I don't know. I guess I'm just a little concerned about my wife and kids driving on the public roadway when all of Felony DWI probationers get automatically discharged from probation due to this retroactive 5 year cap (in reality just 2 1/2 years for new probationers). Call me cynical but I just don't think that folks on their 3rd (or more) DWI are likely to change their behavior unless they are strictly supervised and have the potential for a very real punitive consequence for recidivism. But then again, I'm probably out of the mainstream because, as a firefighter, I've had to cut way too many fatalities out of cars due to the conduct of these types of offenders. But you're right, it does provide me more unneeded job security in my day job.

I keep thinking of those 10 year deffered sentances I gave out on cases I could not win hoping and praying that the probationer would violate and my victims would see justice.

Off Topic: Thank you for your service as a firefighter. I thought about sending you an email, but I decided a public appreciation was more appropriate. So, Although you sound frustrated, let me step out here and say thank you for your public service. I admire you for it.

On Topic: My Senator's office declared he was voting against it. Has yours?

Philip, my 13 year old daughter (who thinks she's going on 25) deplores the fact that her dad is a prosecutor AND a firefighter. She thinks it makes me overprotective. She's probably right!!!

When looking at crime rates you must compare apples to apples, as we used to say in the car business. You don't compare Texas crime rates to those of Maine, S. Dakota or California. You compare Texas crime rates to Texas crime rates. The fact of the matter is that crime rates in Texas have been dropping since the early nineties.

What happened to SAFP? It is it is still available. Never mind that defendants shriek and wail when it is a condition of probation. Personally, I never impose it, although my Judge occasionally does. I ask if the defendant will agree because I don't believe that a person who is forced into treatment benefits. I simply offer SAFP with the proviso that if the defendant turns it down and then comes up dirty, I won't offer SAFP again.

By the way, we don't engage in name calling in this forum.

We use SAFP alot. The program has a backlog to get in. At one time we let offenders out until thier spot opened up. However, I think the office went 0/13 on being clean. Now the offender has to sit in our county jail 8 - 16 weeks before they can enter SAFP. I forgot the amount that it costs the state for each SAPF canidate but it is alot. The new law is a legislative surrender. Bring back the work camps/construction groups/etc. and the pink clothes in the Texas summer.

Senate panel wants to give DWI sentencing power back to judges
5/17/2005, 11:53 a.m. CT

By KEVIN McGILL
The Associated Press �

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) � The state's district attorneys are again trying to persuade the Legislature to undo a 2001 law that orders treatment and drastically reduced prison sentences for people convicted of third- or fourth-offense drunk driving.

Substance abuse treatment coupled with a short time behind bars can be effective, said 4th District Attorney Jerry Jones. But treatment is often not available, Jones told the Senate Judiciary C Committee on Tuesday.

And, citing the case of an oft-treated fourth-offender in Monroe who showed up for his sentencing drunk, Jones argued that treatment is not always a suitable sentence.

The 2001 law keeps tough sentences in place for third offenders � one to five years in prison � and fourth-offenders � 10 to 30 years. But it also forces judges to suspend all but 30 days of the third-offender's sentence and all but 60 days of the fourth-offender's sentence. Instead of prison, the driver would have to be sentenced to treatment and home incarceration.

Sen. Joel Chaisson, D-Destrehan, is sponsoring a bill, approved by the committee Tuesday, to restore judges' authority to impose longer prison sentences. The bill goes next to the full Senate.

Jones, the prosecutor for Morehouse and Ouachita parishes, said a third- or fourth-offender who gets the suspended sentence and is ordered to treatment cannot be imprisoned if treatment is not available. He said lack of space at treatment facilities is one likely reason that only five of 47 people convicted under the law in his district in its first year completed treatment.

"I had a judge tell me putting a drunk in jail does not help him, and I wholeheartedly agree, but it sure helps the public," Jones said.

A judge should have the authority to order longer prison stretches for multiple offenders who have already undergone treatment or when the record shows that there are more DWI arrests in a driver's background. Sometimes, a person on trial for a third offense actually has several other DWI arrests pending, said Evangeline Parish District Attorney Brent Coreil.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving joined the District Attorney's Association in backing Chaisson's bill.

The Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers opposed the bill but did not speak during Tuesday's hearing. After the hearing, LACDL member George Steimel said the law is not the problem.

"I'm concerned that the state is not providing treatment for these people," Steimel said.

Treatment appears to be working for most of the people who get it under the law, said Beth McClain of the state Office of Addictive Disorders, who provided the committee with statistics. She said of 1,270 people sentenced under the 2001 law, 63 percent are either actively involved in treatment or have completed treatment and have remained sober.

The law pushed through the Legislature by Rep. Ken Odinet, D-Arabi, was hailed as an enlightened way of dealing with drunk drivers when it passed in 2001. But it has received widespread criticism from prosecutors, anti-drunk driving organizations and media editorials. Odinet, however, has staunchly defended the law, saying it needs to be given time to work.

The director of the state Highway Safety Commission, Jim Champagne, who once backed the law, was among those pushing for a change on Tuesday. The latest statistics show the state still is among the nation's worst in alcohol-related traffic deaths, he said.

What part of the disease forces the drunk to DRIVE?

Hey John, I would buy that t-shirt or bumper sticker and the proceeds could go to fund supervision of these guys so that we don't have to let them go to save all that money and "prison space". I have been wondering about the driving part myself. How much is it going to cost for each additional time they drink and drive, or hit and injure or kill someone to prosecute them again and all the attenuated costs of that if they are given this across the board early release?

Why does the legislature take such a throw the baby out with the bath water approach with these issues?

Has anyone pointed out to these folks what a small proportion of the overall state budget goes to the entire criminal justice system? Isn't it somewhere around 7%?????

I do not understand why we as a state cannot take a measured approach regarding building new prisons? If we need new prisons, build one or a few as needed. Why do our legislators want to wait till they have to pass a big expenditure bill to build a bunch of prisons at one time which costs a fortune?

Wait, it might be because that would be a common sense approach?

P.S. John Bradley, thanks for all your hard work on this issue.

________________________________________

Posted on Fri, May. 27, 2005


When probation fails
Some see Tarrant's high revocation rate as justified; others say judges to blame
By Jeff Claassen
Star-Telegram Staff Writer


Hilda Jean May had a lot of chances to straighten out her life.

She committed welfare fraud in Tarrant County in 1994 but didn't go to prison until this March. Judges gave her four tries at probation and sent her to a series of programs for her marijuana addiction.

May finally shook her drug dependence after a lock-down treatment program that she completed last year. But then she violated other probation rules during a family crisis. Now, she sits in the women's prison in Gatesville.

May readily admits that her judges and probation officers were lenient. She knows it was up to her to pull free of her addiction.
But she also wonders how things would have turned out if her intensive drug treatment had come earlier.
"If it had happened five years ago, it could have changed me."

Tarrant County has sent a lot of people like May to prison -- nonviolent criminals whose probation has been revoked because of what are called technical violations. Tarrant has the highest probation revocation rate among Texas' metropolitan counties, according to an analysis of state records.

That's probably good in the eyes of many Tarrant County voters, who consistently re-elect judges who pledge to be tough on crime.

But with state prisons close to overflowing, some legislators and prison system officials say that Texas must find new ways to handle probationers. They also have their eyes on the bottom line: Prison costs $44 per person per day, while probation costs $2 per day.
Bills approved or under consideration by the state Legislature aim to reduce probation revocations in several ways, including funding programs that have had success elsewhere in Texas.

Officials in Tarrant County say they are willing to try new approaches. But they are leery of promises of continued state funding and doubtful that the Legislature's solutions will keep people out of prison.

"We can talk about alternatives to the system," said Bob Gill, a Tarrant County district court judge. "But there will always be a significant number of people who will always make the wrong choices, no matter how many alternatives they have."

Frustration all around

Most criminal cases making their way through the courts in Tarrant County and across Texas involve low-level scofflaws, weaving haphazardly through life and rarely threatening the safety of anyone but themselves and their families.
Most were involved with drugs or alcohol: They used illegal drugs, drank excessively or committed another crime such as breaking into a car to support their drug habit.

That means judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys must focus as much on counseling as on fighting crime and providing proper legal representation. It also becomes very frustrating.
"If they refuse to do anything you tell them and like their lifestyle, what do you do?" asked Sharen Wilson, a district court judge. "I'd love to know what the answer is."

About half of those on probation in Texas end up being sent to prison. Many judges, defense attorneys, probation officers, crime analysts and legislators disagree on why that happens.
Some say probation fails because requirements for offenders have grown so complex. They point to the growing number of low-level offenders in prison for technical violations, including failure to pay fees, show up for meetings or pass tests for alcohol or drug use.

About half of probation revocations are for technical violations, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
"There are so many of these programs imposed on probationers by courts and staff now," said Mike Heiskell, a local defense lawyer. "It would be hard for a normal person to keep up with, much less someone with a troubled background."

With so many demands and long probation terms, many offenders prefer brief stints in the penitentiary. Such "direct sentences," which bypass probation, are the leading cause of expected increases in the state prison population, according to the Legislative Budget Board.

Many say the high probation revocation rate is also due to the workload of probation officers, who handle an average of 150 probationers at a time.

Al Hudson, a probation officer in the Northeast Tarrant office, tries to reserve one day a week to see the most-problematic probationers at their homes. During office visits, he sees a fast-flowing stream of people.
"I try not to count," he said. "I usually see 18 to 20 people a day, scheduled ahead of time."
Patrick Leake, a supervisor in the Northeast office, said that if officers had fewer cases, they could work more directly with probationers and provide such things as more anger-management counseling to help keep them out of trouble.
"Right now, we get a lot of written correspondence, but that only goes so far," he said.

Some critics single out judges for the high revocation rates, especially those in urban counties. Tarrant County's probation revocation rate was nearly 60 percent from 2000 to 2004, compared with about 39 percent for Bexar County, which includes San Antonio, and about 28 percent for El Paso County.

"Courts up there are not working with folks to avoid sending them to prison," said state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston. "It takes time to work with these people and not give up on them."
Others, including prosecutors and even some defense attorneys, don't think the system is too tough.

"We have to show them that probation means something," said Ben Leonard, a local prosecutor.
They point out that some technical violations -- including positive drug tests -- are not just small-scale rule-breaking. They are new crimes.
Local probation officers say they most often send probationers back to court after long strings of technical violations. A 2001 study of the Texas probation system found that 51 percent of probationers sent to prison for technical violations had two to five and that 41 percent had six or more.

That indicates that Texas' prisons may overflow not because of hair-trigger probation revocations, some say, but because the state needs more effective probation programs.
"Texas is a law-and-order state," said Tom Plumlee, the probation director in Tarrant County. "I evolved out of that myself. But we have to find smarter and better ways to do this."
Addressing the issue

Probation officers would have fewer people to shepherd, and people on probation would have fewer chances to be sent to prison for technical violations, under a measure the Legislature approved Tuesday.

If signed by the governor, it will cut the maximum time that low-level felony offenders can be on probation from 10 years to five. Courts will also have to release people from probation after half their probation term is finished, unless the courts find reasons not to.
The vast majority of people who violate their probations do so in the first three years, analysts say.

Shorter probations could also discourage offenders from choosing prison time over probation.

Another measure still under consideration by the Legislature would provide money for more probation officers and for new probation programs in counties with high revocation rates.
Participation would be voluntary.

The models cited by lawmakers are in El Paso and San Antonio. Each has centers where some probationers are required to live starting immediately after they are sentenced. There, they attend drug-treatment programs and classes in better decision-making.

"They're picked up on a warrant and taken to the facilities," said Mary Anne Bramblett, a district judge in El Paso. "They have to have jobs. A portion of their check goes to pay for their stay there. They're not with their family, and they have to work. Someone is always watching what they're doing."

Tarrant County judges are cool to the idea because of their experience with a residential facility in Mansfield, which included a boot camp. The facility closed in 2001 after a probationer died there.
State-financed programs could get too little money to be run properly or have their funding cut, said George Gallagher, a district court judge.

"I don't want to say 'no' to anything," he said. "But you have to show me how much you've got."

Other judges say they are satisfied with Tarrant County's current setup. Drug offenders, for example, are sent to intensive daylong classes but allowed to go home at night.
"We also have 'jail therapy' where we lock people up over a weekend or a night to get their attention," said Scott Wisch, also a district court judge.

Wisch wonders whether the Legislature's motivation for the changes is to balance its budget rather than to deter crime.
"They don't want to keep building prisons blindly," he said. "But they need to look at the long-term goal of public safety and rehabilitation, too."

From probation to prison
People on probation in Tarrant County are sent to prison at a higher rate than any other metro county.


County/Major city Revocation rate* 2000-04


Tarrant /Fort Worth 59.6%
Lubbock /Lubbock 53.4%
Dallas/Dallas 51.7%
Travis/Austin 50.8%
Nueces/Corpus Christi 48.3%
Jefferson/Beaumont 48.3%
Harris/Houston 47.4%
Bexar/San Antonio 38.7%
Hidalgo /McAllen 28.7%
El Paso /El Paso 27.8%

*The probation revocation rate indicates the percentage of people on probation whose term ended by being sent to prison.
________________________________________

These numbers alone are, of course, meaningless. Notice the title: it is "probation" not the probationer that fails.

New booze sensor on tap for Houston

1 area judge has tried the high-tech device, which may leave offenders sweating it out

By THOM MARSHALL
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

Judges in Houston expect to soon have a new little tool to help fight a big old problem: an ankle bracelet that can tell when alcohol abusers who have been ordered to stop drinking fall off the wagon.

Only one probationer in this area is wearing a SCRAM so far, but judges in Dallas County say they've been impressed with the device.

"It gives us more control than any other tool we've ever had," said Judge Vickers Cunningham of Dallas, who introduced use of the new high-tech device in Texas about 18 months ago.

The Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor, which weighs about 8 ounces, analyzes the wearer's perspiration to determine blood alcohol concentration around the clock, as frequently as every 30 minutes. It transmits the results to a computer system, where the judge can view them and take quick action on any violation.

Some say probation fails because requirements for offenders have grown so complex. They point to the growing number of low-level offenders in prison for technical violations, including failure to pay fees, show up for meetings or pass tests for alcohol or drug use.

Because showing up for meetings is so difficult and such a burden, we blame prosecutors for revoking the probationer for failing to meet with the probation officer once a month.

How else is the defendant supervised without meetings, urinalysis, and drug/alcohol education programs?

We have been using the device in my court for the worst DWI defendants as a condition of bond. So far, it has worked very well. The compliant defendant on bond should much prefer it to the BAT visitel. It is cheaper and doesn't wake them up at all hours for a breath sample.

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 05-28-05 at .]

Crime dropped statewide in 2004. DPS said the number of violent crimes per 100,000 people dropped 2.1 percent in Texas, while the property crime rate dropped by 2.2 percent, DPS spokeswoman Tela Mange said.

Will that be true when we cut lost thousands of felons early from probation? Will that be true when we don't catch felons before they commit new crimes?

"Prison costs $44 per person per day, while probation costs $2 per day."

I can't tell you how many times I've heard or read that this session. It begs the question: should we be concerned with how much it costs, or how much it SHOULD cost to do it right? The fact that you never hear about the latter question makes more cynical types think these are pure bottom-line decisions being made without concern for public safety ...

Heck, just make probation free, and then it is always the obvious best choice.

As the bad old probation bill got closer the passing, the sponsors changed their tack and announced (1) that probation was totally broken and (2) that the bill was not being pushed to avoid putting people in prison.

Riiiight.

quote:

---

Tarrant /Fort Worth 59.6%
Lubbock /Lubbock 53.4%
Dallas/Dallas 51.7%
Travis/Austin 50.8%
Nueces/Corpus Christi 48.3%
Jefferson/Beaumont 48.3%
Harris/Houston 47.4%
Bexar/San Antonio 38.7%
Hidalgo /McAllen 28.7%
El Paso /El Paso 27.8%

---

OK, so Tarrant County revokes nearly 60% of their probationers. So 60% of criminals that were in front of a judge re-offend. By offering plea bargains, rather than vigorously prosecuting offenders, Tarrant County is effectively contributing to the crime rate. After all, as Ben is fond of saying, even a 'Technical Violation' is the result of a 'new crime' being committed. It seems as though offering a plea bargain with probation, knowing that most will be revoked and sent to prison, is a cheap way of avoiding a costly jury trial. When you think it through, I don't know if those are numbers to be proud of.

Mr. Bradley, I would be interested in knowing what your revokation rate is. I'm guessing it's substantially lower because (1)you play hard-ball from the beginning and (2)no one wants to be in court with you a second time.

Due to the legislature's failure to fund more prison beds, prosecutors and judges will feel only more pressure to put defendants on probation, regardless of whether they are a good prospect for staying out of trouble.
Further, the defendant/probationer will have even less incentive to stay out of trouble, becuase he will know full well that a prison sentence will be paroled more quickly.

The real problem seems to be with the legislature. Many of its members have become so secure in their own positions that they have stopped listening to their constituents. Does anyone really believe that the majority of Texas citizens want fewer criminals going to prison, or want those who do get probation having shorter terms?

I suspect that the presence of tough judges behind the Tarrant County prosecutors does mean that defendants might be offerd probation here where they might not in other counties. Just because someone deserves "a chance" does not mean that he deserves a second or third or fourth chance.

For instance, if an otherwise law abiding citizen gets drunk, "loses it," and threatens his wife's paramour with a gun, firing a warning shot, I can see a prosecutor being satisfied that it was a one-time event and agreeing to probation. Of course, a condition would be no alcohol consumption. If a prosecutor knows that if the defendant is discovered consuming alcohol, the Judge will revoke, all is well. (Later, someone would run around saying the Judge is unreasonable because the probationer went to jail for "drinking a beer.") If the Judge's history suggests he likely will not revoke, maybe no probation offer.

Not every technical violation represents a new felony offense and not every technical should result in a revocation, as they DO NOT. A violation of testing positive for cocaine, however, conclusively establishes a new felony because of necessity the defendant possessed it before he ingested it. In my hypo, no consumption of alcohol was an important factor in the decision to recommend probation and so a good reason to revoke.

Of course, there are the probationers who plead guilty and then immediately deny their guilt after their sworn judicial cofession. Then they run around crying that their voluntary plea was the fault of everyone but the defendant who said the word "GUILTY." These we should prosecute for perjury (but that is a personal opinion, not policy).

[This message was edited by BLeonard on 05-30-05 at .]