Home > Blog > Archives for Marc Levin

California Considers Parole Petitions for Lifers Tried as Juveniles

September 12, 2012 By Marc Levin

A bill currently sitting on Governor Jerry Brown’s desk would permit judicial reconsideration of juveniles previously sentenced to life without parole.

Senate Bill 9, passed by the California Senate and Assembly this summer, would allow an inmate who was tried as a juvenile, and currently serving a sentence of life without parole, to ask for judicial review of his or her time served after 15 years. The judge would need to find evidence of remorse as well as successful efforts toward rehabilitation. If the inmate exhibits both, the sentence could be reduced to 25 years to life—essentially permitting the option of parole.

This proposal would wisely not require the automatic release of any youths sentenced to life without parole, but it would at least provide judges and parole board members the discretion to review cases after 15 years to make a decision based on the evidence as to whether continued incarceration is necessary for public safety.

Earlier this summer, the United States Supreme Court ruled that juveniles cannot be mandatorily sentenced to life without parole; instead, the judge must consider the particulars of each case and each juvenile. The most conservative judges on the Court dissented, not because they viewed juvenile life without parole as a good policy, but because they took the very legitimate originalist and textualist position that those policies not clearly understood to be prohibited at the time the Constitution was created should not now be subject to judicial declarations that they have come to amount to cruel and unusual punishment based on changing societal mores.

However, regardless of one’s constitutional theory, the decision is now the law of the land and must be followed. Even if California’s current policy was constitutionally permissible, it fails to recognize the reality that some who commit even heinous crimes as juveniles have the capacity for change and rehabilitation. Both moral and fiscal considerations are at play when a rehabilitated convict serves a life without parole sentence. Noted conservative commentator Cal Thomas authored a piece that eloquently explained why conservatives should take an approach to this issue that is rightfully tough on youths who commit serious crimes, but still leaves the door open for rehabilitation and redemption that in some cases can be achieved over time.

Now, Governor Brown has an opportunity to both prioritize prison space for those that remain a danger to public safety and embrace the possibility that human beings, especially those who make terrible mistakes as a minor, can eventually be redeemed in some cases.

Filed Under: California, Juvenile Justice, Priority Issues, ROC Blog, State Initiatives

Governor Chris Christie Answers Crime Victims’ Pleas

August 28, 2012 By Marc Levin

It is clear that Mitt Romney has a friend in New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, but so do those who have been victims of crime. On August 8, Gov. Christie signed groundbreaking legislation he championed that empowers New Jersey residents who have been victims of crime.

This legislation gives victims access to more information from prosecutors, assists victims of violent crime with medical expenses out of funds paid by offenders, and entitles victims to appear in court for all proceedings. Perhaps most importantly, the new law requires a judge to consider a victim’s statement before accepting a plea bargain. Moreover, the law gives victims a tool to enforce these protections, as it gives them legal standing to file motions to ensure that their interests are recognized.

The vast majority of criminal cases in the modern criminal justice system are resolved through plea bargaining. In most states, victims do not have a right to be informed about plea bargaining proceedings or provide input to the court concerning their opinion of the plea deal. This is particularly important, since research has shown victims may have somewhat different priorities than the prosecution, with restitution being the number one goal of victims in property crime cases.

This is not the first time Gov. Christie has provided strong leadership on criminal justice reform. In late July, as we documented on Right on Crime, he signed legislation that redirects low-level drug possession offenders to drug courts, which are proven to reduce recidivism. This measure will save taxpayers’ dollars and better prioritize prison space for violent and dangerous offenders.

Few doubt Gov. Christie’s toughness, but he is not just tough, he is also smart, when it comes to crime. Thanks to his leadership, there is now more hope for both victims of crime and those seeking to overcome a drug habit.

Filed Under: Priority Issues, ROC Blog, State Initiatives, Victims

Right On Crime Statement on the End of the Gibson Guitar Case

August 7, 2012 By Marc Levin

Yesterday, I issued the following statement upon the conclusion of the year-long drama in which the Department of Justice used the Lacey Act to fine Gibson Guitar $350,000 for importing ebony from Madagascar that was legally harvested, but shipped unfinished:

“The Lacey Act was originally crafted to protect endangered plant and animal species from being illicitly harvested, but it has devolved into an enforcement vehicle that fails to separate legal acts that boost our free-market economy from illicit criminal conduct.  The Gibson Guitar investigation has highlighted the urgent and serious need to reform the Lacey Act.  Such reforms should include requirements for the prosecution to provide proof the defendant acted intentionally and assurance that any penalties it inflicts are civil, not criminal, unless there is direct physical or economic harm to humans.

“Gibson Guitar’s case has helped to bring public attention to the dangers of overcriminalization, but the legendary guitar manufacturer is far from the only victim.  There are countless other cases that also raise troubling questions concerning the over 4,500 federal criminal laws and the failure to require proof of intent before an individual or business can be convicted.  Right on Crime is committed to documenting examples of overcriminalization and working with policymakers to advance much-needed reforms.”

BACKGROUND
On August 24, 2011, Gibson Guitar factories were raided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The federal agency ordered workers to go home and confiscated over 100 guitars and boxes of raw materials.

The federal government justified the raid under the Lacey Act-a law originally intended to curb the poaching of endangered species that allows the United States to interpret and enforce criminal laws of other countries.

Gibson imports wood to create fingerboards for their guitars. The wood seized during the raid was harvested legally and was from a Forest Stewardship Council certified supplier.  Moreover, U.S. Customs allowed the shipment to pass through America’s border to Gibson’s factory.

For more information from Right on Crime, please click here.

Filed Under: Overcriminalization, Priority Issues, ROC Blog

Education Reform as a Model for Texas Criminal Justice System

July 17, 2012 By Marc Levin

Last Wednesday, I published this piece in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram titled “Education Reform as a Model for Texas Criminal Justice System.”

In a new report on the Texas Department of Criminal Justice by the Sunset Commission that is the blueprint for must-pass legislation, the recommendations unconsciously, but wisely, take a page out of the education reform book.

Policymakers should go even further than the sunset report in bringing to the corrections system the principles of individualized intervention, accountability and performance-based funding that have guided successful education reforms.

The corrections system has too often eschewed individualized intervention in favor of cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all models such as mandatory minimum sentencing and large lockups where inmates are treated the same regardless of their treatment needs, behavior and other factors.

Meanwhile, education systems are moving toward individually tailored approaches such as digital learning and one-on-one tutoring.

Fortunately, the sunset report envisions a more individualized corrections system, calling for personalized re-entry plans for all offenders released from state prisons and the systemwide use of an individualized risk and needs assessment to guide supervision and treatment.

Individualized re-entry plans for the 70,000 Texas inmates released annually would identify what resources, such as family members and churches, are available to assist them in successfully re-entering society.

Also, the sunset report wisely recommends these personalized re-entry plans begin behind bars, before being handed off to parole officers and service providers. This coordinated and customized inside-out approach makes sense because an inmate’s decisions during incarceration, such as whether he learns a trade and maintains family contacts, significantly impact success upon re-entry.

The report also recommends a systemwide individualized risk and needs assessment, which is analogous to assessments of academic proficiency that school systems have long used to determine which students to place in gifted and remediation programs.

Such assessments help allocate resources and ensure the program being offered addresses people’s risks and needs. Correctional assessment instruments contain an inventory of questions covering factors such as attitudes, peers, substance abuse and mental health issues, employment and living status that have been retroactively verified to accurately predict the risk of re-offending and identify which needs must be met by a supervision or treatment program to reduce that risk.

This information enables probation and parole departments to ensure those most at risk of re-offending are on smaller caseloads and under closer supervision, while low-risk offenders are not pulled away from their jobs for unnecessary appointments.

Finally, the sunset report urges lawmakers to align probation funding formulas with outcomes and factor in the risk level of departments’ caseloads, just as school districts with more at-risk students receive a funding weight.

Currently, Texas funds the 121 probation departments based largely on the number of probationers. Similarly, Texas funds its prisons and the programs within them based on the number of inmates and participants. In contrast, states are increasingly tying part of education funding to student performance and, even in Texas, persistently failing schools and districts are subject to closure.

Corrections must move from a system that grows when it fails to one that rewards results. This requires rigorous performance measures to determine which programs are getting the best results and linking part of funding to desired outcomes, such as lower recidivism, reduced substance abuse and increased victim restitution.

Lawmakers must act to incorporate Senate Bill 1055, which passed unanimously last session, into the budget. This would enable counties to voluntarily receive a share of the state’s savings when they send fewer low-level offenders to prison and achieve lower recidivism, higher employment rates and higher rates of victim restitution among their probationers.

As the next session approaches, the sunset report has provided Texas lawmakers with a promising opportunity to apply lessons from education reform to improve Texas’ corrections system.

Filed Under: Priority Issues, Prisons, ROC Blog, State Initiatives, Texas, Uncategorized

Texas Crime Tumbles in 2011 Along with Incarceration Rate

July 8, 2012 By Marc Levin

There’s more good news for public safety in Texas. Texas Department of Public Safety officials announced on Friday that the state’s index crime rate per 100,000 people fell 8.3 percent in 2011 compared with 2010. This included a 14.3 percent drop in murders, a 15.4 percent drop in robberies, and a 4.3 percent drop in rapes. The various types of property crimes fell between 8 and 9 percent. While any of these crimes is too many if you are the victim, this is a very significant decline in a one year period.

Indeed, Texas’ crime drop in 2011 far outpaced the national decline. Nationally, violent crime fell 4.0 percent in 2011 compared with 2010 while property crime dropped 0.8 percent.

Of course, innumerable factors, some of which involve public policy and some of which do not, can influence changes in crime rates, such as demographics, socioeconomic conditions, law enforcement effectiveness, and the recidivism rate of those who are on probation or parole.

One thing we do know is that there were 155,892 inmates in Texas prisons at the end of December 2010 and 156,197 at the end of December 2011. Texas added 423,200 legal residents over a 12 month period including parts of 2010 and 2012. Accordingly, Texas’ adult incarceration rate would have declined from approximately 620 per 100,000 people in 2010 to 611 in 2011, a 1.45 percent drop.

We also know that, from fiscal year 2010 to 2011, Texas achieved a drop in felony probation revocations to prison, which fell from 24,239 to 23,881. The drop was even steeper among probation departments participating in the state’s voluntary funding program whereby they receive funds for lowering caseloads and implementing evidence-based practices such as graduated sanctions in exchange for setting a goal of fewer technical revocations, which are revocations for conduct such as missing meetings that does not involve a new crime. The minority of departments that do not participate actually slightly increased their revocations from 2010 to 2011.

The bottom line is that, while many factors are likely responsible for Texas’ tumbling crime rate, we do know it has not been accomplished by increasing incarceration. Indeed, in August 2011 Texas’ closed a medium or high security prison for the first time in history, as the capacity was no longer needed. Moreover, this is a continuation of the trend, which has seen Texas’ index crime rate fall 12.8 percent from 2005 to 2010 while its incarceration rate has dropped 9.0 percent over this period. The latest data should encourage Texas lawmakers to continue moving in this direction in the next session and cause even more states to look at Texas as a model for strengthening alternatives to incarceration to more cost-effectively hold nonviolent offenders accountable and protect public safety.

Filed Under: Priority Issues, Prisons, ROC Blog, State Initiatives, Texas

Aging Inmates Take Texas Budget Toll

June 21, 2012 By Marc Levin

Senate Criminal Justice Chairman John Whitmire recently shared with a Houston news outlet the list of Texas prison inmates who are incurring the highest health care costs, 100 percent of which are borne by Texas taxpayers. It showed that last year the costliest inmate racked up more than $330,000 in health care costs. All of the top ten costliest inmates racked up well over $130,000 in costs.

There are over 4,200 inmates age 61 or older in Texas state lockups and 200 inmates are crippled, mostly paraplegics and multiple-limb amputees. According to the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee, although older inmates (defined as 55 or above) comprise only 6.4 percent of the prison population, they account for 27.2 percent of hospital costs

A new national study documents the growing number of older inmates and the high costs of incarcerating them, as well as the wealth of empirical research showing that older offenders have much lower recidivism rates. Let’s be clear. Inmates should not automatically be released because they are geriatric. However, in prioritizing limited prison space to maximize public safety and making informed parole decisions, it only makes sense to consider age as one of the factors that affects the risk level an offender presents. National research has shown that inmates over 60 have a 3.8% recidivism rate and those over 55 have a recidivism rate of between 2%and 8%. The overall recidivism rate is exponentially higher. Moreover, by carefully reviewing each case in a discretionary parole process, many of the few elderly inmates who still pose a risk can be identified and kept behind bars.

Texas policymakers should study options such as a parole nursing home and house arrest with GPS that could offer less costly options and, at the same time, ensure public safety. Ultimately, Texas must be both tough and smart when it comes to achieving the greatest reduction in crime with every taxpayer dollar spent.

This blog post has also been published at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Speaking Freely blog.

Filed Under: Priority Issues, Prisons, ROC Blog, State Initiatives, Texas

Sobering Centers: Cutting Jail Populations, Costs, and Crime

May 11, 2012 By Marc Levin

Almost 19,000 arrests in Houston each year are for public intoxication alone. While certainly this offense is an important tool to keep streets clean and crime free, public intoxication is almost always a non-violent offense handled most appropriately with detoxification rather than secure confinement. Not only does jail time fail to address the underlying issues, it is also expensive–in Houston, the 19,000 public intoxication arrests require $4-$6 million each year in law enforcement and jail costs.

In search of more effective case management of public intoxication offenders, San Antonio, San Diego, Phoenix, Colorado Springs, and Portland have all adopted the use of a “sobering center” as a diversion alternative for these offenders.

A sobering center accepts public intoxication offenders—and only such offenders–from law enforcement custody rather than being sent to a jail cell. Then, after obtaining health information, the offender is required to sober up. When sober, the center counsels the offender on alcohol issues and social services available to help break the cycle of alcoholism. Unless there are active city warrants out on the offender, he or she is then discharged.

This approach is more effective because it addresses the underlying issue of alcohol abuse inherent in most public intoxication offenses. It diverts these non-violent offenders away from costly jail beds while ensuring they are not out on city streets putting themselves or others in harm. Police officers, meanwhile, are free to turn their attention to far more dangerous crimes and criminals.

In turn, Houston is now considering a sobering center of its own. The estimated cost of annual operation is about $1.5 million, far less than the $4-6 million currently spent jailing public intoxication offenders. Further, the size of the facility has been calibrated to optimally handle almost all public intoxication offenders.

Other cities adopting such sobering centers have seen reductions in arrests and jail time for these offenders, as well as fewer emergency room and hospital check-ins for this often indigent population, on top of the cost savings found in jail bed diversions. In San Antonio, in the first year alone, the sobering center led to $6 million in cost savings. After three years, total cost savings from reduced jail time, reduced hospitalizations, and other sources stretches over $25 million.

The successes and cost savings realized by other municipalities are currently being considered by Houston as it seeks its own sobering center. The city may also decide that there is a better way of handling public intoxication that can keep Houston streets safe while saving taxpayers millions.

Filed Under: Priority Issues, ROC Blog, State Initiatives, Substance Abuse, Texas

Houston’s Success in Crime-Fighting and Cost-Cutting

March 19, 2012 By Marc Levin

My hometown of Houston, Texas has had a some exceptional successes in crime-fighting and cost-cutting over the last few years. These successes can be attributed in part to policy innovations from Pat Lykos, the district attorney. Moreover, exciting new initiatives that are based on solid research such as Judge Jan Krocker’s mental health court and a sobering center are just now getting underway. I wrote about several of these innovations — and the unfinished work that Houston still has left to do — in a piece for the Houston Chronicle this weekend. You can read it by clicking here.

Filed Under: Priority Issues, Prisons, ROC Blog, State Initiatives, Texas

Houston’s Plan to Criminalize Charity

March 6, 2012 By Marc Levin

Houston City Council will be considering an ordinance (see page 32) today which would criminalize the giving of food to the needy without permits or complying with a long list of regulations. The offense for helping others in a way that is not approved by city bureaucrats is a fine of up to $2,000 a day, with each new day of renegade charitable giving classified a separate offense.

The reasoning behind the law seems to have little sense and the enforcement mechanism in place makes even less sense. People and non-profit organizations shouldn’t be deterred from helping others due to government red tape. With no requirement of a culpable mental state for conviction (mens rea), those who will most likely suffer are those who had no idea such a statute existed or attempted to comply but made a mistake when trying to follow cumbersome regulations.

Here are some examples of ridiculous provisions in the bill:

• The criteria used to demonstrate whether or not a facility can be used for charitable feeding must include “reliable statistical data or similar information indicating a demonstrable need for charity feeding in the area,” a ridiculous requirement due to the fact that people who are hungry can be found everywhere and efforts to reach out to these people should not be restricted to what the cities say are highly dense hunger areas.

• “Parks with arboretums, ball fields, tennis courts, parks with special shrubs or vegetation would be unsuitable for these charitable feeding activities.” Do we not already serve food at ballparks and at tennis matches? How does the act become magically illegal when the food is no longer sold, but instead given away for free? Amazingly, busybody politicians and bureaucrats cannot stomach the notion that a citizen would give away free drinks after a baseball game or, even worse, free snacks to those who came to watch.

• “Food providers will be required to be registered and to conduct charitable feeding activities in accordance with all terms and conditions required by the Health and Human Services Department,”

• And last but not least “HPD will provide back up support to the Health Inspectors as needed and has the authority enforce any applicable state law or city ordinance,” with a criminal misdemeanor charge carrying a fine of up to $2,000 and possible arrest for failure to comply with this penalty.

The justification behind this bill is dubious as well. There is no evidence government-regulated feedings are more sanitary than those operated by charitable regulations free of such red tape. . Backers also claim Houston is the only one of the largest cities that has not put in place a similar ordinance. The fact that other cities have criminalized charity is not a logical argument for why Houston should also deprive it residents of charity. As our overcriminalization work has documented, many governments have many unnecessary and counterproductive laws.

Interestingly, one reason Houston has economically outperformed most cities is due to its lack of zoning, which is unique among major cities. Houstonians and Americans do not hunger for a larger serving of big government. Rather, they are best nourished by charity and liberty, both of which this ordinance eats away at.

Filed Under: Overcriminalization, Priority Issues, ROC Blog, State Initiatives, Texas

James Q. Wilson’s Legacy

March 2, 2012 By Marc Levin

Today we lost James Q. Wilson, one of the nation’s most admired conservative intellectuals who developed the influential idea of broken windows policing that was associated with the dramatic crime drop in New York City under Mayor Rudy Giuliani. The idea behind broken windows policing was that law enforcement should not ignore minor issues such as broken windows, graffiti, and the jumping of subway turnstiles because they create an atmosphere of lawlessness that leads to more serious law-breaking.

Wilson’s passing provides an opportunity to correct a misconception, which somehow posited that broken windows policing and reducing unnecessary incarceration were somehow inconsistent. In fact, they were reinforcing. The facts bear this out. From 1993 to 2001, the time when New York City became the nation’s safest large city, three things happened at the same time: crime plummeted, broken windows policing was used, and the number of offenders in the New York City jails dropped from 17,307 to 14,490.

It is commonsensical that when you have an atmosphere of disorder, such as streets lined with graffiti, it leads people to believe that anything goes. People who otherwise would grudgingly obey the law feel liberated to violate the law. Many offenders are immature even as adults, and we can all recall as kids offering the excuse to our parents that every other kid is doing this or that.

Of course, this phenomenon occurs in both an individual and socialized way. That is, if the youth who starts out just drawing graffiti and jumping turnstiles in the subway is never caught, he may conclude that he can get away with more and more serious crimes – it is natural to push the envelope. Then there is the wider effect – when other individuals see disorder and see their friends getting away with these things, they join in the feeding frenzy. I would also imagine that the civilizing forces in the neighborhood may give up if they don’t see law enforcement as interested or effective.

Now, here is the key. The answer is not putting everyone in prison for minor violations. The answer is deter more of it through a police presence that is directed to the hot spots, which New York City identified with data-driven policing (COMPStat) and to issue swift, sure, and commensurate sanctions for such conduct involving fines, probation, community service, etc. In fact, that is what happened in New York City, which boasts one of the nation’s best probation systems. The prisons that have recently been closed in upstate New York are largely due to New York City’s success in deterring crime and intervening early to halt an offender’s progression to more serious crimes, particularly youths.

Broken windows policing helped to break the cycle of crime and should properly be seen as fully consistent with reducing the need for incarceration. In short, James Q. Wilson contributed much to social science and public policy and, among these contributions, is a method of policing that can lead to both less crime and lower costs.

Filed Under: Law Enforcement, New York, Priority Issues, ROC Blog, State Initiatives
« Older Posts