modeled after the successful HOPE Court in Hawaii, which uses swift and certain sanctions to manage low-level drug offenders.See earlier coverage from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram from when the SWIFT program launched last summer.
In the HOPE Court, a judge tells a probationer that instead of prison, he will be permitted to return home, where he can continue to work and provide for his family. The probationer also is told he will be called back frequently to the court without advance notice to determine whether he is complying with his probation terms. If he is not in compliance, he is placed immediately in county jail for the weekend.
There is no additional warning or protracted trial process -- only swift and certain consequences.
A HOPE probationer offered drugs at a party on a Thursday knows that if he is summoned for a random drug test the following morning and fails, he will lose the opportunity to relax with family and friends over the weekend.
The HOPE model understands that people respond to immediate and commensurate punishments like this better than to longer and more severe punishments that seem tenuous and remote.
After Hawaii introduced HOPE in 2004, the rate of missed and failed drug tests dropped by nearly 80 percent. A probationer in HOPE is 55 percent less likely to be arrested for a new crime than one who is not in HOPE. As a result, HOPE probationers are sentenced to about 50 percent fewer days of jail time.
Attorneys and probation officers were initially skeptical about being called into court for every minor probation violation, but the volume of work per offender has decreased over time.
Social scientists have long understood that people respond best to immediate punishments. Cesare Beccaria, an 18th-century thinker who is regarded as the founder of modern criminology, argued that swiftness and certainty in punishment are more important to deterrence than severity.
Beccaria, who was quoted by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, was deeply influential at the time of the American founding. Modern research on human behavior has validated his time-honored criminological theory.
But it is worth setting aside all of the complex academic literature and realizing that SWIFT-style policies are just a return to common sense. Any parent could explain why HOPE works just as well as any professor.
Revoked felony probationers currently account for more than one-third of Texas' prison population and nearly half of the state jail population.
Texans pay approximately $600 million to incarcerate these individuals, but if probation were improved, the state would be able to reduce these costs and prioritize existing prison space for violent offenders who most need to be taken off the streets. Reform of this sort could also improve public safety and return low-level criminal offenders to productive, law-abiding lives.
Hawaii was a useful model for Tarrant County. It may soon be that Tarrant County is a useful model for the rest of Texas.
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Probation. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Probation. Tampilkan semua postingan
Jumat, 27 April 2012
Fort Worth drug court modeled after Hawaiian HOPE program
The Texas Public Policy Foundation's Vikrant Reddy recently published an op-ed in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram praising Judge Mollee Westfal's new "SWIFT' court which is
Minggu, 29 Januari 2012
Childress boot camp 90% empty amidst questions about value, recidivism
A lingering anachronism from a failed social experiment, the Amarillo Globe-News ("Boot camps: Learn new or pay later," Jan. 26) describes a boot camp facility that barely receives commitments these days (370 out of 400 beds are empty), as well as debates within criminal-justice circles over whether such programs make sense given well-documented evidence that they do not reduce recidivism. Here's an excerpt from the article by Joe Gamm:
Criminal Justice officials would not permit an Amarillo Globe-News reporter access to the Roach Unit near Childress, but a prison official offered a small glimpse into life behind the fences.See related Grits posts:
“It involves physical activity and community projects,” said Criminal Justice spokesman Jason Clark. “They have accelerated GED projects over there. They are inmates who are sentenced through the district courts — they are not prison inmates. There are only 30 people in there right now.”
The unit has 400 beds available for the boot camp — 370 remain empty.
Boot camps were the rage nationwide in corrections circles in the late 1980s and early ’90s, but faded away as questions emerged about whether they prevented recidivism.
Studies conducted by the U.S. Justice Department, National Institute of Corrections and academia showed boot camps weren’t effective programs, said Terry Easterling, probation director for Potter, Randall and Armstrong counties.
As the programs closed, a 2003 Justice report, “Correctional Boot Camps: Lessons From a Decade of Research,” concluded that corrections officials should learn from boot camps’ failure to reduce recidivism or prison populations. The report said corrections personnel should emphasize programs to ease offenders’ re-entry or re-integration into their communities. Corrections systems should offer more treatment programs, the report said.
The camps evolved from early ’80s Scared Straight programs, said Easterling said, but probation officials remain divided about their effectiveness.
Selasa, 03 Januari 2012
Georgia latest southern state pushing de-incarceration reforms
Georgia is the latest conservative, southern state to embark on a path of reducing incarceration to reduce the corrections budget, and some of their leaders are citing Texas among their inspirations, reports the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ("Georgia rethinks its prison stance," Jan. 3). Here's a notable excerpt:
As a southerner (it ain't "Grits" for nothing), I'm glad to see this happening in the South: Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and now Georgia (at least) have witnessed conservative champions rise up to denounce mass incarceration as too costly and unnecessary.
The Texas Legislature, of course, as Grits readers know, this year regrettably departed from its reformist path, allowing our prisons to fill up again (they're projected to be beyond capacity by 2013) and reducing their funding without doing much to reduce the numbers of prisoners. Next session, for a variety of reasons, I doubt it will be nearly so easy to punt on these questions, forcing Texas to once again confront the economic costs of its tuff-on-crime self image and seek ways to reduce the expense. The only other option is to raise taxes to build more prisons, creating a tension between fiscal conservatives and the tuff-on-crime crowd, particularly prosecutors, whose political stance invariably is that, when it comes to their own budgets and prisons, money should be no object (and you're "soft on crime" if you say otherwise). By 2013, with prison health over budget, line-staff employment churning, and more prisoners entering TDCJ by the day, that tension will force Texas to either double down on de-incarceration reforms, following our southern brethren, or else tax-and-spend is the only way out of the mess we're in, which is exactly the reason Georgia is acting now.
RELATED: Via Sentencing Law & Policy, from The Crime Report, "Getting prison numbers down for good." From the Kansas City Star, "Tougher sentences boost cost of justice in Kansas." And from The Oregonian, "Bring on the debate on corrections."
The General Assembly this winter will debate a shift in emphasis toward alternatives to prison time for nonviolent offenders, as suggested by a special council appointed last year to study the state’s prison population and criminal code. The effect of its recommendations would be to send fewer people to jail for property and drug crimes and boost alternative punishments.Among the recommendations that will be taken up in the Peach State legislature:
That shift has the firm backing of Gov. Nathan Deal, who said it is time for Georgia to follow the lead of Texas, South Carolina and other Southern states and take a more effective approach to punishment.
He said Georgia, which now spends more than $1 billion a year on state prisons and has seen its inmate population double in the past 20 years, simply cannot afford to keep the current sentencing regime.
“We’re at a point in time where the necessity for doing something has gotten so big that to turn our head and pretend the problem does not exist is not responsible government,” Deal said in an interview.
“If we don’t make some changes, we’ll see an ever-increasing percentage of our state budget having to be allocated to our correction system. That takes away funding for things like education and other areas where many think the money is better spent.”
Changes to the criminal code proved to be more controversial among those on the special council, especially when it came to drug offenses. But the group reached consensus on some changes, including:More controversial in Georgia has been a measure Texas approved in 2003 mandating probation on the first offense for the lowest level drug offenses (in Texas' case, possession of less than a gram of a controlled substance, which is a state jail felony). A prosecutor on the panel argued that "To give only probation for having small quantities of illegal drugs in effect 'decriminalizes drug possession.'" This view fails to recognize that probation for many offenders can be a more difficult punishment than incarceration, particularly if it requires them to change their lifestyle. Jail or prison time can be waited out; fighting addiction, earning a living, providing for a family, etc. ... those things are a lot harder than prison for many offenders, particularly addicts. Or at least that's the premise on which Texas' 2003, '05, and '07 probation reforms were based.
- Increasing the threshold that makes a theft a felony to $1,500 -- up from the current $500 which was established in 1982 -- and increasing the felony threshold of theft by shoplifting from $300 to $750.
- Adjusting sentencing ranges for burglaries, with more serious punishment reserved for break-ins of homes and less severe sentences for burglaries of unoccupied structures, such as tool sheds, barns and other buildings.
- Giving judges a “safety value” that would allow them, after making certain findings, to depart from mandatory sentences in the current law for drug trafficking.
As a southerner (it ain't "Grits" for nothing), I'm glad to see this happening in the South: Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and now Georgia (at least) have witnessed conservative champions rise up to denounce mass incarceration as too costly and unnecessary.
The Texas Legislature, of course, as Grits readers know, this year regrettably departed from its reformist path, allowing our prisons to fill up again (they're projected to be beyond capacity by 2013) and reducing their funding without doing much to reduce the numbers of prisoners. Next session, for a variety of reasons, I doubt it will be nearly so easy to punt on these questions, forcing Texas to once again confront the economic costs of its tuff-on-crime self image and seek ways to reduce the expense. The only other option is to raise taxes to build more prisons, creating a tension between fiscal conservatives and the tuff-on-crime crowd, particularly prosecutors, whose political stance invariably is that, when it comes to their own budgets and prisons, money should be no object (and you're "soft on crime" if you say otherwise). By 2013, with prison health over budget, line-staff employment churning, and more prisoners entering TDCJ by the day, that tension will force Texas to either double down on de-incarceration reforms, following our southern brethren, or else tax-and-spend is the only way out of the mess we're in, which is exactly the reason Georgia is acting now.
RELATED: Via Sentencing Law & Policy, from The Crime Report, "Getting prison numbers down for good." From the Kansas City Star, "Tougher sentences boost cost of justice in Kansas." And from The Oregonian, "Bring on the debate on corrections."
Selasa, 13 Desember 2011
Diversion program reduced new prisoner numbers from revoked probationers
There's good news and bad news in a new report (pdf) detailing the effects of diversion grants to local probation departments from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), authorized by the Lege since 2005: The good news is it worked where agencies accepted the grant money. Those local probation departments (CSCDs) reduced felony technical revocations by 14.5% and felony revocations overall by 3.6%, despite their caseload going up by 8%.
But those effects were mostly counteracted by an array of smaller agencies who declined the grants, stuck with their old ways and increased both technical revocations (6.9%) and overall felony revocations (9.1%) over the same period. The overall result, then, was minimal - about a 1% reduction in felony revocations since 2005. That's not bad with probation rolls swelling, but not all that was hoped for, either. Statewide, "In FY2011, there were 23,881 felony revocations to TDCJ, of which 48.5% were a result of technical violations of community service conditions." A little more than a third (36%) of those revoked for technical violations were absconders.
Also, the goal of reducing probation caseloads has not been achieved and fears that declining probation rolls would reduce state funding for local probation departments as a result of grant incentives never materialized. "The felony direct community supervision population increased 8.0% from August 31, 2005 (157,914 offenders) to August 31, 2011 (170,558 offenders)." While the incarceration rate is declining, the number of probationers in Texas is keeping pace with population growth, seemingly unswayed by crime declines over the last decade.
Even so, the grant program did achieve its goal of reducing felony probation revocations to prison. Bottom line: "more felony offenders were under community supervision in FY 2011 than in FY 2005, but fewer offenders were revoked to TDCJ during the same period. CSCDs that did not receive additional diversion funding showed increases in felony revocations to TDCJ." In other words, agencies that took the diversion funding simply began revoking a lower proportion of the probationers they supervised: "The percentage of offenders revoked within two years of placement decreased from 76.9% in FY 2005 to 67.4% in FY2009 in CSCDs receiving additional diversion funding."
There were a couple of counties that took the money but never seriously tried to achieve the goals of diversion funding. From 2005-2011, felony revocations increased 79.5% in Bexar County (San Antonio) and 99.6% in Collin County (McKinney). Without their bad examples, the results from counties that took diversion funding look even better.
So the idea of using financial incentives to local government to reduce state incarceration rates actually worked. The program's effectiveness was mitigated by local non-participation, but the incentive-laden funding structure for the most part functioned as it was supposed to when and where it was applied. (Grits has argued in the past that it would be an even greater incentive if the state eliminated Bexar and Collin's grant funding for noncompliance, but don't hold your breath for that to happen.)
Problem is, too many other factors mitigate in the other direction, causing prison population projections to creep past TDCJ's capacity over the next biennium. Conceived in 2005, this grant program among other new initiatives helped stave off new prison spending over the last several years. But without doubling down on the concept, those diversion programs likely aren't big or comprehensive enough to do much more than they've done already. Instead, the Lege this spring chose a different path, thus ensuring that much of the state-level dialogue over the next two years surrounding TDCJ will come down to a familiar theme: Build more prisons ... or ... what? The other short-term options are increased parole rates, front-end diversion, or going California.
If history is any guide, part of the solution lies in programs like this one that create financial incentives for counties and local probation departments to help the state reduce incarceration costs. Sending someone to prison is easy; helping them stay in the community and reform is much harder. So it requires incentives for locals to undertake the task, but probation departments have shown through this experiment that many of them are willing to try, if given resources and support, and when they do it can reduce the state's incarceration costs.
But those effects were mostly counteracted by an array of smaller agencies who declined the grants, stuck with their old ways and increased both technical revocations (6.9%) and overall felony revocations (9.1%) over the same period. The overall result, then, was minimal - about a 1% reduction in felony revocations since 2005. That's not bad with probation rolls swelling, but not all that was hoped for, either. Statewide, "In FY2011, there were 23,881 felony revocations to TDCJ, of which 48.5% were a result of technical violations of community service conditions." A little more than a third (36%) of those revoked for technical violations were absconders.
Also, the goal of reducing probation caseloads has not been achieved and fears that declining probation rolls would reduce state funding for local probation departments as a result of grant incentives never materialized. "The felony direct community supervision population increased 8.0% from August 31, 2005 (157,914 offenders) to August 31, 2011 (170,558 offenders)." While the incarceration rate is declining, the number of probationers in Texas is keeping pace with population growth, seemingly unswayed by crime declines over the last decade.
Even so, the grant program did achieve its goal of reducing felony probation revocations to prison. Bottom line: "more felony offenders were under community supervision in FY 2011 than in FY 2005, but fewer offenders were revoked to TDCJ during the same period. CSCDs that did not receive additional diversion funding showed increases in felony revocations to TDCJ." In other words, agencies that took the diversion funding simply began revoking a lower proportion of the probationers they supervised: "The percentage of offenders revoked within two years of placement decreased from 76.9% in FY 2005 to 67.4% in FY2009 in CSCDs receiving additional diversion funding."
There were a couple of counties that took the money but never seriously tried to achieve the goals of diversion funding. From 2005-2011, felony revocations increased 79.5% in Bexar County (San Antonio) and 99.6% in Collin County (McKinney). Without their bad examples, the results from counties that took diversion funding look even better.
So the idea of using financial incentives to local government to reduce state incarceration rates actually worked. The program's effectiveness was mitigated by local non-participation, but the incentive-laden funding structure for the most part functioned as it was supposed to when and where it was applied. (Grits has argued in the past that it would be an even greater incentive if the state eliminated Bexar and Collin's grant funding for noncompliance, but don't hold your breath for that to happen.)
Problem is, too many other factors mitigate in the other direction, causing prison population projections to creep past TDCJ's capacity over the next biennium. Conceived in 2005, this grant program among other new initiatives helped stave off new prison spending over the last several years. But without doubling down on the concept, those diversion programs likely aren't big or comprehensive enough to do much more than they've done already. Instead, the Lege this spring chose a different path, thus ensuring that much of the state-level dialogue over the next two years surrounding TDCJ will come down to a familiar theme: Build more prisons ... or ... what? The other short-term options are increased parole rates, front-end diversion, or going California.
If history is any guide, part of the solution lies in programs like this one that create financial incentives for counties and local probation departments to help the state reduce incarceration costs. Sending someone to prison is easy; helping them stay in the community and reform is much harder. So it requires incentives for locals to undertake the task, but probation departments have shown through this experiment that many of them are willing to try, if given resources and support, and when they do it can reduce the state's incarceration costs.
Kamis, 13 Oktober 2011
Pretrial diversion program in Ector County created to reduce jail crowding
In Ector County (Odessa) they're implementing a new pretrial diversion program as a first step toward reducing jail crowding:
A program taking mostly first-time offenders out of jail in exchange for another option is finally in motion.This is a rather minimalist approach, to be sure. If they really wanted to reduce jail crowding, police agencies in Ector County would implement authority granted them in 2007 by the Legislature to issue citations instead of making arrests for low-level misdemeanors like pot possession, driving without a license, etc.."If they successfully complete the program, they're never found guilty of the offense," Ector County Judge, Susan Redford, said.It's called the Pretrial Intervention Program and it's aimed at first-time offenders who've committed smaller misdemeanor crimes like possession of marijuana and public intoxication. The program lets these people with mostly clean records avoid more jail time. Instead, they've got to pay the county $500.00, complete 40 hours of community service and go through six months of probation. ...It was first thrown on the table to address the problem of crowding inside the jail.
Kamis, 29 September 2011
Dismissals, case outcomes often don't make it into state criminal history database
The State Auditor's Office has released a report on criminal justice information systems at the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Department of Criminal Justice, raising questions about the accuracy of criminal history data at both agencies. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has a brief story on the subject, but let's dig into the audit (pdf) in more detail.
The biggest issue at DPS is a failure to record more than 1/4 of "dispositions," i.e., outcomes, related to arrests logged into their system, primarily because "DPS does not have authorization ... to penalize" prosecutors and courts who don't submit such data. "As of January 2011, prosecutor offices and courts had submitted disposition records to the Computerized Criminal History System for 73.68 percent of arrests made in 2009.
Such omissions can lead to critical errors, as demonstrated by the case of Walter Rothgery, whose false arrest for being a felon in possession of a firearm (he had never been convicted) happened because the outcome of a prior case had never been entered into the system. Lots of people are arrested for things they're never convicted of, and failure to enter disposition data into the system means many of them will be blamed in the future for charges that were dismissed.
According to the audit, of records submitted to DPS between Sept. 1, 2009 and Nov. 30, 2010, an astonishingly low "47,051 (63.61 percent) of 73,967 records for criminal charges that prosecutors dismissed were submitted within 30 days as required." You'd think dismissals - clearing people's names from un-adjudicated charges - would be among the most important information to ensure gets into the system, but more than 1/3 of dismissals aren't reported in a timely fashion.
Poor information gathering on the front end leads to gaps in information for decisionmakers later in the process. Remarkably, examining a one month sampling of data, auditors identified 1,634 offenders who began serving sentences in prison, jail or on probation in November 2010 for whom the Computerized Criminal History System contained no sentencing information from courts or prosecutors. For offenders sent to jail or prison that month, a whopping 19.29 percent of records at TDCJ failed to include an "arrest incident number," meaning the state can't tell for sure the arrest event associated with their incarceration.
Prosecutors and courts, though, aren't the only ones failing to forward sufficient data upstream. The system "lacks arrest records to match with at least 65,424 prosecutor office or court records collected between September 1, 2009 and November 30, 2010. DPS could not match those records because law enforcement agencies had not submitted arrest records appropriately or because the prosecutor offices and courts submitted erroneous data that prevented DPS from matching records."
Counties recording complete data in less than 90% of cases are supposed to submit plans to DPS for improving their record keeping, but that relatively recent requirement doesn't seem to have resulted in substantial improvements in reporting local case data to the state.
Making matters worse, a majority of disposition data submitted by law enforcement is inaccurate. Auditors sampled records from four law enforcement agencies - Garland PD, Houston PD, and the Harris and Kerr County Sheriffs - and found that 59.55% of arrest records "incorrectly showed that the individual was held in the custody of the law enforcement agency when the individual had actually been released." So basically, once you're arrested, there's a good chance state databases will show that you're still caught up in the system even if charges have been dismissed, you've been released from custody, etc..
Other parts of the audit examined information systems at TDCJ and local probation departments that feed them data on community supervision. "Auditors reviewed the error logs for the five largest local probation offices. TDCJ identified errors in 415,453 (22.60 percent) of the 1,838,576 probation records those local probation offices submitted from September 1, 2009 through February 28,2011," meaning more than one in five probationer records contained errors. However TDCJ "was not able to determine how many of those errors remained and how many had been corrected."
I was interested to learn that "TDCJ submits the state identification number of probationers to DPS each day to determine whether probationers were arrested," but nearly half of Texas probation departments do not monitor that data. The notifications to probation departments of probationer arrests are called "flash notices," but "as of May 2011, users representing 120 (47.24 percent) of the 254 counties had not viewed arrest records associated with flash notices in at least 90 days. That included 56 (41.48 percent) of 135 total users in the 254 counties which had not accessed their accounts within a six month period. Those counties are listed in an appendix.
Bexar County, the audit noted, "had not viewed arrest records associated with flash notices in more than a year" and reviewed arrest data in a local system that includes only arrests in that county. "As of May 5, 2011, Bexar County's CSCD did not have a flash coordinator because it was not aware of the flash notice process," which it should be mentioned provides more fuel for critics of that often-dysfunctional department.
Concerns were also raised in the audit that both DPS and TDCJ had staffers authorized to access or alter data who didn't need it for their job description. At DPS, "Twenty-six staff had administrative access that enabled them to modify criminal records, security configurations, and application functionality of the Computerized Criminal History System," but "only one of those individuals required the ability to modify security configurations to perform the individual's job duties." Giving users inappropriate access, said the auditor, "increases the risk of fraud and unauthorized modification of criminal records."
Similarly, TDCJ does not adequately restrict access to its Corrections Tracking System, meaning "a risk still exists that unauthorized changes would not be detected or prevented. In addition, TDCJ does not adequately back up its system, so if "an unprotected database file was deleted, TDCJ could risk losing criminal data and disrupting the availability of the Corrections Tracking System."
Remarkably - and this should be worrisome to local probation directors - one of the auditors' recommendations was that "TDCJ should consider reducing the funds it provides" to probation departments that don't provide all the data on probationers they're supposed to. Somehow I doubt that will happen, but TDCJ said they agreed with the recommendation and at least in theory could do so. DPS, by contrast, has little if any leverage to force courts and prosecutors to improve their data collection.
This is a story reporters in regional markets could localize for the various agencies in their area. See the full report (pdf) and appedices with county level data for more information.
The biggest issue at DPS is a failure to record more than 1/4 of "dispositions," i.e., outcomes, related to arrests logged into their system, primarily because "DPS does not have authorization ... to penalize" prosecutors and courts who don't submit such data. "As of January 2011, prosecutor offices and courts had submitted disposition records to the Computerized Criminal History System for 73.68 percent of arrests made in 2009.
Such omissions can lead to critical errors, as demonstrated by the case of Walter Rothgery, whose false arrest for being a felon in possession of a firearm (he had never been convicted) happened because the outcome of a prior case had never been entered into the system. Lots of people are arrested for things they're never convicted of, and failure to enter disposition data into the system means many of them will be blamed in the future for charges that were dismissed.
According to the audit, of records submitted to DPS between Sept. 1, 2009 and Nov. 30, 2010, an astonishingly low "47,051 (63.61 percent) of 73,967 records for criminal charges that prosecutors dismissed were submitted within 30 days as required." You'd think dismissals - clearing people's names from un-adjudicated charges - would be among the most important information to ensure gets into the system, but more than 1/3 of dismissals aren't reported in a timely fashion.
Poor information gathering on the front end leads to gaps in information for decisionmakers later in the process. Remarkably, examining a one month sampling of data, auditors identified 1,634 offenders who began serving sentences in prison, jail or on probation in November 2010 for whom the Computerized Criminal History System contained no sentencing information from courts or prosecutors. For offenders sent to jail or prison that month, a whopping 19.29 percent of records at TDCJ failed to include an "arrest incident number," meaning the state can't tell for sure the arrest event associated with their incarceration.
Prosecutors and courts, though, aren't the only ones failing to forward sufficient data upstream. The system "lacks arrest records to match with at least 65,424 prosecutor office or court records collected between September 1, 2009 and November 30, 2010. DPS could not match those records because law enforcement agencies had not submitted arrest records appropriately or because the prosecutor offices and courts submitted erroneous data that prevented DPS from matching records."
Counties recording complete data in less than 90% of cases are supposed to submit plans to DPS for improving their record keeping, but that relatively recent requirement doesn't seem to have resulted in substantial improvements in reporting local case data to the state.
Making matters worse, a majority of disposition data submitted by law enforcement is inaccurate. Auditors sampled records from four law enforcement agencies - Garland PD, Houston PD, and the Harris and Kerr County Sheriffs - and found that 59.55% of arrest records "incorrectly showed that the individual was held in the custody of the law enforcement agency when the individual had actually been released." So basically, once you're arrested, there's a good chance state databases will show that you're still caught up in the system even if charges have been dismissed, you've been released from custody, etc..
Other parts of the audit examined information systems at TDCJ and local probation departments that feed them data on community supervision. "Auditors reviewed the error logs for the five largest local probation offices. TDCJ identified errors in 415,453 (22.60 percent) of the 1,838,576 probation records those local probation offices submitted from September 1, 2009 through February 28,2011," meaning more than one in five probationer records contained errors. However TDCJ "was not able to determine how many of those errors remained and how many had been corrected."
I was interested to learn that "TDCJ submits the state identification number of probationers to DPS each day to determine whether probationers were arrested," but nearly half of Texas probation departments do not monitor that data. The notifications to probation departments of probationer arrests are called "flash notices," but "as of May 2011, users representing 120 (47.24 percent) of the 254 counties had not viewed arrest records associated with flash notices in at least 90 days. That included 56 (41.48 percent) of 135 total users in the 254 counties which had not accessed their accounts within a six month period. Those counties are listed in an appendix.
Bexar County, the audit noted, "had not viewed arrest records associated with flash notices in more than a year" and reviewed arrest data in a local system that includes only arrests in that county. "As of May 5, 2011, Bexar County's CSCD did not have a flash coordinator because it was not aware of the flash notice process," which it should be mentioned provides more fuel for critics of that often-dysfunctional department.
Concerns were also raised in the audit that both DPS and TDCJ had staffers authorized to access or alter data who didn't need it for their job description. At DPS, "Twenty-six staff had administrative access that enabled them to modify criminal records, security configurations, and application functionality of the Computerized Criminal History System," but "only one of those individuals required the ability to modify security configurations to perform the individual's job duties." Giving users inappropriate access, said the auditor, "increases the risk of fraud and unauthorized modification of criminal records."
Similarly, TDCJ does not adequately restrict access to its Corrections Tracking System, meaning "a risk still exists that unauthorized changes would not be detected or prevented. In addition, TDCJ does not adequately back up its system, so if "an unprotected database file was deleted, TDCJ could risk losing criminal data and disrupting the availability of the Corrections Tracking System."
Remarkably - and this should be worrisome to local probation directors - one of the auditors' recommendations was that "TDCJ should consider reducing the funds it provides" to probation departments that don't provide all the data on probationers they're supposed to. Somehow I doubt that will happen, but TDCJ said they agreed with the recommendation and at least in theory could do so. DPS, by contrast, has little if any leverage to force courts and prosecutors to improve their data collection.
This is a story reporters in regional markets could localize for the various agencies in their area. See the full report (pdf) and appedices with county level data for more information.
Rabu, 28 September 2011
"How-to" guides detail new reform legislation aimed at de-incarceration
In an email announcement today, the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition links to three new "how to" briefs for practitioners on implementation of reform bills passed during the 82nd Texas Legislature:
SB 1055 is a smart idea that will take a while to implement, but which ultimately provides financial incentives to local probation departments that could substantially reduce incarceration levels at the Department of Criminal Justice. The bill allows (but does not require) probation departments to create "Commitment Reduction Plans" which sets a concrete target amount by which the county will reduce the number of people sent to TDCJ compared to the previous fiscal year. In return, TDCJ would award the county a lump sum equal to 35% of the savings to the agency from reduced commitments, and establishes further incentives for reducing new crimes, increasing restitution payments, and encouraging gainful employment among probationers. Accoding to TCJC:
If probation departments fail to meet their goals for commitment reduction, they must return a prorated portion of the extra money they received at the end of the fiscal year.
In the past, the state gave grants to probation departments with the goal of encouraging reduction in revocations for technical probation violations. But that carrot was never accompanied by a stick, and departments that ignored revocation-reduction goals - notably Bexar and Collin, among larger counties - essentially faced no consequences. SB 1055 includes stronger mechanisms for holding departments accountable, as well as more lucrative incentives for meeting stated goals.
That said, it will be a while before we see the effects from SB 1055. Commitment reduction plans must be submitted within 60 days after the end of the gubernatorial veto period, but no CSCDs submitted a plan before the deadline in August. That means the first functional Commitment Reduction Plans - assuming CSCDs embrace the idea - won't be submitted or approved until two years from now. So the bill represents a long-term strategy, not something that offers short-term relief for the essentially chock-full prison system. But moving forward, sharing savings from reduced incarceration with local probation departments offers a promising strategy for restructuring incentives in ways that lower incarceration levels instead of maximize them. These are incremental changes, but positive ones.
During Texas' most recent legislative session, policy-makers passed various smart-on-crime policies that will benefit the lives of countless Texans.The latter two bills give probationers and state jail inmates credit toward completion of their sentences for participation in various treatment and work programs, payment of court fees and restitution, etc.. State jail felons could see their sentences reduced up to 20%, while probationers may more quickly reach the point where judges can authorize their early release from probation. The new programs aim to give offenders incentive to participate in programming and comply with probation conditions. That should also allow the state to focus limited supervision resources on offenders who aren't actively pursuing rehabilitative goals. These types of "diligent participation" or "earned time" credits have been used in other states more aggressively but in Texas have atrophied in recent years from disuse. Only time will tell whether judges use the tools in the legislation or ignore their new authority.
Below, we have provided links to 3 new "How To" Briefs we created to help practitioners implement 3 of these critical bills. Please click on the links to download a PDF version of each:
These are useful tools for judges, attorneys, probation professionals, programming providers, and those impacted by criminal justice system.
SB 1055 is a smart idea that will take a while to implement, but which ultimately provides financial incentives to local probation departments that could substantially reduce incarceration levels at the Department of Criminal Justice. The bill allows (but does not require) probation departments to create "Commitment Reduction Plans" which sets a concrete target amount by which the county will reduce the number of people sent to TDCJ compared to the previous fiscal year. In return, TDCJ would award the county a lump sum equal to 35% of the savings to the agency from reduced commitments, and establishes further incentives for reducing new crimes, increasing restitution payments, and encouraging gainful employment among probationers. Accoding to TCJC:
Supplemental funds may be used "to provide any program or service that a department is authorized to provide under other law, including implementing, administering, and supporti ng evidence-based community supervision strategies, electronic monitoring, substance abuse and mental health counseling and treatment, specialized community supervision caseloads, intermediate sanctions, victims’ services, restitution collection, short-term incarcerati on in county jails, specialized courts, pretrial services and intervention programs, and work release and day reporting centers.” This money is in addition to any per-capita or formula funding for CSCDs [local probation departments].Actually sharing savings from reduced incarceration with local probation departments realigns CSCDs' incentives in positive ways, discouraging probation revocation for less serious cases while giving departments more resources to manage probationers. Formula funding for probation departments is much lower than the per-offenders savings from reduced incarceration, so there's a real incentive for CSCDs that create Commitment Reduction Plans to manage less serious offenders in the community instead of turning to revocation at the first opportunity.
If probation departments fail to meet their goals for commitment reduction, they must return a prorated portion of the extra money they received at the end of the fiscal year.
In the past, the state gave grants to probation departments with the goal of encouraging reduction in revocations for technical probation violations. But that carrot was never accompanied by a stick, and departments that ignored revocation-reduction goals - notably Bexar and Collin, among larger counties - essentially faced no consequences. SB 1055 includes stronger mechanisms for holding departments accountable, as well as more lucrative incentives for meeting stated goals.
That said, it will be a while before we see the effects from SB 1055. Commitment reduction plans must be submitted within 60 days after the end of the gubernatorial veto period, but no CSCDs submitted a plan before the deadline in August. That means the first functional Commitment Reduction Plans - assuming CSCDs embrace the idea - won't be submitted or approved until two years from now. So the bill represents a long-term strategy, not something that offers short-term relief for the essentially chock-full prison system. But moving forward, sharing savings from reduced incarceration with local probation departments offers a promising strategy for restructuring incentives in ways that lower incarceration levels instead of maximize them. These are incremental changes, but positive ones.
Kamis, 27 Mei 2010
§ 51.071 TRANSFER OF PROBATION SUPERVISION BETWEEN COUNTIES: COURTESY SUPERVISION PROHIBITED
Image by iampeas via FlickrSec. 51.071. TRANSFER OF PROBATION SUPERVISION BETWEEN COUNTIES: COURTESY SUPERVISION PROHIBITED. Except as provided by Section 51.075, a juvenile court or juvenile probation department may not engage in the practice of courtesy supervision of a child on probation.
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.
Andy Nolen, § 51.072 TRANSFER OF PROBATION SUPERVISION BETWEEN COUNTIES: INTERIM SUPERVISION
Image via WikipediaSec. 51.072. TRANSFER OF PROBATION SUPERVISION BETWEEN COUNTIES: INTERIM SUPERVISION. (a) In this section:
(1) "Receiving county" means the county to which a child on probation has moved or intends to move.
(2) "Sending county" means the county that:
(A) originally placed the child on probation; or
(B) assumed permanent supervision of the child under an inter-county transfer of probation supervision.
(b) When a child on probation moves or intends to move from one county to another and intends to remain in the receiving county for at least 60 days, the juvenile probation department of the sending county shall request that the juvenile probation department of the receiving county provide interim supervision of the child. If the receiving county and the sending county are member counties within a judicial district served by one juvenile probation department, then a transfer of probation supervision is not required.
(c) The juvenile probation department of the receiving county may refuse the request to provide interim supervision only if:
(1) the residence of the child in the receiving county is in a residential placement facility arranged by the sending county; or
(2) the residence of the child in the receiving county is in a foster care placement arranged by the Department of Family and Protective Services.
(d) The juvenile probation department of the sending county shall initiate the request for interim supervision by electronic communication to the probation officer designated as the inter-county transfer officer for the juvenile probation department of the receiving county or, in the absence of this designation, to the chief juvenile probation officer.
(e) The juvenile probation department of the sending county shall provide the juvenile probation department of the receiving county with the following information in the request for interim supervision initiated under Subsection (d):
(1) the child's name, sex, age, race, and date of birth;
(2) the name, address, date of birth, and social security or driver's license number, and telephone number, if available, of the person with whom the child proposes to reside or is residing in the receiving county;
(3) the offense for which the child is on probation;
(4) the length of the child's probation term;
(5) a brief summary of the child's history of referrals;
(6) a brief statement of any special needs of the child;
(7) the name and telephone number of the child's school in the receiving county, if available; and
(8) the reason for the child moving or intending to move to the receiving county.
(f) Not later than 10 business days after a receiving county has agreed to provide interim supervision of a child, the juvenile probation department of the sending county shall provide the juvenile probation department of the receiving county with a copy of the following documents:
(1) the petition and the adjudication and disposition orders for the child, including the child's thumbprint;
(2) the child's conditions of probation;
(3) the social history report for the child;
(4) any psychological or psychiatric reports concerning the child;
(5) the Department of Public Safety CR 43J form or tracking incident number concerning the child;
(6) any law enforcement incident reports concerning the offense for which the child is on probation;
(7) any sex offender registration information concerning the child;
(8) any juvenile probation department progress reports concerning the child and any other pertinent documentation for the child's probation officer;
(9) case plans concerning the child;
(10) the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission standard assessment tool results for the child;
(11) the computerized referral and case history for the child, including case disposition;
(12) the child's birth certificate;
(13) the child's social security number or social security card, if available;
(14) the name, address, and telephone number of the contact person in the sending county's juvenile probation department;
(15) Title IV-E eligibility screening information for the child, if available;
(16) the address in the sending county for forwarding funds collected to which the sending county is entitled;
(17) any of the child's school or immunization records that the juvenile probation department of the sending county possesses; and
(18) any victim information concerning the case for which the child is on probation.
(f-1) The inter-county transfer officers in the sending and receiving counties shall agree on the official start date for the period of interim supervision, which must begin no later than three business days after the date the documents required under Subsection (f) have been received and accepted by the receiving county.
(g) The juvenile probation department of the receiving county shall supervise the child under the probation conditions imposed by the sending county and provide services similar to those provided to a child placed on probation under the same conditions in the receiving county. On request of the juvenile probation department of the receiving county, the juvenile court of the receiving county may modify the original probation conditions and impose new conditions using the procedures in Section 54.05. The juvenile court of the receiving county may not modify a financial probation condition imposed by the juvenile court of the sending county or the length of the child's probation term. The juvenile court of the receiving county shall designate a cause number for identifying the modification proceedings.
(h) The juvenile court of the sending county may revoke probation for a violation of a condition imposed by the juvenile court of the sending county only if the condition has not been specifically modified or replaced by the juvenile court of the receiving county. The juvenile court of the receiving county may revoke probation for a violation of a condition of probation that the juvenile court of the receiving county has modified or imposed.
(i) If a child is reasonably believed to have violated a condition of probation imposed by the juvenile court of the sending county, the juvenile court of the sending or receiving county may issue a directive to apprehend or detain the child in a certified detention facility, as in other cases of probation violation. In order to respond to a probation violation under this subsection, the juvenile court of the receiving county may:
(1) modify the conditions of probation or extend the probation term; or
(2) require that the juvenile probation department of the sending county resume direct supervision for the child.
(j) On receiving a directive from the juvenile court of the receiving county under Subsection (i)(2), the juvenile probation department of the sending county shall arrange for the prompt transportation of the child back to the sending county at the expense of the sending county. The juvenile probation department in the receiving county shall provide the sending county with supporting written documentation of the incidents of violation of probation on which the request to resume direct supervision is based.
(k) The juvenile probation department of the receiving county is entitled to any probation supervision fees collected from the child or the child's parent while providing interim supervision for the child. During the period of interim supervision, the receiving county shall collect and distribute to the victim monetary restitution payments in the manner specified by the sending county. At the expiration of the period of interim supervision, the receiving county shall collect and distribute directly to the victim any remaining payments.
(l) The sending county is financially responsible for any special treatment program or placement that the juvenile court of the sending county requires as a condition of probation if the child's family is financially unable to pay for the program or placement.
(m) Except as provided by Subsection (n), a period of interim supervision may not exceed 180 days. Permanent supervision automatically transfers to the juvenile probation department of the receiving county after the expiration of the period of interim supervision. The juvenile probation department of the receiving county may request permanent supervision from the juvenile probation department of the sending county at any time before the 180-day interim supervision period expires. After signing and entry of an order of transfer of permanent supervision by the sending county juvenile court, the juvenile probation department shall, in accordance with Section 51.073(b), promptly send the permanent supervision order and related documents to the receiving county.
(m-1) If a child on interim supervision moves to another county of residence or is otherwise no longer in the receiving county before the expiration of 180 days, the receiving county shall direct the sending county to resume supervision of the child.
(n) Notwithstanding Subsection (m), the period of interim supervision of a child who is placed on probation under Section 54.04(q) does not expire until the child has satisfactorily completed the greater of either 180 days or one-third of the term of probation, including one-third of the term of any extension of the probation term ordered under Section 54.05. Permanent supervision automatically transfers to the probation department of the receiving county after the expiration of the period of interim supervision under this subsection. If the state elects to initiate transfer proceedings under Section 54.051, the juvenile court of the sending county may order transfer of the permanent supervision before the expiration of the period of interim supervision under this subsection.
(o) At least once every 90 days during the period of interim supervision, the juvenile probation department of the receiving county shall provide the juvenile probation department of the sending county with a progress report of supervision concerning the child.
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.
Andy Nolen, § 51.073 TRANSFER OF PROBATION SUPERVISION BETWEEN COUNTIES: PERMANENT SUPERVISION
Image by telwink via FlickrSec. 51.073. TRANSFER OF PROBATION SUPERVISION BETWEEN COUNTIES: PERMANENT SUPERVISION. (a) In this section:
(1) "Receiving county" means the county to which a child on probation has moved or intends to move.
(2) "Sending county" means the county that:
(A) originally placed the child on probation; or
(B) assumed permanent supervision of the child under an inter-county transfer of probation supervision.
(b) On transfer of permanent supervision of a child under Section 51.072(m) or (n), the juvenile court of the sending county shall order the juvenile probation department of the sending county to provide the juvenile probation department of the receiving county with the order of transfer. On receipt of the order of transfer, the juvenile probation department of the receiving county shall ensure that the order of transfer, the petition, the order of adjudication, the order of disposition, and the conditions of probation are filed with the clerk of the juvenile court of the receiving county.
(c) The juvenile court of the receiving county shall require that the child be brought before the court in order to impose new or different conditions of probation than those originally ordered by the sending county or ordered by the receiving county during the period of interim supervision. The child shall be represented by counsel as provided by Section 51.10.
(d) Once permanent supervision is transferred to the juvenile probation department of the receiving county, the receiving county is fully responsible for selecting and imposing conditions of probation, providing supervision, modifying conditions of probation, and revoking probation. The sending county has no further jurisdiction over the child's case.
(d-1) On the final transfer of a case involving a child who has been adjudicated as having committed an offense for which registration is required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, the receiving county shall have jurisdiction to conduct a hearing under that chapter. This subsection does not prohibit the receiving county juvenile court from considering the written recommendations of the sending county juvenile court.
(e) This section does not affect the sending county's jurisdiction over any new offense committed by the child in the sending county.
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.
§ 51.074 TRANSFER OF PROBATION SUPERVISION BETWEEN COUNTIES
Image via WikipediaSec. 51.074. TRANSFER OF PROBATION SUPERVISION BETWEEN COUNTIES: DEFERRED PROSECUTION. (a) A juvenile court may transfer interim supervision, but not permanent supervision, to the county where a child on deferred prosecution resides.
(b) On an extension of a previous order of deferred prosecution authorized under Section 53.03(j), the child shall remain on interim supervision for an additional period not to exceed 180 days.
(c) On a violation of the conditions of the original deferred prosecution agreement, the receiving county shall forward the case to the sending county for prosecution or other action in the manner provided by Sections 51.072(i) and (j), except that the original conditions of deferred prosecution may not be modified by the receiving county.
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.
Andy Nolen, § 51.075 COLLABORATIVE SUPERVISION BETWEEN ADJOINING COUNTIES
Image via WikipediaSec. 51.075. COLLABORATIVE SUPERVISION BETWEEN ADJOINING COUNTIES. (a) If a child who is on probation in one county spends substantial time in an adjoining county, including residing, attending school, or working in the adjoining county, the juvenile probation departments of the two counties may enter into a collaborative supervision arrangement regarding the child.
(b) Under a collaborative supervision arrangement, the juvenile probation department of the adjoining county may authorize a probation officer for the county to provide supervision and other services for the child as an agent of the juvenile probation department of the county in which the child was placed on probation. The probation officer providing supervision and other services for the child in the adjoining county shall provide the probation officer supervising the child in the county in which the child was placed on probation with periodic oral, electronic, or written reports concerning the child.
(c) The juvenile court of the county in which the child was placed on probation retains sole authority to modify, amend, extend, or revoke the child's probation.
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.
§ 51.05 COURT SESSIONS AND FACILITIES
Image via WikipediaSec. 51.05. COURT SESSIONS AND FACILITIES. (a) The juvenile court shall be deemed in session at all times. Suitable quarters shall be provided by the commissioners court of each county for the hearing of cases and for the use of the judge, the probation officer, and other employees of the court.
(b) The juvenile court and the juvenile board shall report annually to the commissioners court on the suitability of the quarters and facilities of the juvenile court and may make recommendations for their improvement.
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.
Rabu, 07 April 2010
Attorney Andy Nolen: Child Molestation Defense Lawyer
Image via WikipediaChild molestation is any energy and activity where an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation. There are many different situations and topics and instances that can fall under this title. The molestation of a child is considered a very sedate and serious crime and is often punished with jail time, fines, and lengthy probation. Often those convicted of molesting a child are required to register as a sex offender, making housing and job searches challenging.
Child molestation is not the same as sexual assault. It mostly applies to children under the age of 14 but can be broadened to apply to all minors. Also, it usually does not take consent into consideration. Because children under the age of 14 are not legally able to give consent to participate in sexual designs and activities their consent usually cannot be held up in court. This policy is also influenced by the fact that in many child molestation cases the adult was in a position of place and power in the child’s life, which could influence the child’s consent.
What qualifies as child molestation
It has been estimated that one in ten boys and one in five girls will experience some form of sexual molestation by the time they reach the age of 14. Most victims of sexual abuse are abused by someone they know, be it a family member or family acquaintance. There are a number of situations that can be described and classified as the molestation of a child. These include:
groping, touching, or lewdly interacting with a minor
having any form of sexual contact with a child under the age of 14
touching a child in a manner that could be described and classified as lascivious or lewd
using a position of influence or place and power to coerce a child into performing sexual acts
using inappropriate or sexually pregnant and suggestive language towards or around a minor
any of the above situations and designs and activities can qualify as child molestation. They can swoop and range in plainness and severity, but all are punishable by the law.
For more information
Sex crimes against a child are considered some of the most sedate and serious crimes that can be committed. Those who are convicted of molesting a child face years in prison, probation, and long term animosity from peers and neighbors. That is why it is so important to know your rights if you are facing this sedate and serious charge.
Child molestation is not the same as sexual assault. It mostly applies to children under the age of 14 but can be broadened to apply to all minors. Also, it usually does not take consent into consideration. Because children under the age of 14 are not legally able to give consent to participate in sexual designs and activities their consent usually cannot be held up in court. This policy is also influenced by the fact that in many child molestation cases the adult was in a position of place and power in the child’s life, which could influence the child’s consent.
What qualifies as child molestation
It has been estimated that one in ten boys and one in five girls will experience some form of sexual molestation by the time they reach the age of 14. Most victims of sexual abuse are abused by someone they know, be it a family member or family acquaintance. There are a number of situations that can be described and classified as the molestation of a child. These include:
groping, touching, or lewdly interacting with a minor
having any form of sexual contact with a child under the age of 14
touching a child in a manner that could be described and classified as lascivious or lewd
using a position of influence or place and power to coerce a child into performing sexual acts
using inappropriate or sexually pregnant and suggestive language towards or around a minor
any of the above situations and designs and activities can qualify as child molestation. They can swoop and range in plainness and severity, but all are punishable by the law.
For more information
Sex crimes against a child are considered some of the most sedate and serious crimes that can be committed. Those who are convicted of molesting a child face years in prison, probation, and long term animosity from peers and neighbors. That is why it is so important to know your rights if you are facing this sedate and serious charge.
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.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)