Texas parole rates rise since new year

Yesterday, Mike Ward at the Austin Statesman had a story on recently rising parole rates ("Parole rates surge to avoid unsupervised released," May 16, based on trends reported on Grits in April. His story opens:

Texas' parole rate for convicted felons has reached new highs in recent months, with the approval rate topping 40 percent this spring after hovering in the high 20s for several years.

The parole rate for violent sex offenders reached nearly 60 percent in March.

Officials say the higher parole rate is partly due to larger numbers of felons imprisoned in the past 20 years who are now reaching the end of their sentences, some meted out during the three-strikes-and-you're-out era of tough-on-crime laws enacted during the 1990s.

Officials are putting more of these convicts on parole to keep them under supervision and in treatment after they get out of prison, rather than have them walk out unsupervised.

The new numbers, obtained Tuesday by the American-Statesman, showed Texas' overall parole approval rates are the highest since September 2001, topping 40 percent in both February and March. The approval rate for April was just under 39 percent, the statistics show.

Here's a accompanying graphic demonstrating the short-term rise, which could be just a demographic blip:

Mike and I were notified of this story by the same source in an email last month, but he's added value to the subject by gathering more back-months of data and interviewing government officials and advocates who speculated on reasons for the recent rise (some of which was presaged in Grits' essay). It should be emphasized, though, that a few months increase doesn't necessarily indicate a long-term trend and there could be many reasons, some perfectly mundane, for the short-term spike.

The numbers, though, do give rise to cautious optimism. Two suggested reasons would likely improve public safety: The decision to release long-term inmates before their sentence is up so they'll be under supervision when they leave, and the Lege funding drug and alcohol treatment in prison, which in turn lets the parole board can condition release on completing it.

This must be welcome news to TDCJ bean counters fretting over budgets, who presently are straining to cover guard overtime and prisoner health costs under their reduced budget. Releasing older inmates serving long sentences, in particular, helps a ton with health care cots.

Texas' largest county jails have depopulated rapidly in the last couple of years. If this short-term parole trend elongates and the Lege continues to support front-end diversion programs, perhaps in the near future Texas will actually witness a smaller prison population as well.

Medical paroles plummeting while TDCJ-UTMB wrangle over healthcare costs

The Dallas News reports ("Fewer seriously ill Texas inmates being released on medical paroles," Feb. 20) that medical parole rates are at their lowest in years and that Texas' Board of Pardons and Paroles may approve fewer medical paroles in FY 2012 (they'll hit 33, at the current rate) than at any time in recent memory, despite TDCJ facing prison healthcare costs more than nine figures greater than the Legislature budgeted.:

Each of the past three fiscal years, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice said its medical providers — the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston and Texas Tech — referred more cases for medical release. There were 1,318 referrals in 2009 and 1,807 cases in 2011.

Another government office, the Texas Correctional Office on Offenders with Medical or Mental Impairments, narrows that pool and presents cases to the state Board of Pardons and Paroles.

In fiscal year 2011, 349 cases were formally presented for medical release, and 100 cases, or 29 percent, won approval. The previous year, 22 percent were approved. Almost always, the parole board makes the decision. In a few state jail cases, the sentencing judge decides.

Each year, some inmates approved for release die before they can be freed or their cases are reconsidered.

So far this fiscal year, from September through December, the board has approved only 16 of the 125 cases presented, or 13 percent.

The Legislative Budget Board, which monitors state spending, told lawmakers in January 2011 that expediting the release of inmates who need high-cost medical care could save the state an average of $10,545 per year per inmate. The board noted that inmates are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid while in prison, so the state pays the full cost of care.

Strange and troublesome - from the perspective of reducing prison medical costs - that in 2011, doctors recommended more than 1,800 people for medical release, but only 349 were presented to the board, which approved less than a third of those. Most inmates/patients recommended by their doctors for medical parole are getting screened out by TDCJ parole staff (according to some criteria not described in the article) before the board ever hears about them.

The Board of Pardons and Paroles, of course, is functionally separate from TDCJ, but historically they have acted somewhat in tandem, particularly back when Rissie Owens' husband, Ed, ran TDCJ's institutional division. So it's a bit of a surprise that the parole board isn't doing more to help TDCJ out on the health-cost question, though of course they're under no obligation to do so.

Grits recognizes the board has discretion, but they should at least consider all the recommendations doctors send them. TDCJ is seriously over-budget on health care, with its major provider (UTMB) at this point outright rebelling, so paroling some of the sickest, most expensive inmates could help relieve pressure. I'd have expected to see them considering and approving more medical paroles in 2012 given the current funding situation. As it turns out, it's been substantially less.

Longest serving TX prison inmate paroled after 60 years

Via Michael Graczyk at AP, Texas' longest serving inmate has finally been paroled, at age 83:

When Harvey Stewart first went to prison 60 years ago, gasoline was 20 cents a gallon, a postage stamp cost three pennies and Harry Truman was president.

Now, as perhaps one of the longest-serving inmates in US history, the convicted killer is looking forward to the perks of freedom when he is released on parole in the coming weeks or months.

An IPod or cell phone perhaps? Not for this 83-year-old. Stewart simply wants a root beer and a good meal.

"Imagine that! Sixty years being down in this damn hole," Stewart recently told The Associated Press from the Beto Unit in East Texas, one of his many stops in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. "I wouldn't recommend it. Man's a damn fool to even stick his foot in here."

Stewart, awaiting his release to a halfway house or nursing home after being granted parole earlier this year, recalled his youthful days of robbing brothels in Southeast Texas for quick $3,000 pay days, of getting shot in the back while holding up a junk yard and murdering a man in what he insists was a self-defense killing.

But the six decades in prison haven't been nearly as eventful. He counts among his highlights his brief escape in 1965 and a recurring headache from a prison van wreck a couple years ago. Besides those short-lived respites from monotony, Stewart has served his time isolated from the outside world. He doesn't recall receiving a single visitor in more than a decade. He's outlived most or all his immediate family.

His parole was approved in April, with the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles considering his recent history of good behavior, his age and declining health.

"I'm too damn old to do any robbing," said Stewart, his blond hair now a balding gray brush cut. "I think I am anyway. My old ticker might kick out on me."

Stewart is the longest-serving inmate among the 155,000 prisoners in the Texas system, though it's unclear if he is the nation's longest-serving inmate now or ever. Prison officials and historians say they're unaware of any agency or organization that keeps track of all inmates' jail time.

Suffice it to say if AP could find nobody currently in an American prison who'd served longer than this fellow, that's a pretty remarkable statement. Imagine the difficulties associated with leaving prison alone in the world at 83 years old! At least they're facilitating some transition stage via a halfway house. I can't fathom what it would be like to enter an alien, new world with no support after so long behind bars. His crimes were committed before President Kennedy was assassinated, before Hawaii was a state, before Sputnik launched, before Kruschev said, "We will bury you" - before Elizabeth II became Queen of England, for heaven's sake.

Now that Texas has hundreds of inmates serving life without parole sentences (an option only available since 2005), our grandkids will see prisoners serving longer sentences, even, than Mr. Stewart. These prisoners will stay in that "damn hole" until they die, but, does that really make sense? Does anybody think Texas would be safer keeping Stewart and other so-called "lifers" in prison to the bitter end? The biggest complicating factor from LWOP is who pays for end-of-life care: Parole elderly offenders and the federal government picks up most of the tab via Medicaid and Medicare. Keep them in prison and their end-of-life care is paid for out of state general revenue funds, except the Legislature didn't allocate enough.

Without knowing the details, it seems that young Mr. Stewart at 23 was a dangerous man traveling a bad road. But did Mr. Stewart at 65, 70, 80 years of age, pose the same threat? What do you think? Would justice have been better or worse served if he'd been released a decade or so ago when he still had family alive? Would the price of his atonement have seemed any less devastating? Would the public be any less safe?

Parole board snubs Lege: Won't implement bill on paroling/deporting immigrants

For reasons I've never understood, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles tends to view legislation or court rulings governing their activities as optional and often just refuses to comply. The best example is probably their imposition of "Condition X" (sex-offender conditions) on thousands of prisoners never convicted of a sex crime despite repeated state and federal court rulings telling them they can't do it. Or their refusal to boost medical parole rates, costing the state many millions over the last several years by turning down the large majority of sick, elderly inmates recommended to them for release. Years ago they were ordered to create release guidelines they seldom follow, especially for low-risk offenders. It's been going on as long as Grits has followed the agency.

Now the latest example of parole-board hubris arises: The board will not any time soon implement legislation encouraging parole of illegal immigrants who're eligible for deportation, choosing to ignore a bill passed in the latest session by departing House Corrections Committee Chairman Jerry Madden. According to a notice (pdf) on the agency's website.

The Board of Pardons and Paroles continues to meet with officials of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and the U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to appropriately implement HB 2734, passed during the 82nd Texas Legislative Session. This bill intends to have the Board require illegal criminal aliens incarcerated in Texas prisons to leave the United States if granted parole release when they are legally eligible for parole release under the normal parole review process that currently exists for all incarcerated felons. The BPP continues to be concerned that many of the foreign born offenders in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice do not have final orders of deportation at the time of their parole review, but ICE has assured us they are working on that issue.

THERE IS NO APPLICATION PROCESS FOR INCARCERATED ILLEGAL CRIMINAL ALIENS TO APPLY FOR PAROLE RELEASE CONSIDERATION AND NO REQUESTS FOR PAROLE BASED ON THIS LEGISLATION WILL CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD NOW OR IN THE FUTURE. When implemented this law will be just an additional required condition of supervision for those offenders with ICE detainers in effect at the time of their release. (emphasis in the original)

This agency repeatedly exhibits remarkable chutzpah with such pronouncements. Basically the parole board is saying: "Sorry, we're just not going to implement that law because we have our own policy concerns that we believe trump the Legislature's." The Lege can come back in 2013 and order them to create an "application process for incarcerated illegal criminal aliens to apply for parole release consideration" when there is an ICE detainer, but the bill author is leaving the Lege so it would be up to someone else to take up that mantle.

This bill was mentioned in an article by Mike Ward this week as a possible source of budget relief for Texas' chock-full prisons. After all, this was among the few, significant bills passed this year enacting policy changes to reduce inmate numbers, which are rising beyond capacity. But clearly from this notice, TDCJ and legislators must look elsewhere in the near term to reduce costs. The parole board just looked at Madden's bill, turned up their nose with a sniff, and said, "Sorry, we ain't doing it."

Grits finds that attitude and practice as remarkable as it is frustrating: I can't think of another agency that ignores the Legislature and courts with such impunity and gets away with it as often as does the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. I'm looking forward to hearing this discussed during the agency's Sunset review next year. If anybody needs a major, 12-year tune-up during Sunset it's this arrogant bunch.

Advocacy groups compiling Sunset wish lists ... Do you have yours?

At the Texas Tribune, Ben Philpott has a brief item on how various liberal and conservative groups are approaching the opportunities presented by the Sunset review of Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

The Texas Civil Rights Project, according to attorney Scott Medlock, is "proposing measures he says could improve prisoner conditions while cutting costs for the state, like reviewing sentencing policies that keep geriatric inmates behind bars, where they disproportionately use up the prison system’s limited health care dollars." "So that results in old and frail prisoners who have already served an extremely long time in prison that then become very expensive to care for as they reach their later years," Medlock said.

Meanwhile Marc Levin of the right-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation suggested that Texas:

must prioritize its prison space to keep threats to society behind bars but should steer lower-level offenders, like individuals convicted of minor drug possession, out of jail.

"We have about 17,000 low-level drug possession offenders in our Texas prisons right now," Levin said.

"Not all of them would be eligible under this because it excludes those with prior significant felony convictions and so forth. But it certainly would save several hundred millions of dollars."

They're right that the Sunset process presents a great opportunity to pursue changes at TDCJ, the Board of Pardons and Parole, and also the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, all of which are up for review in 2012-13. During Sunset, agencies are vetted thoroughly once every 12 years by the Lege and Sunset Commission staff, and the Lege must pass a bill verifying the agency continues to serve a vital function. Sunset bills often include various reform measures, though just as frequently legislators tack on pork or other favors for special interests. The bills must pass or else, at least in theory, or the agencies cease to exist. Much of the Sunset action is already happening behind the scenes as staff prepare preliminary reports and ready for public hearings next year, so early input is generally more effective, though of course Sunset bills can and will be amended all the way down to the waning days of the Legislature.

How to Get Involved
If you're interested in reform at these agencies and want to participate in the Sunset process, you can do so by submitting written comments, lobbying Sunset Commission members (which is a very helpful approach), or showing up to speak at public hearings, which may be less effective if you don't show up with written testimony/materials and very specific recommendations. Go here to learn more about how to participate in the Sunset process. More people should. Here are the "self evaluations" from the criminal-justice related agencies currently up for Sunset review:

• Texas Department of Criminal Justice
• Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
• Windham School District
• State Commission on Judicial Conduct

The self-evaluation report for the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee is not yet online.

It's not just organizations but also average folks can also get involved in the Sunset process, if they're willing and able to do a little brain and legwork. In this case it's not that hard: Read the self-evaluation of the agency that concerns you. Take notes as you go, thinking both about what's been said and what's been omitted. Identify problems you see at the agency - particularly any not identified in the self-evaluation - and (really important!) suggest proposed solutions. Write down your concerns, ideas or questions. Submit them to the Sunset Advisory Commission as comments.

If you're in Austin, or can make it for a visit, try to visit with Sunset staff in person about your concerns. (The Sunset liaison staffer for each agency is listed in the self-evaluation document.) It's also considered common courtesy at that point to share your concerns with the agency up for review (contact info is also in the self-evaluation report). Who knows, maybe they'll preemptively implement your idea, or maybe you'll be turned down but still get a chance to ask questions and gather more intel. Either way, at least at the hearing you can say you've spoken to them about it.

The next step, if one were pursuing the task the way a lobbyist would, would be to contact the offices of the various members of the Sunset Commission and share your comments/concerns/solutions, preferably in in-person visits. Unless you have personal connections with the legislator in question, you'll probably end up talking with a legislative staffer assigned to the topic (which is fine). Those meetings not only give you a chance to pitch your ideas but also to cultivate intelligence about what commission members are thinking about, what other special interests are asking for, etc..

So if you do your job right as a citizen lobbyist in the Sunset process, by the time the Sunset Commission holds a hearing to discuss the agency that concerns you, all of the Sunset staffers and commissioners (or at least their staff) will already be aware of the concerns you're raising. When that's the case, it's a lot easier to get your ideas seriously discussed than if you simply show up cold at the hearing for the first time. Some ideas brought forward that way end up in the Sunset recommendations, it's true, but one's chances are better if there's been a lot more prep and legwork done before-hand.

I'm excited to see the Sunset process unfold for each of these agencies, though I'm concerned (but hopeful) that advocacy groups are well-positioned to capitalize on the opportunity. We'll see.

See related, recent Grits posts:

• TDCJ, parole board publish self-evaluations for Sunset process
• Sunset process gives public chance for input at TDCJ
• Tidbits from the parole board's self-evaluation
• Holding Texas judges accountable for past misconduct
• Few cases against judges sustained by Judicial Conduct Commission

Tidbits from the parole board's 'self-evaluation'

A couple of notable items from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles' "self evaluation" (pdf) for the Sunset Commission:

Regular readers are aware the parole board makes decisions regarding only a fraction of the 70,000+ releases from TDCJ each year. Prisonsers in state jails and SAFP serve their sentences (generally less than two years) day for day. And offenders with longer sentences sometimes age out, serving their full sentences day for day and leaving prison even if the parole board never grants early release. The Texas parole board considered 97,513 offenders for release in FY 2010, according to the agency's self-evaluation report, approving more than 33,000 of them:

Parole Approval rates:

2006: 26.26%

2007: 29.82%

2008: 30.74%

2009: 30.26%

2010: 31.01%

So parole approval rates have been slightly rising; if they continue to increase at roughly the same pace over the next five years it would eliminate all pressure for new prison construction or leasing additional beds.

Technical revocations
The parole board not only affects the prison population based on who it lets go but also based on how many people under its supervision go back to prison each year. Of offenders sent back to prison after their parole was revoked (28,969 people in fy 2010), says the self-evaluation, 12,573 or 43% of those revoked were for technical violations only. Another 4,230 had their parole revoked because of a "law violation, no new conviction," while 12,122 (42%) were sent back because of a new conviction.

Clemency
The parole board recommended clemency, mostly full pardons, in 41 of the 237 non-capital cases it considered in FY 2010. They could have added that Perry granted only 9 of those 41. The budget for the entire clemency division, with a staff of seven, was $308,476 in FY 2010.

Blame the underlings
There was a remarkable  veiled reference to the controversy surrounding the board's application of "Condition X" (sex-offender conditions) without due process to parolees who were never convicted of a sex crime, in which the self-evaluation seemed to blame staff and exonerate the board for its contretemps with the judges::

In 2009, the Legislature transferred the institutional parole operations from the TDCJ to the board primarily because the majority of the institutional parole officer’s duties and responsibilities supported the board’s statutory authority to release an offender on parole or mandatory supervision and constitutional authority to make clemency recommendations to the Governor for capital cases. Since the transfer, the quality of the case summaries has dramatically improved as has the work performance of the staff and overall efficiency of the operations. This transfer removed one obstacle that hindered the effectiveness and efficiency of the parole review process.

The parole officers authorized to supervise offenders released by the board were not transferred and continue to work for TDCJ. This obstacle, most recently noted by a federal judge, has resulted in continuing liability and litigation defense expenditures because supervising staff misinterprets the board’s intent or incorrectly applies conditions of release the board imposes. The board and TDCJ have appeared jointly as defendants in state and federal courts and in some cases, monetary damages and attorney fees were awarded to the Plaintiff and their attorneys.

The parole board is claiming their problems with federal judges occurred "because supervising staff misinterprets the board’s intent or incorrectly applies conditions of release the board imposes." Really?! The staff misinterpreted your intent or somehow incorrectly applied it? Hogwash! And they'd have us believe that the "obstacle" to fixing this problem is that the board should have more control over TDCJ parole officers? That's pretty blatantly using the Condition X controversy as an opportunity for an unwarranted power grab. The real problem is the board's overt defiance of numerous state and federal court decisions, not that staff or anybody else misinterpreted what they said or meant.

Don't be late
Wanna communicate with the parole board but the chair won't place your issue on the agenda? You get your chance just once per year: "Once a year at a regularly called board meeting, the board will afford the public an opportunity to present comments that are not on the posted agenda. BPP-POL.141.202 outlines the procedures to follow for persons not employed by or under contract with the board who wish to have items placed on the board’s posted agenda." Be there or be square.

How it works
On p. 33 of the pdf is a chart with a good summary of the parole process for the layman.

Sunset process gives public chance for input at TDCJ

The Texas Criminal Justice Coalition has put up a helpful page encouraging people to get involved in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Sunset process between now and the next session in 2013. A notable excerpt reads:

If you care about criminal justice reform, now is the time for you to speak up and voice your concerns. Presently, the Sunset Advisory Commission has begun its review of TDCJ and other criminal justice-related agencies, including the Board of Pardons and Paroles, the Windham School District, and the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee. Based on its evaluation, the Commission will make recommendations on how each agency can be improved or whether the agency should be abolished.

You can take part in this opportunity for improvement by letting us know what should be done to improve Texas' criminal justice agencies. TCJC has created a comprehensive guide to the Sunset process to help individuals understand the process, how they can get involved, and what resources are available.  To download a PDF version of our guide to Sunset please click this link: Policy Guide to the Sunset Review Process, and to download a 1-page flyer on how to participate in the Sunset process, please click this link: Share Your Story - Participate in TDCJ's Sunset Review Process!

If you wish to participate by filling out a questionnaire, please click the link here: Sunset Questionnaire.  We are also providing a questionnaire that is specifically directed toward incarcerated individuals.  If you would like to print a copy and mail it to someone you know, please download the PDF version by clicking here: Incarcerated Persons Questionnaire.

An agency's Sunset review typically only occurs every 12 years, so we must seize upon this rare opportunity to improve the criminal justice system. Through the Sunset process, and with your help, we can achieve the necessary reforms that can make Texas' criminal justice system a model for others.

Go here for more detail. Here's TDCJ's self-evaluation report (large pdf), here's the one (pdf) for the Board of Pardons and Paroles, there's a separate one (pdf) for the Windham School District, and one more forthcoming for the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee. Here's the home page for the Sunset Advisory Commission. 

How can you get involved (beyond filling out TCJC's questionnaires above)? Basically, start by reading the above-linked self evaluations with a fine tooth comb. If you dispute anything in them or have recommendations for reform they didn't include, put them in writing, submit them to Sunset staff, then come to the public hearings when they're announced and testify about your specific concerns. You can also present your ideas to staff at the Sunset commission or in the offices of individual legislators on the Sunset Commission. TCJC is right that the Sunset process presents unique opportunities, even if it requires playing the long game. It's an important chance to identify problems and promote solutions that won't come along again for more than a decade.

You can't go home again

We've spent quite a bit of time recently discussing the Board of Pardons and Paroles' "Special Condition X," which applies sex offender status to parolees never convicted of a sex crime. But I wasn't aware of "Special Condition Z" until reading Mike Hall's report in a Texas Monthly web extra:

Wayne East was supposed to be paroled on Thursday. The convicted murderer of prominent Abilene resident Mary Eula Sears had, at least in the eyes of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, paid his debt to society. He had also behaved himself while in prison. It was time to go home.

That is, until the good people in Taylor County began complaining; in particular the people who enforce the laws. Police Chief Stan Standridge, District Attorney James Eidson, and Sheriff Les Bruce all wrote letters to the board asking that it not let East come back to Abilene. ...

So on Thursday the board voted to add “Special Condition Z” to East’s parole, which restricts which counties he can go to. He can’t even enter Taylor, Jones, Runnels, Coleman, and Callahan counties. And since he was, by law, required to be initially paroled to Taylor County, now he can’t go anywhere at all. According to Jason Clark at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, “East’s current parole plan has been canceled. The next step is to look at any alternate plans already submitted. If that’s not successful, an institutional parole officer will go and meet with the inmate to try and determine if there is another suitable location for him to reside. The parole division will investigate any parole plans submitted. If a residence can not be found, the offender will be placed on a list for possible placement in a halfway house.”

Hall calls East "a man without a county," which about sums it up.

TDCJ, parole board publish self-evaluations for Sunset process

From the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition's latest newsletter:

TDCJ's Sunset Review is Beginning - We Want Your Input!

If you care about criminal justice reform, now is the time for you to speak up and voice your concerns.

TCJC is very excited to tell you about a unique opportunity to offer input and suggestions that will help improve Texas' criminal justice system. Presently, the Sunset Advisory Commission has begun its review of TDCJ and other criminal justice-related agencies, including the Board of Pardons and Paroles, the Windham School District, and the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee.  Based on its evaluation, the Commission will make recommendations on how each agency can be improved or whether the agency should be abolished.

You can take part in this opportunity for improvement by letting us know what should be done to improve Texas' criminal justice agencies.  TCJC has created a comprehensive guide to the Sunset process to help individuals understand the process, how they can get involved, and what resources are available.  Please click the link below to download a PDF version of our guide to Sunset:

• Policy Guide to the Sunset Review Process

To download a 1-page flyer on how to participate in the Sunset process, please click below: 

• Share Your Story - Participate in TDCJ's Sunset Review Process!

Again, the Sunset process is in its beginning stages, and most agencies under review have already submitted Self-Evaluation Reports (SERs), which are available on the Sunset Advisory Commission's website.  To view each agency's SER, visit the Sunset SER webpage here!

To view individual agency SERs, please click on the links below:

• Texas Department of Criminal Justice
• Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
• Windham School District

• Note: The Correctional Managed Health Care Committee's SER is not yet published.

An agency's Sunset review typically only occurs every 12 years, so we must seize upon this rare opportunity to improve the criminal justice system.  Through the Sunset process, and with your help, we can achieve the necessary reforms that can make Texas' criminal justice system a model for others.

They're right. The Sunset process is a unique opportunity to suggest improvements at the agency at a deeper-in-the-weeds level than is often possible. Check out those self-evaluations, as will I, and I'm sure Grits readers will be hearing more on these subjects sooner than later.

Perry should expand clemency, trump Obama in Christmastime ritual

Last year, Grits authored a column for the Dallas Morning News published December 30 analyzing Rick Perry's paltry Christmastime pardons and lamenting the way holiday pardons minimize the intended, much-more robust role of executive clemency. Since most pardons, experts tell us, are issued in December, I thought I'd recycle last year's prose in time to suggest a more aggressive approach for this year's Christmas pardon ritual on the front end: Governor Perry (and for that matter, President Obama) should consider pardoning or commuting sentences for whole classes of offenders - any class, however modest - instead of picking a few, symbolic cases from many decades ago. Here's the argument I made in the Dallas News last year, edited slightly to add links and update statistics, followed by additional thoughts on how this analysis applies during the campaign season.
__________________

Holiday pardons send wrong message

Dalas Morning News, Dec. 30, 2010

In Federalist Paper 74, Alexander Hamilton predicted today's sorry state of justice without "easy access" to clemency from the executive: "The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel."

Who can look at America's prisons - a nation with 5 percent of the planet's population and 25 percent of its prisoners - and not recognize the sanguinary and cruel countenance of justice feared back in the day by Publius?

Clemency is now treated mostly as a holiday ritual, with little more practical significance than the pardoning of Thanksgiving turkeys. True to form, this month President Barack Obama issued nine pardons and Texas Gov. Rick Perry issued eight. In both cases, the clemency granted was a symbolic gesture focused on trivial, long-ago cases chosen more for their lack of political risk than the particular merits of the petitioners.

Obama took longer than any other Democratic president to issue his first, paltry pardons.

And while Perry's done better than the president - maxing out at 73 pardons in 2003, including 35 convicted in the notorious Tulia drug sting - he pardoned just eight people in fiscal 2009, and the fiscal 2010 total won't be much higher.

Georgia, by contrast, pardoned or restored rights to 561 people in fiscal 2010 - about four times as many as our governor has pardoned in his entire gubernatorial tenure. In Georgia, 38 percent of clemency applications are granted. In Texas, it's less than 3.5 percent.

I've become disenchanted with the Christmastime pardon ritual, for reasons ably articulated by pardon expert P.S. Ruckman: "Christmastime pardons send a very wrongheaded - if not outright dangerous - signal to the American people that pardons are something like Christmas gifts, passed out during the holiday season, to those who actually may or may not deserve them. Which is to say, it is no wonder the [federal government is] so shy about pardons. The very timing of them implies their work [regarding] the assessment of pardon applications is a joke."

Indeed, it's hard to not consider these pardons a joke when you look at the details. For example, Perry granted clemency to a 73-year-old man for a theft conviction from 1955. If the governor had waited any longer, he might have had to issue his second-ever posthumous pardon. Another pardon recipient spent three days in jail 31 years ago for unlawfully carrying a handgun. If it's true that justice delayed is justice denied, these latter-day pardons hardly constitute justice.

And why pardon just one individual who "was convicted of possession of marijuana in 1971 at the age of 21"? Are there no other men and women who've grown up to lead productive lives after a pot conviction in their youths? Texas arrests tens of thousands for pot possession every year; hundreds of thousands are in similar circumstances who will never benefit from such gubernatorial largesse.

If the governor is going to issue pardons for such petty offenses, the fair thing would be to pardon entire classes of offenders - for example, pot offenders with no other convictions on their records 10 years later. For that matter, commuting long drug sentences and those of low-risk elderly offenders with high health care costs would actually save the state a great deal of money. Plus, the possibility of clemency creates incentives for good behavior.

I'm not holding my breath for Perry or Obama to embrace a robust, Hamiltonian clemency, but there's a strong case to be made that they should treat the pardon power as more than just a token Christmastime genuflection to values of mercy and forgiveness - which are then ignored in practice the rest of the year.
_________________________

Certainly Perry isn't alone in this. Sentencing Law and Policy recently published a post titled "Clemency policy and practice as symbol of failed Obama presidency," arguing that Obama's failure to exercise his clemency authority shows he "lacks the core convictions and political courage" for the job he holds. In that vein, why shouldn't Gov. Perry use gubernatorial clemency power to differentiate himself from the President?

Who could argue today that, as Hamilton predicted, "The criminal code ... partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel"? If you're going to embrace states rights, it seems to me, you need to also demonstrate you're prepared to shoulder these long-neglected Hamiltonian responsibilities incumbent to states' governance. I harbor no illusions that Perry will exercise clemency authority as aggressively as suggested in that column, but there's a less radical, more politic version that doesn't seem so out there to me:

In the past, Perry has rejected about 2/3 of clemency recommendations from the Texas Board of  Pardons and Parole. Perhaps a good start would be to simply accept more or most of the BPP's recommendations this year (it's not like the people he's appointed to the parole board are a bunch of softies) instead of selecting a symbolic few. Nobody can grant clemency except state or federal executives like Perry and Obama, so a robust clemency approval by Perry this December might generate at least a news cycle or two of interesting press analyzing the pair's relative clemency records (where Perry already compares favorably). By granting more-than-usual clemencies this December, Perry would likely generate good media with little near-term Wille-Horton-esque risk, while setting the story up inevitably as comparing Perry and Obama (since none of the other GOP candidates can grant pardons) and thereby making the governor appear more presidential.

I'm not confident Perry will do that, but if he doesn't he'll have missed an opportunity to separate, even elevate himself in a controlled, positive media moment from the other GOP contenders and the president. And at the moment, his is a campaign that needs to separate itself from the pack.

MORE: For reference, I added FY 2010 clemency data from the Board of Pardons and Paroles annual report (pdf) to update the chart Grits compiled last year on Rick Perry's clemency record, which, while timid, is still superior to the president's:



RELATED: Should have mentioned that the Texas Tribune has a widget to search Rick Perry's past pardons and related acts of clemency.

'Bubble' in expanding life sentences, LWOP driving TDCJ health costs for older inmates

Sentencing Law & Policy points out an AP story addressing a trend toward greater use of live and life without parole sentences which - somewhat like the housing bubble - Texas came to late in the party but has embraced for the time being until either the bubble bursts or state leaders finally do the math and/or come to their senses. Reports AP:

Nationally, nearly 10 percent of more than 2.3 million inmates were serving life sentences in 2008, including 41,095 people doing life without parole, up 22 percent in five years, according to The Sentencing Project, which advocates alternatives to prison.  The increase resulted from lawmakers "dramatically" expanding the types and repeat offenses that carry potential life terms, research analyst Ashley Nellis said.

"The theme is we're protecting society, then the question is: From what?" said Soffiyah Elijah, executive director of the Correctional Association of New York, a watchdog group. She said with the cost of keeping a state inmate $55,000 a year — a cost that grows as they age and their medical needs increase — a financial analysis shows that parole and probation are far cheaper punishments that can also satisfy the public need for retribution.

Meanwhile, data show new crimes by convicted felons steadily declining from their teens through their dotage. "Most criminal behavior is tied with impulse control. The section of the brain that controls impulse control is the last section of the brain that becomes fully developed," Elijah said. There's a large drop-off in criminal behavior and recidivism after 40 or 45, she said, a point seldom made in public discussion "because it's not convenient. It doesn't dovetail with the kind of tough-on-crime mentality that results in votes."

Patricia Gioia, whose daughter was murdered 26 years ago in California and who runs the Albany chapter of Parents of Murdered Children, said killers should spend their lives locked up, contemplating what they did, the person whose life they took and the lifelong suffering of families and friends.  "They should in effect be punished for this and should not enjoy the freedom that other people have to wander the world," she said.

A Stanford University study in September showed the recidivism rate was less than 1 percent among 860 murderers paroled in California since 1995.  Five returned to prison for new felonies, none for similar life-term crimes. By contrast, nearly 49 percent of all released California inmates were recommitted for new crimes.

"Not only are most violent crimes committed by people under 30, but even the criminality that continues after that declines drastically after age 40 and even more so after age 50," the study found.

Regular Grits readers have known for a long time that Texas faces a growing number of elderly and infirm prisoners in its prison system, many of them with extraordinarily high healthcare costs. These prisoner demographics are the main cost driver for prison healthcare during an era when the Legislature has slashed funding for that purpose.

In recent years, having made virtually everything a felony and pretty much maxxing out on possible sentence enhancements (hence all the absurd ones we get now like misrepresenting the size of a fish), the Texas Legislature has expanded use of mandatory-minimum sentences, introduced life-without-parole (which accounts for scores of new TDCJ admissions each year), and just this year for the first time began to expand use of life-without-parole to non-capital crimes. At last count, around 6% of Texas prisoners were serving life sentences, compared to about 20% in California. (Prisoners with life sentences, as well as sex offenders, are also ineligible for medical parole.)

Texas could avoid going California's route, i.e., paying through the nose to incarcerate prisoners who pose little threat to public safety so this or that elected official can boast they're "tuff on crime." But that's where the system is headed if the state continues down its current sentencing path. California's federal litigation over inadequate health-care funding shows what happens when this particular bubble bursts.

Federal judge: In prison or out, due process required for parole board to assign "Condition X"

Regular readers are aware of the controversy surrounding the Board of Pardons and Paroles assigning sex-offender conditions to parolees who've never been convicted of a sex crime.

The latest federal court ruling (pdf) on the subject, a preliminary injunction issued today barring assignment of "Condition X" to parolee Buddy Yeary, not only continues to maintain that the BPP can't apply sex-offender conditions without due process, it informs us that a new BPP policy to assign those conditions before parole, described here, will similarly fail to pass constitutional muster, though that issue wasn't squarely before the court.

Wrote Judge Lee Yeakel, "There can be no doubt that the law is well-settled in this regard: The imposition of sex-offender conditions on a defendant who has not been convicted of a sex offense - whether a prisoner or a parolee - without first providing the defendant with certain due-process protections is unconstitutional."

As reported in this Grits post, in the wake of prior court rulings that they couldn't assign "Condition X" without holding a hearing giving the parolee an opportunity to contest it, the parole board implemented a new policy (pdf) aiming to apply "Condition X" prior to release instead of after the prisoner has been paroled.

Judge Yeakel's latest ruling, though, says a hearing is required whether the offender is "a prisoner or a parolee." I don't know how long the Board of Pardons and Paroles will continue to flout these federal rulings, but at some point one of these case will get to the court in a procedural posture that lets the judge order hearings across the board instead of only for this or that individual defendant. As Yeakel said, the law is clear; what's unclear is why the BPP won't acquiesce and begin to follow it now that it's been clearly, repeatedly explained to them.

See related Grits posts:

• Parole board continues shell game over due process for sex-offender conditions
• Federal judge bench slaps parole board over applying sex-offender conditions without due process
• Did parole board dawdling create civil liability for Texas on sex-offender conditions?
• New parole rules require due process for sex-offender conditions
• Court: Parole board can't impose sex-offender conditions without evidentiary hearing
• Judge Sam Sparks: Parole chief Rissie Owens is "indecisive, insensitive, inattentive, incompetent, stupid, (or) weak-kneed"
• Federal judge: Parole board may have improperly labeled thousands as 'sex offenders'
• Federal litigation seeks individualized review of sex-offender cases by parole board

Bizarre commentary from parole board chief on medical parole

Photo by Jaime Carrero, Tyler Morning Telegraph

In the Tyler Morning Telegraph today there's a pretty-much workaday story about healthcare costs in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice that covers familiar ground for Grits readers. State Sen. John Whitmire is quoted decrying how much it costs to keep elderly inmates locked up and provide them constitutional levels of healthcare. And in the traditional "quote both sides" fashion of modern journalism (as though there are only two), the senator's comments are paired with Rusk County DA Michael Jimerson who told the paper, "What Whitmire should do is go to Washington and do something to change the laws so inmates don't get Cadillac health care." Jimerson "said costs shouldn't matter because the offenders are paying the price for their crimes." Same ol', same old. Money's always no object when you're spending the taxpayers' dime.

The data in the story on high geriatric health costs won't surprise Grits readers any more than the back-and-forth debate between prosecutors and budget-writers: "Records from the 2009-10 Correctional Managed Health Care report to the Texas Legislation showed offenders 55 and older averaged $4,853 in yearly medical costs, while the average for those below that age was $795." These are facts and debates most Grits readers have heard before and most of the data was accurate and well-presented, if not exactly "news." (More like "olds" - these are longstanding controversies.)

What caught my eye, though, were bizarre representations from parole board chair Rissie Owens that simply can't be justified:

Rissie Owens, presiding officer of Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, said there long has been a misconception that offenders are entering the Texas prison system young and staying until they are old. In reality, many enter prison late in life to begin serving their sentences for crimes they committed late in life, Ms. Owens said. 

"Forty-five percent of all prison and state jail inmates received have been 55 and older at the time they entered prison to serve their sentences," she said. "It also appears that these older inmates are serving sentences for violent offenses as almost 6 percent of those 55 and older have sentences for crimes ranging from homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, sexual assault of a child, robbery and assault/terroristic threats." 

Ms. Owens said numerous factors are reviewed during parole decisions. 

"Age is one factor, but we do not just focus on the age of each offender," she said. "The numbers indicate that there have been more offenders received at TDCJ in the age group 55 to 60 than any other age group at the time of prison entry."

I don't know why Mrs. Owens would say such things or why any reporter would publish the quote when the error is so easily debunked, but this representation is about as far from accurate as you can get.  While I can't find an apples to-apples number for received inmates 55 or over, according to the agency's annual statistical report (pdf, p. 30), in FY 2010, 6,854 inmates 50 years old or more entered TDCJ, out of 72,315 who entered Texas prisons or state jails that year. That's 9.4%, not 45%, and really the comparable number is less since my stat includes inmates received age 50 and up. Just 1,010 inmates age 60 and up entered TDCJ that year, according to the annual statistical report. So about one out of every 72 new inmates is 60 years old or older.

One might think the reporters just misinterpreted Owens' use of data or the numbers were misquoted, but her other comments make clear she believes - or wants the public to believe - that older offenders make up a large proportion of new offenders. It's just a flat-out falsehood that "The numbers indicate that there have been more offenders received at TDCJ in the age group 55 to 60 than any other age group at the time of prison entry." That's not true. Here are the number of new receives for TDCJ in FY 2010 by age range:

14-16: 28
17: 364
18-19: 3,657
20-29: 27,654
30-39: 19,324
40-49: 14,434
50-59: 5,844
60 and older: 1,010

So the suggestion that "more offenders [are] received at TDCJ in the age group 55 to 60 than any other age group" beggars belief. It's just a fabrication.

Similarly odd to me is the comment that "It also appears that these older inmates are serving sentences for violent offenses as almost 6 percent of those 55 and older have sentences for crimes ranging from homicide, kidnapping, sexual assault, sexual assault of a child, robbery and assault/terroristic threats." That explains denying medical parole for those 6%, but that also means, if accurate, that the overwhelming majority (94%) of inmates older than 55 did not commit those types of awful crimes. Should we punish them extra for the crimes of the 6%? What a strange assertion!

According to the above-cited statistical report (p. 31), 20.5% of total "new receives" at TDCJ in 2010 committed violent offenses to get there, so if the figure for violent crimes among older offenders is 6%, that's substantially lower, not some grave, extra cause for concern. It's possible to manage those 6% without applying the same release criteria to the other 94%.

All the data and analyses attributed to Mrs. Owens in this story were either a) false or b) did not support her interpretation. But it just gets quoted and repeated and for the most part, reporters don't call officials on it when they make such screwball comments.

October 6 will be Grits for Breakfast's 7th blogiversary - the first post on this blog was seven years ago tomorrow. The reason I started Grits was precisely to counter - on criminal justice topics, anyway - this brand of modern journalism where reporters don't resolve factual disputes in their stories but merely "quote both sides" without vetting statements from public officials to make sure they're telling the truth. The majority of posts on this blog have the same structure: Quote mainstream media reports then correct factual errors from self-interested or self-justifying pols who're blowing smoke up some poor reporter's ass. Though many days I find that task somewhat boring and repetitive, stories like this one show the function is just as necessary today as it was when the blog began. It's one thing to "quote both sides." It's quite another to quote lies and truth and then portray them as equivalents.

Parole board continues shell game over due process for sex-offender conditions

A federal judge on Tuesday issued yet another bench slapping to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles over the BPP's insistence on placing sex-offender conditions on (possibly) thousands of parolees who've never been convicted of a sex crime. Reported Mike Ward at the Austin Statesman:

The latest decision came Tuesday when U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel of Austin approved an injunction blocking state parole officials from enforcing sex-offender restrictions on a Fort Worth parolee who said he has been threatened with being sent back to prison if he doesn't waive his right to a hearing.

Last week, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered the restrictions — officially called Condition X — removed from the parole conditions for a Houston kidnapper because he was not afforded a due-process hearing before they were imposed and because he had not been convicted of a sex crime.

The decisions were the latest setback for the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and state corrections officials, who have insisted for years that, to ensure public safety, they could impose the stringent conditions on parolees without a due-process hearing .

Although previous court rulings have required the hearings, the state has not routinely offered them. And parole attorneys say the two recent cases indicate the courts are losing patience.

To clarify Ward's assessment, the hearing before Yeakel wasn't exactly about the parolee "waiving" a hearing. Instead, parolee Buddy Yeary sought to be released from Conditions "X" because he was never afforded due process. In response, the parole board ordered Yeary to undergo a sex-offender evaluation including a plethysmograph test - which is a bit of unproven junk science that courts have excluded at trial for its lack of reliability but which is routinely used in post-conviction evaluation and monitoring of (in this case alleged) sex offenders.  Yeary was told was told that if he did not complete the evaluation and plethysmograph by 5 PM on Tuesday, September 6th, that his parole would be revoked. Judge Yeakel wouldn't allow it, though, issuing a temporary restraining order and ultimately removing Yeary's sex-offender conditions.

Via email, I asked one of the attorneys in the case, Bill Habern, what this meant for other, similarly situated parolees, and he responded thusly: "We do not know what impact will attach to this decision as it applies to other non-plaintiff's in the same class. I have yet to see the written order from the court. When it is filed I will forward you a copy. The judge was quite 'expressive' in his comments and concerns over why this issue continues to live on when the parole agencies have long faced the consistent decisions from Coleman, Meza, Graham, Evans, Baker, and the case last week from the CCA. Yeakel suggested the parole agencies apply a little 'common sense' to what these decisions mean in relationship to the other parolees."

Another oddity, says Habern: An "astounding thing that we learned [at the hearing] was that the number of people who had no hearings but were on Coleman supervision dropped from the Board's last number of approximately 7,000 down to about 140. No one knows what seems to have happened to the other 6,860 that Troy Fox testified to during the Graham case. It all makes no sense to either Richard [Gladden] or I." Who knows what the real number is, since both have been sworn to in court and no explanation was provided for the difference.

The drama doesn't end there, however. In response to this increasingly long list of judicial bench slappings, the parole board recently created a new policy (pdf) - which has not yet been reported in the MSM - aiming to apply "Condition X" prior to release on parole instead of after release. Wrote Habern, the parole board is:

sending notice to such offenders informing them they have been approved by the parole board for parole subject to their agreeing to enter sex offender treatment while in TDCJ and thus waiving their Coleman rights to due process. If they do not agree,. then their parole approval will be re-considered by the Board. ... We are hearing that the offenders are being coerced into signing these waivers in order that at least they get out of prison even if on sex offender parole, and even though they end up on sex offender supervision and are denied all due process from the point of signing the attached documents forward.

The parole board now asks inmates so situated - prior to being granted parole - to waive the due process rights Yeakel and Judge Sam Sparks have said should be afforded before Condition X is applied, including access to counsel, and a hearing, with the right to examine and cross examine witnesses.  Habern notes that "With the backup in the prison sex program of up to 10 months plus, and in some cases with an 18 month program, it means you may have a document that says you are to be paroled - maybe -  in 28 months in some cases."

Habern adds that the new waiver form violates inmates' 5th Amendment rights against self incrimination, telling potential parolees "that if they admit to other crimes for which they have not been charged,  those admissions will be passed on to prosecutors (the inmates have no lawyers at the time of these evaluations), and instead of a hearing, as required by Coleman, Meza and Evans, they will be given 30 days to respond in writing as to why they should not be placed in sex offender supervision. This skips right over many of the elements of due process the law requires," said the veteran parole attorney.

So the Board of Pardons and Parole is essentially playing a shell game, attempting to hide the pea (a due process hearing required under the Coleman case) amidst an ever-dizzying array of changing policies and procedures.

Habern points to court precedents relying on the Coleman decision from other parts of the country that indicate due process should be required before labeling prisoners a sex offender whether or not they've been released yet on parole. In Pennsylvania last year, the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Renchenski v. Williams (pdf) - based explicitly on the 5th Circuit analysis in Coleman - that “prisoners who have not been convicted of a sex offense have a liberty interest created by the Due Process Clause in freedom from sex offender classification and conditions,” whether they are in prison or have already been paroled. (The plaintiff Renchenski in that case is serving a sentence of life without parole.)

Though Renchenski carries no precedential value in Texas, the 3rd Circuit case was appealed to the US Supreme Court, which denied cert. So SCOTUS saw nothing wrong with the 3rd court's interpretation of  5th Circuit's pronouncements on liberty interests related to sex-offender conditions. It would be surprising if the federal judges  who've been slapping around the Texas parole board choose to ignore that interpretation and allow this new procedure to stand.

All this posturing and hair splitting by the parole board serves just one purpose: To avoid admitting a mistake and complying with repeated findings in state and federal court that due process is required before assigning parolees sex-offender conditions when they haven't been convicted of a sex offense.

The solution is as simple as it is unlikely to be implemented by the parole board without an explicit court order: The parole board should hold hearings before assigning sex-offender conditions to parolees and remove those conditions in cases where hearings weren't held. The longer they wait to do this, the more likely they are to be held liable in pending civil rights litigation over the subject. At this point the board seems to be willfully thumbing its nose at federal courts, and as a general rule that approach doesn't end well.

See related Grits posts:

• Federal judge bench slaps parole board over applying sex-offender conditions without due process
• Did parole board dawdling create civil liability for Texas on sex-offender conditions?
• New parole rules require due process for sex-offender conditions
• Court: Parole board can't impose sex-offender conditions without evidentiary hearing
• Judge Sam Sparks: Parole chief Rissie Owens is "indecisive, insensitive, inattentive, incompetent, stupid, (or) weak-kneed"
• Federal judge: Parole board may have improperly labeled thousands as 'sex offenders'
• Federal litigation seeks individualized review of sex-offender cases by parole board

Should Murderers Suffer Like Theirs Victims? Attorney Andy Nolen

Will a cold-blooded monster deserve exactly the same fate because his target? Of program he will! No 1 questions it's wrong for just one human in order to kill an additional. Then is not it incorrect for governments to place humans in order to death? The actual condemned tend to be restrained through our brokers who intentionally and systematically kill all of them. And all of us watch this particular barbaric process. Or all of us can't provide ourselves to view it, however do absolutely nothing or state nothing in order to criticize this. Nor perform we vow to not let this continue since the condemned earned to pass away. Isn't this particular a throwback to some time sometime ago when obtaining even had been accepted as the only method to right the incorrect of eliminating another human being? It's exactly the same action competitor gangs perform in cities to obtain even repeatedly. We invariably think about it because inhumane as well as uncivilized. Can we like a nation--or because citizens--consider ourself more gentle and civil than individuals who believed--and nevertheless believe--in obtaining even?

Do we now have capital consequence because all of us can't think of a better solution to handle justice? Existence in jail without parole is actually accepted through abolitionists, although not by promoters of funds punishment. You will find, however, two alternatives that may satisfy everybody accept individuals with minds shut so firmly new suggestions can't leak in. These ways of serving justice might be used for that most heinous crimes while maintaining life without having parole with regard to ruthless however lesser offences.

One alternative is always to modify existence in jail without parole in order to confinement from hard labor for a lifetime without parole. This option would range from the absence associated with communications using the outside world for example letters, stereo, television, pc, telephone as well as visitation, except whenever earned through the prisoner following lengthy confinement.

The 2nd alternative is always to banish the actual condemned through civilization--all the world, no issue how simple. To banish these phones a location so remote that individuals sentenced would be asked to struggle each and every waking second to endure. Most may likely hold away for just a few weeks. Some might hold on for many years, if it's the will associated with God. It should be a place that no-one can escape and thus isolated that connection with the outdoors world is actually impossible.

Harris County  Criminal Defense Attorney Andy Nolen has over 19 years  experience representing persons accused of committing criminal violations of State and Federal law.

 Houston, Texas Criminal Attorney  Andy Nolen treats  every person they represent as if they were a friend and neighbor.   When you call, likely Andy Nolen will answer your call himself.  You will be dealing with Attorneys, not secretaries, assistants, or answering machines.

 If we can be of any assistance, or you just want to talk about your situation, please call Texas Criminal Defense Attorney  Andy Nolen at 713-697-4373.

Related articles

• Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility (andynolen.blogspot.com)
• Louisiana Safe uvenile Detention (andynolan.blogspot.com)
• "Thank you Mr. Nolen for all you've done for me" (houstondrugdefense.net)
• "Even though I was guilty and caught red handed, Andy Nolen was able..." (houstondrugdefense.net)
• "I would highly recommend Andy Nolen" (houstondrugdefense.net)
• "One thing I really liked was that he actually..." (houstondrugdefense.net)
• "Andy Nolen was recommended to me by a friend." (houstondrugdefense.net)
• I'm Very Happy I Found Andy Nolen (houstondrugdefense.net)
• Attorney Andy Nolen Wins 3 Cases for U.S. Marine (houstondrugdefense.net)
• Attorney Andy Nolen, "Frankly, you astounded me by your work ethic." (houstondrugdefense.net)
• Arrested for Criminally Negligent Homicide? Attorney Andy Nolen Can Help (andynolan.blogspot.com)

ATTORNEY ANDY NOLEN: § 57.002 VICTIM'S RIGHTS

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Sec. 57.002.  VICTIM'S RIGHTS.  (a)  A victim, guardian of a victim, or close relative of a deceased victim is entitled to the following rights within the juvenile justice system:

(1)  the right to receive from law enforcement agencies adequate protection from harm and threats of harm arising from cooperation with prosecution efforts;

(2)  the right to have the court or person appointed by the court take the safety of the victim or the victim's family into consideration as an element in determining whether the child should be detained before the child's conduct is adjudicated;

(3)  the right, if requested, to be informed of relevant court proceedings, including appellate proceedings, and to be informed in a timely manner if those court proceedings have been canceled or rescheduled;

(4)  the right to be informed, when requested, by the court or a person appointed by the court concerning the procedures in the juvenile justice system, including general procedures relating to:

(A)  the preliminary investigation and deferred prosecution of a case; and

(B)  the appeal of the case;

(5)  the right to provide pertinent information to a juvenile court conducting a disposition hearing concerning the impact of the offense on the victim and the victim's family by testimony, written statement, or any other manner before the court renders its disposition;

(6)  the right to receive information regarding compensation to victims as provided by Subchapter B, Chapter 56, Code of Criminal Procedure, including information related to the costs that may be compensated under that subchapter and the amount of compensation, eligibility for compensation, and procedures for application for compensation under that subchapter, the payment of medical expenses under Section 56.06, Code of Criminal Procedure, for a victim of a sexual assault, and when requested, to referral to available social service agencies that may offer additional assistance;

(7)  the right to be informed, upon request, of procedures for release under supervision or transfer of the person to the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for parole, to participate in the release or transfer for parole process, to be notified, if requested, of the person's release, escape, or transfer for parole proceedings concerning the person, to provide to the Texas Youth Commission for inclusion in the person's file information to be considered by the commission before the release under supervision or transfer for parole of the person, and to be notified, if requested, of the person's release or transfer for parole;

(8)  the right to be provided with a waiting area, separate or secure from other witnesses, including the child alleged to have committed the conduct and relatives of the child, before testifying in any proceeding concerning the child, or, if a separate waiting area is not available, other safeguards should be taken to minimize the victim's contact with the child and the child's relatives and witnesses, before and during court proceedings;

(9)  the right to prompt return of any property of the victim that is held by a law enforcement agency or the attorney for the state as evidence when the property is no longer required for that purpose;

(10)  the right to have the attorney for the state notify the employer of the victim, if requested, of the necessity of the victim's cooperation and testimony in a proceeding that may necessitate the absence of the victim from work for good cause;

(11)  the right to be present at all public court proceedings related to the conduct of the child as provided by Section 54.08, subject to that section; and

(12)  any other right appropriate to the victim that a victim of criminal conduct has under Article 56.02, Code of Criminal Procedure.

(b)  In notifying a victim of the release or escape of a person, the Texas Youth Commission shall use the same procedure established for the notification of the release or escape of an adult offender under Article 56.11, Code of Criminal Procedure.

Houston, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Andy Nolen and Associates  represent clients charged with  crimes in State and Federal courts in Houston, Galveston, Houston, Houston, Texas, Beaumont, Austin, San Antonio, Waco, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Tyler, Sherman, Del Rio, Corpus Christi, Brownsville, Mc Allen, El Paso, Hempstead,  Houston, Texas  and all counties in Texas. The law firm of Andy Nolen and Associates is located in Houston, Texas; however, Attorney Andy Nolen appears in all criminal, juvenile, and family courts in Texas.

Texas  Attorney Andy Nolen has over 19 years  experience representing persons injured persons and those accused of committing criminal violations of State and Federal law.

 Houston, Texas  Attorney  Andy Nolen treats  every person they represent as if they were a friend and neighbor.   When you call, likely Andy Nolen will answer your call himself.  You will be dealing with Attorneys, not secretaries, assistants, or answering machines.

 If we can be of any assistance, or you just want to talk about your situation, please call Texas Attorney  Andy Nolen at 713-697-4373.

Related articles

• You May Need a Hempstead TX Criminal Defense Lawyer if You Get Arrested for a 3g Offense Such as Aggravated Robbery (houstoncriminaldefenseattorney.info)
• You May Need a Hempstead TX Criminal Lawyer if You Hide the Bad Guy so the Police Cannot Arrest Him (attorneyandynolen.com)
• "Even though I was guilty and caught red handed, Andy Nolen was able..." (houstondrugdefense.net)
• "One thing I really liked was that he actually..." (houstondrugdefense.net)
• "I would highly recommend Andy Nolen" (houstondrugdefense.net)
• "Andy Nolen was recommended to me by a friend." (houstondrugdefense.net)
• I'm Very Happy I Found Andy Nolen (houstondrugdefense.net)