Also, meet the Sex Offender Issues blog.
Border Patrol shooting case points to unfairness of federal sentencing guidelines
For those interested in the case of the two Border Patrol Agents who famously received stiff sentences for shooting an unarmed, fleeing drug dealer in the back then lying about it, the Texas Western District US Attorney has put quite a bit of information online about the case, including the trial transcripts. Doc Berman has had the best commentary on the subject, and I refer you to his most recent post on the topic and the links to others at the end.
For my part, this case fascinates me, but the federal issues involved are beyond my ability to knowledgably debate, which is why I've mostly left it to Berman and others to cover the subject even though it's a Texas case. On the one hand, what the officers did deserved prosecution. On the other hand, I look at their sentences of more than ten years for actions taken in the heat of the moment, then compare them with the seven year probated sentence Tom Coleman received for perjury after the Tulia drug stings, and I understand why some people think the sentence is too harsh.
Here's the rub, as I understand it: The federal sentencing guidelines established by Congress mandated these harsh sentences. It's true prosecutorial discretion to push for the max after a plea bargain was rejected also contributed, but that's done in every case. So for Congress to revisit the sentences would require revisiting what I and many others think are fundamentally unjust federal guidelines and mandatory minimums. In other words, Congress would conceivably have to alter rules that unfairly hike sentences for MANY defendants, not just these two.
That's why I'm glad Doc Berman and many on the right are focusing on this. It's not that I think Border Patrol agents deserve more (or less) justice than anyone else accused of a crime. But the context allows even the most arch conservative who might not otherwise be able to hear such arguments to listen, understand, and even agree with them. Berman's dogged articulation of the sentencing implications raised by these cases, to me, opens up an interesting opportunity to discuss these arcane federal sentencing rules with a conservative audience that's anxious for good arguments, and I'm glad he's taking it.
For my part, this case fascinates me, but the federal issues involved are beyond my ability to knowledgably debate, which is why I've mostly left it to Berman and others to cover the subject even though it's a Texas case. On the one hand, what the officers did deserved prosecution. On the other hand, I look at their sentences of more than ten years for actions taken in the heat of the moment, then compare them with the seven year probated sentence Tom Coleman received for perjury after the Tulia drug stings, and I understand why some people think the sentence is too harsh.
Here's the rub, as I understand it: The federal sentencing guidelines established by Congress mandated these harsh sentences. It's true prosecutorial discretion to push for the max after a plea bargain was rejected also contributed, but that's done in every case. So for Congress to revisit the sentences would require revisiting what I and many others think are fundamentally unjust federal guidelines and mandatory minimums. In other words, Congress would conceivably have to alter rules that unfairly hike sentences for MANY defendants, not just these two.
That's why I'm glad Doc Berman and many on the right are focusing on this. It's not that I think Border Patrol agents deserve more (or less) justice than anyone else accused of a crime. But the context allows even the most arch conservative who might not otherwise be able to hear such arguments to listen, understand, and even agree with them. Berman's dogged articulation of the sentencing implications raised by these cases, to me, opens up an interesting opportunity to discuss these arcane federal sentencing rules with a conservative audience that's anxious for good arguments, and I'm glad he's taking it.
Welcome state employee readers!
I've been pleased to notice that since the legislative session started, on average between 5-7% of Grits for Breakfast readers on weekdays come from internet domains that end in .state.tx.us, which is the domain ending for most state agencies, including legislators and their staff.
That means more than one in 20 Grits readers are probably viewing this site from a state of Texas owned computer. What's more, the increase (in the legislative offseason that percentage hovers between 1-2%) comes at a time when this blogs' readership in general has increased. I'm awfully glad, as well as flattered, that folks working on these public policy topics in state government apparently find the information here useful.
So to state employees and new readers I say "Welcome." Be sure to check out the archives, tell your friends, and if you're afraid you might miss something, you can always sign up here to receive a daily email with links to all the previous day's posts:
Thanks for reading!
That means more than one in 20 Grits readers are probably viewing this site from a state of Texas owned computer. What's more, the increase (in the legislative offseason that percentage hovers between 1-2%) comes at a time when this blogs' readership in general has increased. I'm awfully glad, as well as flattered, that folks working on these public policy topics in state government apparently find the information here useful.
So to state employees and new readers I say "Welcome." Be sure to check out the archives, tell your friends, and if you're afraid you might miss something, you can always sign up here to receive a daily email with links to all the previous day's posts:
Subscribe to Grits for Breakfast:
Thanks for reading!
Lawsuit could force Texas to treat mentally incompetent defendants
A lawsuit by Advocacy Inc. in an Austin court may finally force Texas to address the problem of mentally ill defendants who've been declared "incompetent" sitting around in county jails for months awaiting mental health services, the Austin Statesman's Andrea Ball reported this morning ("Mentally ill in jail too long, lawsuit charges," 2-15).
(UPDATE: Here's a copy of the original filed petition, and another article from the SA Express News.)
I'm glad to see that - it's about time, IMO. I'm also proud to mention that this blog played a small role in Advocacy Inc. getting involved. Ball gave a good backgrounder on the subject:
Some mental health advocates, believe it or not, don't want to include funding for incompetent defendants in a big funding package for improving state mental health services. The reason: There is a bias among advocates - for the most part a justified one - toward de-institutionalization and enhancing "community-based" mental health services instead of hospitals. I understand that, and I agree it would be better if Texas community MHMR centers could provide competency restoration services. But right now, only the one in Houston does, and you can't just leave these people laying around in jail indefinitely until the mental health system gets its act together.
This lawsuit reminds the state, and hopefully legislative budget writers, that no advocacy group's political agenda nor any philosophical dispute over funding strategies gets to override defendants' constitutional rights - even, perhaps especially, defendants who've been declared mentally incompetent by a court. Then, IMO, the state assumes responsibility for that defendant, and has an obligation to provide the mental health treatment a judge said is required before the defendant can knowledgably assist in their own defense.
Good luck to Advocacy Inc. on the case. I hope the Lege ponies up and just makes your lawsuit unnecessary. In the meantime, see prior Grits coverage of this topic:
(UPDATE: Here's a copy of the original filed petition, and another article from the SA Express News.)
I'm glad to see that - it's about time, IMO. I'm also proud to mention that this blog played a small role in Advocacy Inc. getting involved. Ball gave a good backgrounder on the subject:
The lawsuit from Austin nonprofit group Advocacy Inc. says about 100 defendants with mental illnesses across the state have been declared incompetent to stand trial but are awaiting admission to a state psychiatric hospital.I hope this lawsuit finally brings this subject to a head. I know of one case where a defendant waited in this legal limbo more than six months. The Legislature could solve the problem, and should, by just ponying up for more "forensic beds." Sorry guys, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but when you establish laws that strip people of their rights, you then must pay for the process that allows them to be regained - that can't just be the end result!
That delay clogs local jails, slows the legal system and violates inmates' right to due process, said Beth Mitchell of Advocacy Inc.
Advocacy wants a Travis County court-at-law judge to force the state to take custody of the inmates and help them become competent to stand trial by sending them to a state hospital or a community treatment program.
"They can't just hold these people indefinitely," Mitchell said.
Officials from the Texas Department of State Health Services, which runs the state psychiatric hospitals and is named as a defendant in the lawsuit, did not immediately have a comment Wednesday.
The lawsuit comes as state psychiatric hospitals struggle to deal with a growing number of "forensic patients."
Accused of offenses that range from public intoxication to murder, the patients are considered incompetent to stand trial, so they remain in the hospital until they are able to participate in their defense.
Even though the number of forensic beds statewide grew from 399 in 2001 to 738 in 2006, there are not enough for everyone, the lawsuit says. So, until hospital beds are available, defendants sit in local jails.
Some mental health advocates, believe it or not, don't want to include funding for incompetent defendants in a big funding package for improving state mental health services. The reason: There is a bias among advocates - for the most part a justified one - toward de-institutionalization and enhancing "community-based" mental health services instead of hospitals. I understand that, and I agree it would be better if Texas community MHMR centers could provide competency restoration services. But right now, only the one in Houston does, and you can't just leave these people laying around in jail indefinitely until the mental health system gets its act together.
This lawsuit reminds the state, and hopefully legislative budget writers, that no advocacy group's political agenda nor any philosophical dispute over funding strategies gets to override defendants' constitutional rights - even, perhaps especially, defendants who've been declared mentally incompetent by a court. Then, IMO, the state assumes responsibility for that defendant, and has an obligation to provide the mental health treatment a judge said is required before the defendant can knowledgably assist in their own defense.
Good luck to Advocacy Inc. on the case. I hope the Lege ponies up and just makes your lawsuit unnecessary. In the meantime, see prior Grits coverage of this topic:
- Legislature should prioritize mental health funding that relieves local jails
- Chincy state hospital funding leaves mentally incompetent defendants stranded
- Unfunded mandate: Counties struggle to pay for mentally incompetent defendants' care
- More counties grumbling at backlog of incompetent defendants in county jails
- MH funding not enough, but better than a sharp stick in the eye
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
'An uncommonly bad law'
Bradley Clark at the Texas Law Blog tells about a case where a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge admonished the Legislature that they'd passed "an uncommonly bad law" when they made it a ticketable offense to obscure parts of the edge of your license plate. Reports Clark:
I was there to speak on another bill so I didn't address it, but upon departing, I noticed driving home all the dealer tag liners on nearly every car, as Bradley's post mentioned, that obviously violated the proposed law. I remember thinking to myself, 'that bill's dead, the car dealers will kill it."
I was stunned when it made it through, and I agree with Judge Cochran it's a ridiculous statute that wastes everybody's time and serves little purpose but as a pretext for harassment.
UPDATE: Rep. Harold Dutton of Houston has filed HB 743 which, it appears to me, would fix this "uncommonly bad law" as Judge Cochran has suggested.
NUTHER UPDATE: Dutton's bill should get a boost from wide coverage this morning (2/15) from AP and also the Austin Statesman, where Chuck Lindell adds these quotes from Judge Cochran:
Judge Cochran correctly concluded that the majority decided the legal question correctly (i.e., that it is a violation of State law) but that section 502.409(a)(7)(B) "is an uncommonly bad law...because it allows the police to arbitrarily stop, ticket, arrest, and search any person who is driving a car whose license plate frame covers up any portion of that plate's design." (emphasis added). And after taking the very unusual position of telling the State Legislature that this section is an "uncommonly bad law," Judge Cochran goes further and points out that members of the Legislature (as well as members of the Judiciary) are entitled to "special" licenses plates that don't have all the design work that your's and mine have and yet the same license plate frame which would obscure our license plate will not obscure their's.I was actually at the legislative committee hearing when this bill was heard, and recall being surprised at the racial overtones to the debate. It was all complaints about gold chains around the edges of license plates, coupled with worried laments about people with lights circling around the outside of the LP - in essence stuff you mostly see among young black drivers. The notion that car dealers do the same thing as advertising literally never came up at the hearing.
I was there to speak on another bill so I didn't address it, but upon departing, I noticed driving home all the dealer tag liners on nearly every car, as Bradley's post mentioned, that obviously violated the proposed law. I remember thinking to myself, 'that bill's dead, the car dealers will kill it."
I was stunned when it made it through, and I agree with Judge Cochran it's a ridiculous statute that wastes everybody's time and serves little purpose but as a pretext for harassment.
UPDATE: Rep. Harold Dutton of Houston has filed HB 743 which, it appears to me, would fix this "uncommonly bad law" as Judge Cochran has suggested.
NUTHER UPDATE: Dutton's bill should get a boost from wide coverage this morning (2/15) from AP and also the Austin Statesman, where Chuck Lindell adds these quotes from Judge Cochran:
"Be prepared to be pulled over and ticketed, and perhaps even arrested (and have your car towed) if your license plate frame obscures even one of the 'starry-night stars' on your license plate.
"Mothers driving their children to school should beware; not even the United States Supreme Court will protect you from arrest for violating the Texas Transportation Code."
New Border Sheriffs ED won't solve coordination problems
I'd like to learn more about the structure of funding and management of the millions of dollars Governor Perry is throwing at border enforcement through programs like Operation Linebacker and Operation Wrangler.
A new executive director has been named by the Border Sheriffs Coalition (a former DEA and Customs Agent and El Paso Sheriff's Deputy named Donald Reay), but that doesn't change my worries about the lack of a viable chain of command to oversee beefed up border enforcement. For starters, what authority does this new executive director have over the members of his Coalition? Answer: None. They're elected officials who aren't actually beholden to him.
Beyond that, which is just one piece of the puzzle, one wonders what is the relation between this coalition, the national guard troops, and the 11 joint intelligence centers the Governor has established? How will they be integrated into the Department of Public Safety's command structure? How is all this being coordinated, and by whom, and where does the buck stop when something goes wrong?
These questions remain unanswered, but they're the kind of questions that should have been asked before we ever started pumping millions of dollars into programs that don't appear to reduce crime.
A new executive director has been named by the Border Sheriffs Coalition (a former DEA and Customs Agent and El Paso Sheriff's Deputy named Donald Reay), but that doesn't change my worries about the lack of a viable chain of command to oversee beefed up border enforcement. For starters, what authority does this new executive director have over the members of his Coalition? Answer: None. They're elected officials who aren't actually beholden to him.
Beyond that, which is just one piece of the puzzle, one wonders what is the relation between this coalition, the national guard troops, and the 11 joint intelligence centers the Governor has established? How will they be integrated into the Department of Public Safety's command structure? How is all this being coordinated, and by whom, and where does the buck stop when something goes wrong?
These questions remain unanswered, but they're the kind of questions that should have been asked before we ever started pumping millions of dollars into programs that don't appear to reduce crime.
Pew Trusts: Expect expanding prison populations
From the 'tell us something we don't know' department, the Pew Charitable Trusts has released a study predicting an increase in prison populations over the next five years. (Here's the full report.)That's not news to Grits readers, nor likely will you be surprised to learn I think it's unnecessary and maybe counterproductive. Pew anticipates that level of incarceration expansion would require $27.5 billion in new spending over the next five years.
As I've argued repeatedly, another huge incarceration driver in the next few years, if current trends hold, will be immigration detention in Texas. Dave Maass and Kari Lydersen from the SA Current both have stories stories from the recent media tour of the facility in Williamson County where immigrant families including children are being held indefinitely pending deportation proceedings.
UPDATE: Naturally, Texas leads the way. According to the Austin Statesman:
four states — Florida, Texas, California and Arizona — will account for about 45 percent of the total prison population increase, the study found.James Austin, a co-author of the report, placed the onus for stemming the growth on probation and parole systems. "If we can get some kind of improvement in that area, these numbers would change radically," Austin said.
Corrections Committee starts to hear bills
CORRECTION: I misread the agenda date and these bills are up Monday, not this afternoon. I apologize for the error.
This week the Texas Lege gets rolling in earnest and bills are starting to be heard in committee. The House Appropriations Criminal Justice Subcommittee is meeting right now. And on Monday (at 2 pm or upon adjournment) the House Corrections Committee will hear its first bills of the session. (Webcast info here.)
Of the the legislation up in Corrections, all of three are relatively little bills. I like two of them, but think the third would be an unnecessary waste of money.
Restore tools to encourage better inmate behavior
Most important to guards and inmates in particular would be HB 44 by Rep. Terri Hodge, which allows good time to be restored to inmates at the discretion of TDCJ after it's been taken away for a rule infraction. The bill strikes one word: "not." It's easy to take a punitive stance and say if a prisoner breaks a rule, they should lose their good time as a consequence (good time counts extra, or is supposed to, toward an inmate's release). But as a practical matter the ability to take away and restore good time is a powerful management tool for guards and wardens running the prisons, and taking away that tool has contributed to making prisons a more dangerous place filled with hopeless people.
In time of grief
(See correction below.) Rep. Vicki Truitt has a rather innocuous bill up, HB 309, which extends the range of family members TDCJ must try to contact in the even of an inmate's death. I don't know if there was an incident where this came up - if an inmate died and no family could be found at all to even notify. That's a sad, grim, thought to contemplate. But it can't hurt and there's certainly nothing wrong with adding this language.
One bad idea DOESN'T deserve another
The one bill up Monday that I don't like is by HB 105 by Rep. Debbie Riddle, which creates a Violent Offender Registration database modeled on the Oh-S0-Successful Sex Offender Database, which is an enormous mess. The problem with the sex offender database is that it casts its net too widely and ostracizes people who are unlikely to be future threats. That would be even more true of a so-called violent offender database. Our community supervision systems are ridiculously overstretched, and I don't see how this is a remotely reasonable addition to their burdens.
NUTHER CORRECTION AND UPDATE: From the Corrections Committee staff:
This week the Texas Lege gets rolling in earnest and bills are starting to be heard in committee. The House Appropriations Criminal Justice Subcommittee is meeting right now. And on Monday (at 2 pm or upon adjournment) the House Corrections Committee will hear its first bills of the session. (Webcast info here.)
Of the the legislation up in Corrections, all of three are relatively little bills. I like two of them, but think the third would be an unnecessary waste of money.
Restore tools to encourage better inmate behavior
Most important to guards and inmates in particular would be HB 44 by Rep. Terri Hodge, which allows good time to be restored to inmates at the discretion of TDCJ after it's been taken away for a rule infraction. The bill strikes one word: "not." It's easy to take a punitive stance and say if a prisoner breaks a rule, they should lose their good time as a consequence (good time counts extra, or is supposed to, toward an inmate's release). But as a practical matter the ability to take away and restore good time is a powerful management tool for guards and wardens running the prisons, and taking away that tool has contributed to making prisons a more dangerous place filled with hopeless people.
In time of grief
(See correction below.) Rep. Vicki Truitt has a rather innocuous bill up, HB 309, which extends the range of family members TDCJ must try to contact in the even of an inmate's death. I don't know if there was an incident where this came up - if an inmate died and no family could be found at all to even notify. That's a sad, grim, thought to contemplate. But it can't hurt and there's certainly nothing wrong with adding this language.
One bad idea DOESN'T deserve another
The one bill up Monday that I don't like is by HB 105 by Rep. Debbie Riddle, which creates a Violent Offender Registration database modeled on the Oh-S0-Successful Sex Offender Database, which is an enormous mess. The problem with the sex offender database is that it casts its net too widely and ostracizes people who are unlikely to be future threats. That would be even more true of a so-called violent offender database. Our community supervision systems are ridiculously overstretched, and I don't see how this is a remotely reasonable addition to their burdens.
NUTHER CORRECTION AND UPDATE: From the Corrections Committee staff:
We wanted to let you know that in your Feb. 14 blog entry, "Corrections Committee to Hear Bills," your description of HB 309 by Truitt is not quite right. Chairman Madden would like to put out a correction from the Corrections Committee (no pun intended!).
The bill actually has to do with who can represent a deceased victim in the parole process if the victim’s immediate family (siblings, parents, children) are deceased or incapacitated- not notification of relatives of deceased inmates.
Also, Chairman Madden wanted to make sure you knew that Hodge's bill on good conduct time last session, HB1421, did make it out of committee.
Obviously, I apologize for the error, and I'll try to do better next time. Thanks Mr. Chairman, for the heads up.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Talton shows up at House Criminal Jurisprudence hearing after all
After vowing not to attend House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee hearings to protest being assigned to a committee he didn't request, Rep. Robert Talton did actually show up to the committee's first meeting. Good for him, though to be honest, watching the webcast he REALLY looks like he'd rather be somewhere else.
In any event, I was glad to see that he showed up after all - I'd hate see a legislator just slink off and pout, even a legislator I frequently disagree with. After all, his constituents deserve representation, too.
"We're going to have fun this session, aren't we?" Talton asked Will Harrell, the ACLU of Texas executive director who offered invited testimony before the committee. "Yes we are, sir" Harrell replied.
UPDATE: Jim Moran (sp?), a lobbyist for the Professional Bondsmen of Texas, was the last to testify before the committee. He took credit for personally convincing Rep. Talton to attend the meeting despite his earlier pronouncements, and Talton didn't disagree. Moran's "alter ego," Peña coaxed the lobbyist to reluctantly admit, operates a blog on Texas politics called Billy Clyde's Political Hot Tub Party. Check it out.
Also, you can watch the full hearing here.
In any event, I was glad to see that he showed up after all - I'd hate see a legislator just slink off and pout, even a legislator I frequently disagree with. After all, his constituents deserve representation, too.
"We're going to have fun this session, aren't we?" Talton asked Will Harrell, the ACLU of Texas executive director who offered invited testimony before the committee. "Yes we are, sir" Harrell replied.
UPDATE: Jim Moran (sp?), a lobbyist for the Professional Bondsmen of Texas, was the last to testify before the committee. He took credit for personally convincing Rep. Talton to attend the meeting despite his earlier pronouncements, and Talton didn't disagree. Moran's "alter ego," Peña coaxed the lobbyist to reluctantly admit, operates a blog on Texas politics called Billy Clyde's Political Hot Tub Party. Check it out.
Also, you can watch the full hearing here.
Morning Roundup
Here are a few disparate topics from around the web that earned my interest this morning, and that you might find interesting too:
Yes, we know, it's always a crisis: No more Travis County Jail bonds
Travis County last year convinced voters to approve $65 million in jail bonds, and now they inform us that when the new jail is built out the result will be slightly fewer prisoners housed than before, probably necessitating MORE jail building. As a Travis County voter, let me be the first to say, "No, thank you. Incarcerate fewer people, please."
Hitting the bottom of the barrel on prison and jail guard recruitment
It's not just Texas prisons having a problem with guard corruption but also local jails. With "surges" in Iraq and at the border, recruiting and retention will only grow more difficult. Nobody can hire enough guards and we're dipping deeper into the bottom of the barrel.
Looking for prostitutes in Amarillo
Amarillo has seen prostitution arrests decline, but an increase in complaints about prostitution, particularly as it moved away from its historic center point on Amarillo Boulevard and out to local truck stops. I thought this report from the Globe-News was interesting because it shows our current schizophrenic approach to prostitution - without the two hands of the city communicating (for obvious reasons) the cops are chasing after the women to arrest them, while the health department is doing outreach aimed to reduce disease transmission and provide access to services to those who want out. Who would you rather find them first?
Did Texas Border Patrol Agents get a fair shake?
Doc Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy has been doing a great job shaking out the many nuances to the sentencing of two Border Patrol agents who shot an unarmed drug dealer in the back then lied about it to investigators. Today's post looks at the case from the standpoint of prosecutorial charging discretion in light of a relatively low plea offer, and rounds up Doc's excellent recent coverage.
The War on the Uninsured?
If the war on drugs were to ever end, perhaps the war on the uninsured could take it's place? The Longview News-Journal has an excellent story on the pros and cons of towing vehicles when drivers receive a ticket for no insurance. For my part, as you might expect, I hate this approach and think there are lots of better ways to solve this problem. If the state is going to mandate insurance, it should just provide it through a government program and pay for it through everybody's gas tax. Don't tell me I have to contract with a private company then declare me a criminal and tow my car if I don't comply, all the while taking money from their lobbyists. (And politicians wonder why people think they're full of s#*t!) If it's true one in five drivers don't have insurance, then officers don't have time to hunt them all down and spend countless hours dealing with their towed vehicles. Bottom line: The criminal justice system has more important things to spend its time on.
That explains it
An informant in a landmark mob case passed away in Arkansas, which apparently is where old snitches go when they're put out to pasture. Maybe that's who the governor wanted to protect us from?
Yes, we know, it's always a crisis: No more Travis County Jail bonds
Travis County last year convinced voters to approve $65 million in jail bonds, and now they inform us that when the new jail is built out the result will be slightly fewer prisoners housed than before, probably necessitating MORE jail building. As a Travis County voter, let me be the first to say, "No, thank you. Incarcerate fewer people, please."
Hitting the bottom of the barrel on prison and jail guard recruitment
It's not just Texas prisons having a problem with guard corruption but also local jails. With "surges" in Iraq and at the border, recruiting and retention will only grow more difficult. Nobody can hire enough guards and we're dipping deeper into the bottom of the barrel.
Looking for prostitutes in Amarillo
Amarillo has seen prostitution arrests decline, but an increase in complaints about prostitution, particularly as it moved away from its historic center point on Amarillo Boulevard and out to local truck stops. I thought this report from the Globe-News was interesting because it shows our current schizophrenic approach to prostitution - without the two hands of the city communicating (for obvious reasons) the cops are chasing after the women to arrest them, while the health department is doing outreach aimed to reduce disease transmission and provide access to services to those who want out. Who would you rather find them first?
Did Texas Border Patrol Agents get a fair shake?
Doc Berman at Sentencing Law and Policy has been doing a great job shaking out the many nuances to the sentencing of two Border Patrol agents who shot an unarmed drug dealer in the back then lied about it to investigators. Today's post looks at the case from the standpoint of prosecutorial charging discretion in light of a relatively low plea offer, and rounds up Doc's excellent recent coverage.
The War on the Uninsured?
If the war on drugs were to ever end, perhaps the war on the uninsured could take it's place? The Longview News-Journal has an excellent story on the pros and cons of towing vehicles when drivers receive a ticket for no insurance. For my part, as you might expect, I hate this approach and think there are lots of better ways to solve this problem. If the state is going to mandate insurance, it should just provide it through a government program and pay for it through everybody's gas tax. Don't tell me I have to contract with a private company then declare me a criminal and tow my car if I don't comply, all the while taking money from their lobbyists. (And politicians wonder why people think they're full of s#*t!) If it's true one in five drivers don't have insurance, then officers don't have time to hunt them all down and spend countless hours dealing with their towed vehicles. Bottom line: The criminal justice system has more important things to spend its time on.
That explains it
An informant in a landmark mob case passed away in Arkansas, which apparently is where old snitches go when they're put out to pasture. Maybe that's who the governor wanted to protect us from?
Monday, February 12, 2007
Questioning Rissie Owens: What do you want to know from Texas Board of Pardons and Parole Chair?
I mentioned last week that Parole Board Chairwoman Rissie Owens, whose husband Ed is the number two man at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, had refused an on-camera interview with reporters at KHOU TV out of Houston, but said she would agree to answer written questions.
A couple of clever Grits commenters suggested some good ones, so I thought I'd make them their own post andwe'd start from there. I'd ask you, Grits readers, to add to this list of questions that should be asked in writing of the Board of Pardons and Parole Chair Rissie Owens:
A couple of clever Grits commenters suggested some good ones, so I thought I'd make them their own post andwe'd start from there. I'd ask you, Grits readers, to add to this list of questions that should be asked in writing of the Board of Pardons and Parole Chair Rissie Owens:
1) How many parole applicants have you actually met?Those are pretty good ones! I would add these, offhand:
2) How long do you spend on each parole application?
3) how many parole applicants are denied, even when they have satisfied conditions set at previous parole hearings?
4) What makes you think that an inmate coming up for parole after 20 years in prison is the same risk level as when they committed to original crime? Are you the same person you were 20 years ago?
5) Do 'parole packets' submitted by inmate's families and supporters have any effect on the Board's decision?
6) Why do you do your particular job? What do you think qualifies you to do it?
7) How many paroles are granted to inmates with lawyers compared to inmates without laawyers, detailed by risk level and offense severity?
8) Given Texas recent history of many convicted innocent people having been exonerated, should assertions of innocence be held against parole applicants, and if so why?So tell me gentle readers: What other questions have you got? Let me know what else you'd like to know from Ms. Owens, and perhaps we'll submit the questions in writing and see what happens? To give you a little more background to formulate your questions, see these prior Grits posts:
9) Are you aware when you make parole decisions whether an applicant is a trustee, and does that favor the applicant or make it more likely that they won't be released, particularly if they have a special skill?
10) Besides DWI offenders, who you've said you think need to be reclassified, are there any other specific reasons the parole board is not meeting its minimum release guidelines for releasing Level 6 and 7 offenders?
Peña introduces Criminal Jurisprudence staff as first meeting nears
The House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee will hold its first hearing tomorrow at 2 pm or upon adjournment and Chairman Peña has offered this post introducing his office and committee staff. .The looming question: Will Robert Talton show up or won't he? Tune in tomorrow to find out. And until then, see:
RELATED GRITS POSTS:
- Lawyers, Guns, and Money: House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee Releases Interim Report
- Speakers' race drama already spilling over into Criminal Jurisprudence Committee
- Deconstructing why criminal justice committees are considered less important
- LBB data dump at Friday's House Corrections hearing
- Analyzing interim reports from Texas criminal-justice related committees
Faculty blog fears poor healthcare for Texas prisoners gives UTMB a 'black eye'
The Faculty Association at UTMB Galveston has been watching the Dallas jail fiasco from afar, and they couldn't help but notice their own employer's prominent role and alleged culpability. See these related posts from the UTMB-Galveston Faculty Association's blog:
Long sentences are causing elderly prisoners' healthcare costs to rise, but UTMB's per prisoner expenditures haven't increased in several years. Officials told the Sunset Advisory Commission in response to questioning that Texas is "very close" to failing to provide a minimum constitutional level of care. Whether that's true, of course, would be up to a court to decide. If Dallas jail healthcare is any indication, UTMB may be overstating their effectiveness.
MORE on Dallas jail healthcare from DallasBlog.
- Administration gives UTMB reputation another black eye
- The Dallas Observer on the Dallas County Jail
- Was tiered care responsible for inmate's death?
Long sentences are causing elderly prisoners' healthcare costs to rise, but UTMB's per prisoner expenditures haven't increased in several years. Officials told the Sunset Advisory Commission in response to questioning that Texas is "very close" to failing to provide a minimum constitutional level of care. Whether that's true, of course, would be up to a court to decide. If Dallas jail healthcare is any indication, UTMB may be overstating their effectiveness.
MORE on Dallas jail healthcare from DallasBlog.
Operation Wrangler already on hiatus?
That's what this El Paso Times article reported ("Operation Wrangler put on hiatus after first week," Feb. 12) The one week surge, said the Times, cost $4 million. Of course, since you can't buy the kind of publicity it received, and it was taxpayers' money, anyway, I'm sure the Governor's office considers it a rousing success.
"In El Paso," reported the Times' Louie Gilot, police Chief Richard Wiles said he understands that there will be a one-week surge every quarter, putting the next one sometime after March."
Now that we know what a one week surge costs, we can calculate what Perry's proposal would mean in practice. At $4 million per week, Perry's $100 million proposal for Wrangler would put extra officers on the street for 25 out of the 104 weeks in the next biennium. Lt. Gov. Dewhurst's proposal to spend $150 million on this strategy would add another 12.5 weeks to the tally. Does anybody think that's a worthwhile use of resources? What good would it do if, at maximum conceivable effectiveness, the "surge" still leaves the border unguarded 2/3 to 3/4 of the time?
This is a polticized waste of money - the Lege should scrap proposals for increased "Wrangler" funding and spend money instead on rooting out and prosecuting police corruption on the border, especially among Texas drug enforcement officers, particularly those involved in long-term undercover work.
It'd be fine with me if Operation Wrangler stays on "hiatus."
"In El Paso," reported the Times' Louie Gilot, police Chief Richard Wiles said he understands that there will be a one-week surge every quarter, putting the next one sometime after March."
Now that we know what a one week surge costs, we can calculate what Perry's proposal would mean in practice. At $4 million per week, Perry's $100 million proposal for Wrangler would put extra officers on the street for 25 out of the 104 weeks in the next biennium. Lt. Gov. Dewhurst's proposal to spend $150 million on this strategy would add another 12.5 weeks to the tally. Does anybody think that's a worthwhile use of resources? What good would it do if, at maximum conceivable effectiveness, the "surge" still leaves the border unguarded 2/3 to 3/4 of the time?
Asked what the governor expected to accomplish in a week, [Perry spokesman Robert] Black said, The overall goal is to keep the bad guys off balance, confused and reduce crime. They don t know where we re going to be and for how long. From the intelligence we re getting on the other side of the border, the confusion is prevalent.
I'm sorry, but given the massive level of corruption Texas has witnessed among border police, including at the highest level of the FBI, drug task force supervisors and county sheriff's departments, it's pure folly to think traffickers won't know exactly when these surges are occurring, or else their advance scouts and allies in the community will tell them soon enough.
This is a polticized waste of money - the Lege should scrap proposals for increased "Wrangler" funding and spend money instead on rooting out and prosecuting police corruption on the border, especially among Texas drug enforcement officers, particularly those involved in long-term undercover work.
It'd be fine with me if Operation Wrangler stays on "hiatus."
Bad TX law fills roads with unlicensed drivers, county jails with non-crooks
Dallas released hundreds of low-level offenders last week to make room in the county jail, reported the Dallas News ("Low level felons let out of Dallas County Jail," Feb. 12), but they're far from solving their problems.
Over at Dallas Sidebar, former Dallas District and 5th Court of Appeals Judge Ron Chapman places part of the blame on the Legislature for enacting huge surcharges on tickets for DWIs and people driving without a license, disingenuously dubbed the "Driver Responsibility Program." IMO it should have been called the Legislative Irresponsibility Program. Said Chapman:
Texas' "Driver Responsibility Program" is a great example of law driven by revenue maximization instead of public safety. Half of the money from these large fines go straight into the general revenue fund, the Legislative Budget Board told the House Appropriations Criminal Justice Subcommittee last week. DPS takes an administration fee, and the rest goes to the state's trauma care fund.
Here's the rub: Most people don't pay, so we actually have MORE people driving around with suspended licenses in Texas. The overall collection rate for the surcharge has only been 28%; the "compliance" rate was 33% (the difference being people who made a commitment to pay but didn't). Those who can't pay can't renew their license, but most, obviously still continue to drive.
LBB recommended a reduction in surcharges, as well as allowing reinstatement of installment plans after non-payment and periodic amnesty programs. I hope somebody at the Lege will have the guts to propose that, but I'm afraid the Legislature so far doesn't seem to be in the mood for repealing fees. On this one, though, they should make an exception. It's just a bad law.
Over at Dallas Sidebar, former Dallas District and 5th Court of Appeals Judge Ron Chapman places part of the blame on the Legislature for enacting huge surcharges on tickets for DWIs and people driving without a license, disingenuously dubbed the "Driver Responsibility Program." IMO it should have been called the Legislative Irresponsibility Program. Said Chapman:
The Legislature is to blame for the huge number of DWLS prisoners, thanks to the ridiculous "$3,000 driver's licenses" required of those convicted of DWLS or DWI. What indigent defendant can afford that? They're just going to continue to drive without a license and fill up our jail. ....The massive fee was created in 2003 as part of the Lege's response to that year's massive budget crunch, and it's estimated to raise $3 million per week in revenue. According to defense counsel who handle these cases, most people who receive the fine don't know their license was suspended in the first place.
Texas' "Driver Responsibility Program" is a great example of law driven by revenue maximization instead of public safety. Half of the money from these large fines go straight into the general revenue fund, the Legislative Budget Board told the House Appropriations Criminal Justice Subcommittee last week. DPS takes an administration fee, and the rest goes to the state's trauma care fund.
Here's the rub: Most people don't pay, so we actually have MORE people driving around with suspended licenses in Texas. The overall collection rate for the surcharge has only been 28%; the "compliance" rate was 33% (the difference being people who made a commitment to pay but didn't). Those who can't pay can't renew their license, but most, obviously still continue to drive.
LBB recommended a reduction in surcharges, as well as allowing reinstatement of installment plans after non-payment and periodic amnesty programs. I hope somebody at the Lege will have the guts to propose that, but I'm afraid the Legislature so far doesn't seem to be in the mood for repealing fees. On this one, though, they should make an exception. It's just a bad law.
Corrections system struggles with mentally ill
If you watched CBS' 60 Minutes last night, you saw the story of Timothy Souders, a Michigan man who was mentally ill, incarcerated for a petty crime, and who last year was "chained to a concrete slab by prison guards until he died of thirst." Watch it to see why typical corrections officers just aren't equipped to safely manage such inmates. It was a grim tale caused by a combination of 19th century restraint practices, untrained guards and a lack of medical staff equipped to handle mentally ill inmates.
Texas faces its own struggles with handling the mentall ill through the corrections system instead of health care providers. Thirty percent of Texas prison inmates are former clients of the state's mental health system, and mentally ill inmates who've been declared incompetent remain warehoused for months in jail with inadequate treatment waiting for hospital space to open up.
Two items I saw this weekend describe some of the local efforts to address this problem. In Corpus Christi, Nueces County officials just received a three year grant to create a jail diversion program for nonviolent mentally ill defendants. In addition to specialized police training,
Texas faces its own struggles with handling the mentall ill through the corrections system instead of health care providers. Thirty percent of Texas prison inmates are former clients of the state's mental health system, and mentally ill inmates who've been declared incompetent remain warehoused for months in jail with inadequate treatment waiting for hospital space to open up.
Two items I saw this weekend describe some of the local efforts to address this problem. In Corpus Christi, Nueces County officials just received a three year grant to create a jail diversion program for nonviolent mentally ill defendants. In addition to specialized police training,
The grant has helped pay for three new caseworkers at MHMR to work only with the people taken to the triage unit by police. Unlike most MHMR caseworkers, who handle about 200 to 250 cases a month, the new caseworkers will handle about 20 a monthMeanwhile, Galveston Judge Susan Criss, whose new blog recently got a nice review in The Galveston Daily News, describes that county's MHMR Jail Diversion Task Force. She describes what that county has accomplished in the area since it began to focus on the problem several years ago:
Our Task Force developed a electronic database that is shared with the jail, law enforcement, UTMB, and the Gulf Coast. Records are cross referenced to identify which inmates are mentally ill. Medical personnel in the jail can learn what medications and treatment are needed. Social workers are able to find services for these persons quicker. Recently the Gulf Coast Center secured a grant that enabled them to put a Mental Health Liasion in the jail. Clayton Watkins now identifies mentally ill inmates and screens them for services. He tries to coordinate aftercare for those about to be released.
We developed a system to alert the judges and attorneys of which inmates are mentally ill as early in the criminal litigation process as possible.
Both Brazoria and Galveston County now have mobile crisis units staffed by social workers and medical personnel. They go to those mentally ill persons who missed appointments or who are in a crisis. Their purpose is to stabilize these persons before they become involved in circumstances that lead to arrest or trips to the emergency room.
We still have much work to do. There is not enough money to provide care to all in need. We plan on setting up assisited living homes and developing and expanding coordination between Juvenile Justice and Mental Health service providers. We need more mobile crisis units. More psyciatric beds are crucial.
In Galveston County we hope to set up a Mental Health Court. Brazoria County already has one. This will not require setting up an entirely new court but shifting dockets and case management assignments.
I am proud of what our Task Force has accomplished. There remains an incredible amount of work left to do.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Cutting Texas Prison 'Leviathan' Down to Size
Two articles this morning show that many practitioners who know most about Texas' corrections system think it needs a dramatic overhaul.
The Paris (Tx) News quotes District Judge Jim Lovett expressing optimism at the direction Chairmans Madden and Whitmire are hoping to take Texas' corrections system ("Lovett finds Perry's plan arresting," Feb. 11). The paper also described some interesting local innovations in Paris spearheaded by the judge:
UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle published some letters to the editor responding to Jablecki's column.
The Paris (Tx) News quotes District Judge Jim Lovett expressing optimism at the direction Chairmans Madden and Whitmire are hoping to take Texas' corrections system ("Lovett finds Perry's plan arresting," Feb. 11). The paper also described some interesting local innovations in Paris spearheaded by the judge:
“We don’t need to just continue to build prisons, and we certainly need to change the idea that one size fits all,” Lovett said.Lovett was encouraged by signs of an attidude shift in Austin. However in the Houston Chronicle this morning, Rice professor and former Brazoria County adult probation director Lawrence Jablecki said he doesn't think Whitmire and Madden's plan will be enough to fix the problem ("Think outside the cell," Feb. 11). He wrote:
For years, the judge has called for more intervention programs. He brought changes to the 6th District probation department in 1997 when he issued a mandate to reduce recidivism (repeat offenses).
A decade later, the department documented a 23-percent reduction in recidivism related to a horticulture therapy program. A butterfly cultivation program has been added with plans in place for a dog training program — all aimed at changing attitudes.
Behavior modification is also included in the department’s repertoire, as is a cooperative program with Paris Junior College that assists probationers with obtaining a GED and securing college admission.
I hope that Whitmire and Madden win this battle in the perpetual war against crime. I am persuaded, however, that their agenda is but a superficial tinkering with a very ugly Leviathan in need of a radical, bottom-up overhaul.Jablecki cites a number of additional reforms, most of which should be familiar to Grits readers, that he thinks would go even further to reverse Texas' incarceration trends. He goes into much more detailin the article, but here are the highlights of Jablecki's proposals:
Kudos to Lovett and Jablecki, both. These are encouraging signs, when even those on the front lines see that a change in strategy is needed away from increased incarceration. Let's just hope Texas legislators are listening.• Create a statewide public defense delivery system.
• Follow the strong recommendations of the ABA, the National District Attorney's Association and a commission by the U.S. Department of Justice and abolish the strictly for-profit commercial bail bond industry.
• Create a statewide system of pretrial diversion and deferred prosecution programs. The model for this legislation should be the programs designed by the county attorney's office in Travis County.
• Officially acknowledge that the war on drugs is a catastrophic failure. ... Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and Speaker of the Texas House Tom Craddick should appoint an interim committee to seek out the essentials of rational and humane drug laws that promote the safety and health of all citizens.
• Fix the Board of Pardons and Paroles. ... The entire parole process should be reinvented and given the resources to accomplish its mission.
•Reduce the number of probationers, parolees and persons on mandatory supervision who are sentenced to and returned to prison for minor crimes and noncriminal violations.
• Increase funding for in-prison vocation and education programs and Project RIO.
UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle published some letters to the editor responding to Jablecki's column.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
LBB Data Dump at Friday's House Corrections Hearing
The Texas legislative session is just getting rolling, with various committee holding their initial orientation meetings last week and this. Especially for new members (and their staffs), there is a lot of homework to do to get up to speed.
At yesterday's House Corrections Committee hearing, the Legislative Budget Board's Criminal Justice Division chief Michelle Connolly gave committee members their initial home reading assignments, distributing copies of several different reports that together give a statistical big picture regarding Texas' criminal justice system. I thought I'd provide those links here:
These problems were all obvious in 2005, but thanks to the Governor the needed reforms didn't begin last session. Maybe in the 80th Texas can get the job done.
At yesterday's House Corrections Committee hearing, the Legislative Budget Board's Criminal Justice Division chief Michelle Connolly gave committee members their initial home reading assignments, distributing copies of several different reports that together give a statistical big picture regarding Texas' criminal justice system. I thought I'd provide those links here:
- 2007-2012 Adult and Juvenile Corrections Population Projections
- Statewide Criminal Justice Recidivism and Revocation Rates (Jan. 2007)
- Criminal Justice Uniform Cost Report (2004-2006)
- Texas Community Supervision Revocation Project (Jan. 2007)
- Profile of Felons Revoked in Texas in September 2005
- Explanations for prison population growth most often related to a lack of substance abuse and mental health treatment available to offenders at all levels of the criminal justice system. Many believed this lack of treatment contributed to an increase in repeat offenders more likely to be sentenced to incarceration. Other consistent explanations related to socioeconomic factors such as low education levels, unemployment, and negative social and family environments.
- Explanations for increases in direct sentences were primarily attributed to offenders choosing state jail or prison sentences over community supervision or treatment alternatives.
- Stabilization of the current rising incarceration trends could be assisted by an overall reform of Chapter 42.12 (Community Supervision) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Specific modifications that were mentioned included shortening community supervision sentence lengths and streamlining the conditions of community supervision.
These problems were all obvious in 2005, but thanks to the Governor the needed reforms didn't begin last session. Maybe in the 80th Texas can get the job done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
