Making system changes that work for probation

Changes in Travis County Parole and Probation Agency 

means a reduction of paperwork and more time

supervising the at-risk clients while easing restriction

on the low level offenders is paying off. Recidivism rates 

are dropping under the new system.

Hopefully the changes will also lessen the burnout and

turnover rate. A major factor in helping a client is a 

good rapport with the supervising agent and continuity,

both of which are products of less burnout and less

turnover.

To see charts with recidvism rates and read the article

that explains the changes that were made, click here

Internet Crimes Keep Rising

2008 ANNUAL REPORT ON INTERNET CRIME FROM THE FBI AND NATIONAL WHITE COLLAR CRIME CENTER (NW3C) 2008 Internet Crime Report March 2009

 

The Justice Department's and FBI's 2008 Annual Report on Internet Crime. The number of complaints received rose 33% in 2008 compared to the prior year.: 275,284 (2008) compared to 206,884 (2007). Other noteworthy date include: §  Non-delivered merchandise or payment was the the most reported offense §     The highest median losses included check fraud ($3,000), confidence schemes ($2,000), and Nigerian letter fraud ($1,650) §       More than 77% of the perpetrators were male §           Over  50% of the perpetrators live in California, New York, Florida, Texas, Washington, D.C., and Washington State §         While at least 66% of reported perpetrators were in the U.S., a sizeable number were also in the United Kingdom, Nigeria, Canada, China, and South Africa §      74% of the fraud occurred via e-mail, and 28.9% via web pages §       Men lost more money than women: a ration of $1.69 versus $1.00 §      Roughly one-third (1/3) of the complainants resided in California, Florida, Texas, and New York You can read the complete FBI and U.S. Department of Justice cybercrime report at http://tinyurl.com/d7mbnz

 

Missouri Seems to Have Answer

Missouri has changed the way that juvenile offenders are handled when

they are placed into custody. The impressive fact is that after being

in the Missouri Model custodian case, RECIDIVISM IS LOW. Add

to this that the cost is lower than older methods of treating juveniles.

Read about how they are doing this and the states who have adopted

similar methods

Mandatory Minimums are beginning to be repealed

New York is poised to drop the mandatory minimum sentences for

drug-related crimes. The state had the most harsh penal code for

drug crimes under the Rockerfeller Laws passed in 1973.

Placing the emphasis on treatment and drug courts will be the

highlight of the new legislation. Judges who felt the former

mandatory laws took away their descretionary powers will

welcome the changes.

The article can be read here.

Juvenile Justice is Time Cover piece

Read the article.

Time: Juvenile System 'Racked With Abuses'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Time magazine says the case of two juvenile judges in Pennsylvania who profited from sending children away to lockups "is all too indicative of a juvenile-justice system racked with abuses yet subject to far less scrutiny than the adult system it increasingly mirrors." It notes the entire Texas juvenile-justice system had to be overhauled two years ago after it was discovered that kids were arbitrarily held years beyond their original sentence and that many were sexually abused. Recent studies have shown high recidivism rates from graduates of the private boot camps that were in vogue 10 years ago.

Nationwide, the system, which sends kids to a mix of large public "kiddie" prisons and smaller (but far more numerous) privately owned ones, handles more than 1.6 million juvenile cases a year; detentions have increased 44% from 1985 to 2002, the most recent year for which data are available. And that doesn't include the number of young offenders who bypass the juvenile system altogether. Every year, some 200,000 youths are tried, sentenced or incarcerated as adults. Many advocates and academics argue that juveniles are not being given enough of a chance to turn their lives around after committing minor offenses. Last summer, after reviewing a large swath of research literature, the Department of Justice concluded that "to best achieve reduction in recidivism, the overall number of juvenile offenders transferred to the criminal-justice system should be minimized."

Time

Supreme Court to rule on strip search of 13-year old

The article that describes the circumstances upon which

the case comes to the Court is found here.

The United States Supreme Court is hearing arguments 

and will decide if school officials had the right to strip

search an 8th grade student under a zero tolerance

policy. Another student who was found to have

prescription strength ibuprofin in school claimed she

had gotten it from Savana Redding , an honors student.

Ms. Redding had no Ibuprofin or any other drugs and

was completly humiliated by the experience. Her parents

filed suit and the case has now reached the Supreme Court. 

Zero tolerance is an example of a good idea that is often

taken to extremes with no good judgment utilized. I find it

hard to believe that the Court would hold that this action

by school authorities is anything but wrong and worthy of

condemnation. However, we must wait until the Court

issues its decision to know the position that will be taken.

The Tip of the Iceberg and our Children are in Danger

The Associated Press reported today on an effort 

by the Wisconsin Justice Department to

catch and prosecute those who solicit underage 

sex, of both sexes, as well that those

who buy, sell, and download child pornography.

The effort has caught a mayor, police officer, 

priest, and a teacher among many others.

The most frightening aspect is that the predators 

keep multiplying like unchecked

rabbits and the chances of their being 

caught is lower each year because of

manpower shortages and budget cuts.

With instant messaging a major part of young 

people's lives, college students as well

as those in high school and below, how does 

one know who is on the receiving

end of the message? 

 

At Last: Parental Responsibility Court

This was copied from:

http://www.al.com/news/press-register/metro.ssf?/base/news/1237454196167310.xml&coll=3#continue

Mobile County Juvenile Court judge orders parents of offenders to appear

Thursday, March 19, 2009

By ROBERT McCLENDON

Staff Reporter

When troubled youths get arrested for breaking into someone's car or selling drugs out of a friend's house, people often ask, "Where are the parents?"

Wednesday afternoon, about a dozen were in Mobile County Juvenile Judge Edmond Naman's courtroom.

They were there because their children, convicted of everything from burglary to assault, hadn't completed the terms of their probation. So they were called in to Naman's recently created Parent Responsibility Court.

He ordered parents of 40 children to show up. Only parents or guardians in 11 cases appeared.

For the others, Naman signed arrest warrants.

"Do you know how many crying mothers I have to see in a week, in a month, in a year?" the judge told one mother who had failed to see that her son, convicted of several car break-ins, met with his probation officer.

"What real prospects does your son have at this point?" he asked the sobbing mother.

"We are trying to get him some help, but you've got to do your part," Naman added.

Most of the older teens who show up at Strickland Youth Center on felony charges aren't in trouble for the first time, Naman said. Almost all of them have been convicted of lesser offenses and have been sentenced at some point to probation — which, in the juvenile system, often requires counseling, drug treatment and a renewed focus on school or work.

The problem is, Naman said, parents don't help enforce those conditions or take their children's problems seriously until it's too late.

The names of the parents who appeared before Naman on Wednesday have been withheld to protect the identity of their children.

As the cases made their way before Naman, there were glimpses into the home lives of some of the children.

In the case of one 16-year-old girl on probation for domestic violence charges, she was represented in court by her grandmother, who has legal custody. Her mother, who also was in court, had to relinquish custody after she was put in jail.

The father, who didn't show, at one point had tried to run down his daughter in a truck, according to a police report read out loud in court.

Naman chastised another teen's mother for the condition of her daughter's living environment. One man committed suicide in their home, and in a separate incident, police found a robbery suspect hiding in a closet, according to Naman. His gun was poorly hidden in a toilet.

The girl's father, who doesn't live in the same home, told Naman he was hearing of these incidents for the first time Wednesday.

"You just blew me off my feet with what you just said," he said.

Naman did not have any of the parents arrested. He said he wanted to give them a chance to put their children on the right track.

"We have some great programs that can help your children," Naman told the group. "In a way, I'm really begging for your help. We can't do it all by ourselves.

"I will not be begging the next time."

 

 

Death Penalty and Racial Disparity in NC

Published: Mar 18, 2009 12:00 AM

Modified: Mar 18, 2009 05:28 AM

Death penalty applied unevenly

BY ANNE BLYTHE, Staff Writer

DURHAM - A couple of defense lawyers are using a local death penalty 

study that mirrors the racial disparities highlighted in national analyses 

to try and keep their client from being prosecuted capitally.

An analysis of 177 murder cases over five years shows that prosecutors 

are six times more likely in Durham, one of the most diverse counties 

in the state, to seek capital punishment when a black suspect has 

been accused of killing a white person compared with when the victim is black.

Jay Ferguson and Lisa Williams, two Durham lawyers, plan to use the analysis 

in their defense of Keith Kidwell, a 24-year-old black man who has spent 

the past four years in jail awaiting trial on charges that he murdered 

Crayton Nelms, a white Kangaroo convenience store clerk found 

beaten to death at work in February 2005.

Ferguson and Williams will argue in court this week that the death penalty 

should be taken off the table because of the racial disparity issue. 

They also say their client has been denied his right to a speedy trial 

and the whole case should be dismissed.

The Durham analysis was conducted by Isaac Unah, 

a political scientist at UNC-Chapel Hill.

The researcher looked at all murder cases indicted by the Durham 

grand jury and followed them from start to finish.

Of the 177 murder suspects indicted by a Durham County grand jury 

between 2003 and 2007, 50 could not be prosecuted as death penalty 

cases because the defendants were too young.

Of the 127 other cases, only 20 were ever capital cases.

 None of those went to jury as a death penalty case 

because prosecutors often use the threat of capital punishment 

in bargaining for pleas.

James Coleman, a Duke University law professor who worked 

on the American Bar Association's Death Penalty Moratorium 

Implementation Project, said that although the case sample 

seemed small for a sweeping analysis, the conclusions 

hold pace with centuries-old patterns.

"That goes back to the Civil War times," Coleman said. 

"Prosecutors always sought the heaviest punishment 

for the black defendant when the victim was white. 

Those patterns have continued."

Although the 20-case sample is small, Kidwell's attorneys 

say the larger picture is the more troubling trend they 

plan to broach with a judge.

"These numbers are alarming," said Ferguson, 

a Durham lawyer brought into the case in September 2007. 

What it shows is race is the predominant factor over this 

five-year period for which defendants the state seeks the death penalty on."

The researchers considered more than race. They also analyzed 

the cases by the number of victims and the number of 

charges the suspects faced.

"Of all the factors analyzed," Unah concluded in the affidavit 

attached to his study, "the race of the victim had the greatest 

effect on the decision to seek the death penalty."

Of the 107 cases where the suspect was black and 

the victim was black, prosecutors sought the death penalty 

nearly 10 percent of the time. Of the 20 cases where the 

suspects were black and the victims white, prosecutors 

sought the death penalty 35 percent of the time.

The findings come at a time when a Racial Justice Act proposal 

is back before state legislators. The act would give defendants 

in capital murder cases the right to challenge their prosecution 

on racial bias grounds.

"This is exactly why we need it," Ferguson said.

District Attorney Tracey Cline, the prosecutor assigned 

to the Kidwell case, declined to discuss the findings 

but in a brief court hearing last week asked for more o

f the raw data so her experts can do their own analysis.

Other factors to consider, said Coleman, the Duke law professor, 

are whether the victim and suspect were strangers, which 

often brings threats of harsher punishment.

In gang-related cases, Coleman added, prosecutors 

often do not seek the death penalty because the 

victims might have provoked the crime.

In North Carolina and elsewhere across the country, 

the number of people sentenced to death has 

dropped dramatically in recent years.

In 2008, 13 juries in this state could have chosen death 

for defendants. Only one in Forsyth County did.

Kidwell, according to his attorneys, has been offered 

one plea deal that, had he accepted, would have put 

him behind bars for the rest of his life.

"I believe they're using the death penalty to extract 

plea bargains," Ferguson said.

The crux of the matter is set for hearing Thursday.

anne.blythe@newsobserver.com or 919-932-8741

© Copyright 2009, The News & Observer Publishing Company A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company

Is this wave of future in USA

March 19, 2009

Death Penalty Is Repealed in New Mexico

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — Gov. Bill Richardson signed legislation Wednesday to repeal New Mexico’s death penalty, calling it the “most difficult decision in my political life.”

The legislation replaces lethal injection with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

“Faced with the reality that our system for imposing the death penalty can never be perfect, my conscience compels me to replace the death penalty with a solution that keeps society safe,” Mr. Richardson said at a news conference in the Capitol.

The governor, a Democrat, faced a deadline of midnight for making a decision on the bill that lawmakers sent him last week.

New Mexico is only the second state to ban executions since the United States Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. New Jersey was the first, in 2007. In all, 15 states now bar capital punishment.

New Mexico has executed only one person since 1960, Terry Clark, a child killer, in 2001.

Two men are currently on death row, Robert Fry of Farmington and Timothy Allen of Bloomfield. Their sentences are not affected by the new law.

Mr. Richardson, who formerly supported capital punishment, said his decision was “extremely difficult,” and he solicited advice over the weekend from state residents.

Among those urging the governor to sign the bill was the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Officials of the Roman Catholic Church lobbied hard for repeal.

Lt. Gov. Diane D. Denish, a Democrat, said she delivered a handwritten note to the governor on Wednesday indicating her support for repeal.

The New Mexico Sheriffs’ and Police Association opposed repeal, saying capital punishment deterred violence against police officers, jailers and prison guards. District attorneys also opposed the legislation, arguing that the death penalty was a useful prosecutorial tool.

New Mexico was one of several states considering repealing the death penalty this year. In Kansas, a bill to do so failed to clear the Senate this week.

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

 

Jurors who Google or Twitter

Americans are getting so used to their Blackberries and other 21st century gadgets, that these same folk are using them in inappropriate places. An interesting conundrum has arisen where court observers are using Twitter to get friends and others updated on a trial, but when jurors reveal that they used their gadgets to view the intersection of an accident or other additional information, a mistrial was declared and weeks of work and money went out the window.

Should we revise the rules of court? Is justice still served if the jurors focus on the evidence presented to get a better understanding of the facts?

Should all electronics be turned into the bailiff before entering the courtroom

or before deliberations? 

Should potential jurors be banned from bringing these gadgets 

to the courthouse? 

What impact will this have on the supply of potential jurors?

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

 

---

March 18, 2009

As Jurors Turn to Web, Mistrials Are Popping Up

By JOHN SCHWARTZ

Last week, a juror in a big federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had been doing research on the case on the Internet, directly violating the judge’s instructions and centuries of legal rules. But when the judge questioned the rest of the jury, he got an even bigger shock.

Eight other jurors had been doing the same thing. The federal judge, William J. Zloch, had no choice but to declare a mistrial, a waste of eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers.

“We were stunned,” said a defense lawyer, Peter Raben, who was told by the jury that he had been on the verge of winning the case. “It’s the first time modern technology struck us in that fashion, and it hit us right over the head.”

It might be called a Google mistrial. The use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials around the country, upending deliberations and infuriating judges.

Last week, a building products company asked an Arkansas court to overturn a $12.6 million judgment, claiming that a juror used Twitter to send updates during the civil trial.

And on Monday, defense lawyers in the federal corruption trial of a former Pennsylvania state senator, Vincent J. Fumo, demanded before the verdict that the judge declare a mistrial because a juror posted updates on the case on Twitter andFacebook. The juror had even told his readers that a “big announcement” was coming on Monday. But the judge decided to let the deliberations continue, and the jury found Mr. Fumo guilty. His lawyers plan to use the Internet postings as grounds for appeal.

Jurors are not supposed to seek information outside of the courtroom. They are required to reach a verdict based on only the facts the judge has decided are admissible, and they are not supposed to see evidence that has been excluded as prejudicial. But now, using their cellphones, they can look up the name of a defendant on the Web or examine an intersection using Google Maps, violating the legal system’s complex rules of evidence. They can also tell their friends what is happening in the jury room, though they are supposed to keep their opinions and deliberations secret.

A juror on a lunch or bathroom break can find out many details about a case. Wikipedia can help explain the technology underlying a patent claim or medical condition, Google Maps can show how long it might take to drive from Point A to Point B, and news sites can write about a criminal defendant, his lawyers or expert witnesses.

“It’s really impossible to control it,” said Douglas L. Keene, president of the American Society of Trial Consultants.

Judges have long amended their habitual warning about seeking outside information during trials to include Internet searches. But with the Internet now as close as a juror’s pocket, the risk has grown more immediate — and instinctual. Attorneys have begun to check the blogs and Web sites of prospective jurors.

Mr. Keene said jurors might think they were helping, not hurting, by digging deeper. “There are people who feel they can’t serve justice if they don’t find the answers to certain questions,” he said.

But the rules of evidence, developed over hundreds of years of jurisprudence, are there to ensure that the facts that go before a jury have been subjected to scrutiny and challenge from both sides, said Olin Guy Wellborn III, a law professor at theUniversity of Texas.

“That’s the beauty of the adversary system,” said Professor Wellborn, co-author of a handbook on evidence law. “You lose all that when the jurors go out on their own.”

There appears to be no official tally of cases disrupted by Internet research, but with the increasing adoption of Web technology in cellphones, the numbers are sure to grow. Some courts are beginning to restrict the use of cellphones by jurors within the courthouse, even confiscating them during the day, but a majority do not, Mr. Keene said. And computer use at home, of course, is not restricted unless a jury is sequestered.

In the Florida case that resulted in a mistrial, Mr. Raben spent nearly eight weeks fighting charges that his client had illegally sold prescription drugs through Internet pharmacies. The arguments were completed and the jury was deliberating when one juror contacted the judge to say another had admitted to her that he had done outside research on the case over the Internet.

The judge questioned the juror about his research, which included evidence that the judge had specifically excluded. Mr. Raben recalls thinking that if the juror had not broadly communicated his information with the rest of the jury, the trial could continue and the eight weeks would not be wasted. “We can just kick this juror off and go,” he said.

But then the judge found that eight other jurors had done the same thing — conducting Google searches on the lawyers and the defendant, looking up news articles about the case, checking definitions on Wikipedia and searching for evidence that had been specifically excluded by the judge. One juror, asked by the judge about the research, said, “Well, I was curious,” according to Mr. Raben.

“It was a heartbreak,” Mr. Raben added.

Information flowing out of the jury box can be nearly as much trouble as the information flowing in; jurors accustomed to posting regular updates on their day-to-day experiences and thoughts can find themselves on a collision course with the law.

In the Arkansas case, Stoam Holdings, the company trying to overturn the $12.6 million judgment, said a juror, Johnathan Powell, had sent Twitter messages during the trial. Mr. Powell’s messages included “oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they’ll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter” and “So Johnathan, what did you do today? Oh nothing really, I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money.”

Mr. Powell, 29, the manager of a one-hour photo booth at a Wal-Mart in Fayetteville, Ark., insisted in an interview that he had not sent any substantive messages about the case until the verdict had been delivered and he was released from his obligation not to discuss the case. “I was done when I mentioned the trial at all,” he said. “They’re welcome to pull my phone records.”

But juror research is a more troublesome issue than sending Twitter messages or blogging, Mr. Keene said, and it raises new issues for judges in giving instructions.

“It’s important that they don’t know what’s excluded, and it’s important that they don’t know why it’s excluded,” Mr. Keene said. The court cannot even give a full explanation to jurors about research — say, to tell them what not to look for — so instructions are usually delivered as blanket admonitions, he said.

The technological landscape has changed so much that today’s judge, Mr. Keene said, “has to explain why this is crucial, and not just go through boilerplate instructions.” And, he said, enforcement goes beyond what the judge can do, pointing out that “it’s up to Juror 11 to make sure Juror 12 stays in line.”

It does not always work out that way. Seth A. McDowell, a data support specialist who lives in Albuquerque and works for a financial advising firm, said he was serving on a jury last year when another juror admitted running a Google search on the defendant, even though she acknowledged that she was not supposed to do so. She said she did not find anything, Mr. McDowell said.

Mr. McDowell, 35, said he thought about telling the judge, but decided against it. None of the other jurors did, either. Now, he said, after a bit of soul-searching, he feels he may have made the wrong choice. But he remains somewhat torn.

“I don’t know,” he said. “If everybody did the right thing, the trial, which took two days, would have gone on for another bazillion years.”

Mr. McDowell said he planned to attend law school in the fall.

 

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company

 

Death Penalty and Economic Reality

States weigh cost of death penalty

Los Angeles TImes

With executions in decline, some lawmakers want to abolish capital punishment, citing expenses as a factor.

By Steve Mills 
March 14, 2009

Reporting from Chicago -- To New Mexico Atty. Gen. Gary King, a prison guard's slaying cried out for the death penalty: Inmates had stabbed him two dozen times.

But when the defense ran out of money, the state Supreme Court ruled that King could not seek a death sentence until the lawyers were paid -- approximately $200,000 for each of the three defendants, King said. When state legislators refused to allocate more money, prosecutors dropped their pursuit of the death penalty.

 In January, one of the inmates was sentenced to 54 years in prison.

"Unless the Legislature is willing to appropriate a lot of money for the defense, then I think that the death penalty is pretty well negated in New Mexico," King said in an interview.

"If we had death penalty cases on the horizon, there would be a big discussion about whether we could take a budget cut," he added. "We can't just absorb that in our standard budget."

Debate over the death penalty has undergone shifts over the years. During the last decade, the discussion has focused on accuracy and fairness, with exonerations of dozens of death row inmates sparking calls for reform and abolition. Now, with the nation's economy slumping, the issue is cost.

Several states have introduced measures to abolish the death penalty, many of them citing its cost. New Mexico's Legislature voted Friday to do so.

In Colorado, a bill would take money usually spent on capital cases and use it to help clear unsolved cases. In Kansas, a legislator wants to use money for capital cases to close a budget shortfall.

"In a way, we have life without parole, but we're paying more money to achieve it," said state Sen. Carolyn McGinn, a Republican, noting that Kansas has not executed an inmate in decades.

New Jersey cited cost as one factor when it abolished the death penalty in 2007, and a commission that studied the death penalty in Maryland recently cited cost as well.

In Georgia, the public defender system is underfunded and in crisis after the death penalty trial of a man convicted of killing a judge and three others during his 2005 escape from an Atlanta courthouse. The case cost more than $2 million. The man, Brian Nichols, received a life sentence.

In California, legislators are wrestling with the cost of maintaining the nation's largest death row even though the state has executed only 13 inmates since 1976. Officials are also debating construction of a new $395-million death row prison that many lawmakers say the state cannot afford.

And in Louisiana, the Orleans Parish district attorney's office has considered filing for bankruptcy protection after it was ordered to pay $15 million to John Thompson. He sued prosecutors after he was acquitted of murder and freed from death row; a jury found that prosecutors had engaged in misconduct.

"This is a time where if you have a government program and it's not producing a lot but it's costing a lot, then it's ripe for examination," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center. "It's not like libraries, which you need, or other crucial programs. This is a program that's not really producing."

The scrutiny of the costs of capital punishment comes as the death penalty is in decline. Prosecutors are obtaining fewer death sentences -- in part because more states offer juries the option of life without the possibility of parole -- and states are carrying out fewer executions.

Many of the costs are built into the system and cannot be changed. They include the costs of specially trained defense lawyers, mental health and mitigation experts, and a longer course of appeals. And there are the many added costs of housing death row prisoners.

"As long as you have a death penalty system, you'll have regular expenses. And those expenses aren't getting cheaper," Dieter said. "There's a maintenance cost to the death penalty."

Death penalty cases can have an outsized effect in smaller counties, which tend to have smaller budgets. There, a case can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars -- close to $1 million if the issues are particularly complicated -- and force officials to cut programs to fund the prosecution.

Prosecutors say they have to take that into consideration, although it is not the only factor.

"Any good prosecutor is going to have to consider cost, especially in smaller, rural counties," said R. Lowell Thompson, district attorney for Navarro County in Texas, south of Dallas.

"But cost isn't the only consideration. Our job is to seek justice, and we have to carry that out."

smmills@tribune.com