Judgement Liens for All Outstanding Probation Fees/Restitution

According to Texas Criminal Procedure-Code and Rules, Article 42.22, Sec. 2-12, http://www.government.texasonline.state.tx.us, Offenders can be accountable for their crimes by making the offender pay a restitution lien for both the victim and the courts to cover the administrative costs. As of now, many defendants don’t pay up. The inability to pay based on low income, debt, or family/child support, has been the quick and easy defense for most lawyers. However, according to the 79th Session of the Texas Legislature, judges do no have to consider when determining restitution. A criminal who commits a crime should be held accountable and required to make restitution. Restitution in Texas, A Report to the Legislators, authored by the staff at Sam Houston State University, “50% of restitution ordered is collected.” In other words and the bigger picture, the other 50% is lost in the judicial halls of apathy. The report goes on to state:

“[C]ollecting restitution payments compete with the collection of other fees, including fines, court fees, and supervision fees. Some of these fees are used to supplement the budgets of the respective departments and officers’ salaries. The average community supervision order contains 18 conditions, which strains the ability to efficiently supervise restitution payment. --Office of Victims of Crime (1999) Promising victim-related practices and strategies in probation and parole. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
We need to take a step further and free up the courts by not having the thousands of technical violations at the end of sentencing. *******Texas has underused or not used at all its own rules about collecting monies and restitution for victims. Many if not all Texas Judges and District Attorneys have dropped the ball in the Restorative Justice policy by not repairing the damage between the victim and the offender.

This forgotten or ignored 42.22 code could bring in millions of dollars over the next decade returning funds back into the county and state coffers and most importantly, make the offender accountable for his or her crime. This can supplement bed space for violators of probation, violent and sex offenders. What appears to be the only important issue with the legislators and counties is to empty jails and prisons and leaving our citizens plagued with violence on the streets. The costs of beds are soaring through the roof and drain our counties of funds that could pay salaries, build better infrastructure, or provide resources for a better quality of life. This is a solution. The current lack of judicial oversight and negligence by the courts to reach across the code and change the current trend shows the lack of courage by the many who are responsible for a balance judicial system. The need to aggressively change to a “criminal accountability system instead of a treatment based system is critical as bed space becomes more and more important in locking up those violent and sex offenders.

As of now, the only buzz word around Austin is treatment which private attorneys have obvious reasons to support. The Big Treatment Lobbyist seems to work overtime peddling goods. It is a feel good policy. However, it is not all about treatment. It needs to be about accountability and protection of the public. Crimes cost millions of dollars to the citizens of Texas. We should not give lawyers and defendants more loopholes to avoid accountability.

Consequently, as of this date, near-sighted judges and legislators fail to realize the unused code could bring accountability and ownership of the crime to the offender. Restitution liens on all outstanding monies owed to the victims along with court costs and administration fees will eventually pay for a great number of bed spaces for those who fail to abide by the conditions of probation and keep violent and recidivist type criminals behind bars.
By judgment liens, this will in turn significantly reduce the number of technical violations for failure to pay monies. Judges could automatically convert any outstanding debt owed at the beginning of supervision to a judgment lien for all outstanding costs at the end of supervision.

This will free the court and the jails of the revolving door justice of violations, bonds, hearings, and dismissals. A simple statement ordering any outstanding balance at the end of supervision will be automatically converted to a judgment lien. This is the only solution for many victims and county jurisdictions to recover restitution and costs. Once the affidavit is filed by the District Attorney’s office, the affidavit will perfect the restitution lien giving priority to the victim for any monies collected from tax refunds, settlements, or other awards given to the offender. Long after the offender’s probation terminates successfully or unsuccessfully, the victim can still be paid by this method. Maybe there will be a court in the future who will stumble onto this forgotten code. If your county is not using 42.22, maybe you can suggest it as you ask to raise probation officer salaries.

Work Camps for Local Jails Can Reduce Inmate Population and Provide an Alternative Sentencing Choice for the Courts

Road prison or work camps throughout the country have provided an alternative sentence for local judges. Many have complained about jail overcrowding and not knowing what to do with violators on probation. The concept adds another choice for progressive sanctions and allows minimum risk offenders to stay in the local area. County-operated work camps provide labor for roads, picking up trash, clearing rights-of-way, removing debris, mowing county-owned property, clear drainage areas and provide storm water maintenance.

The inmates receive additional gain time, remain in the county for families to visit, and obtain valuable training for maintenance type jobs. Some move on to legitimate employment once released from the camp. The camp could operate near self-sufficiency with additional farming and ranching jobs in the compound.

The biggest hurdle is funding a facility. Alternate sites could reduce costs. Counties can take over abandoned lands and buildings. Inmates can provide the labor to construct facilities. Eventually the facility will cost minimum compared to a main jail or prison. The camps do not require high security and need to house minimum risk offenders. The cost savings in county employees working the labor jobs will eventually balance out construction costs. The key is allowing the offender to be accountable and give him or her a productive purpose while serving his or her sentence.

BEXAR COUNTY JAIL POPULATION LIKE MANY AROUND THE STATE

According to the Bexar County State Legislative Program, 80th Session, a reduction in the county jail is top priority. The report explains that many offenders or inmates prefer staying in the local jail as opposed to incarceration at a state facility. Obvious reasons are closer to family and the notion of county jails are more comfortable. Therefore, many convicted felons are filing appeals for frivolous reasons allowing the offenders to continue their stay in local jails until time expires on their sentences. Statistics are not available for accuracy of this report. As one can read, the outcome can create overcrowding in jails which cause a backlash with the courts releasing violators on bond to reduce inmate population. These seasoned criminals remain in the community having already failed the trust of the court by violating the rules and/or breaking the law.

The financial impact on local county budgets have brought about another push to release violators. This in turn has brought about discussion on a concept not known by many. The Parole Violators-Blue Warrants allow county magistrates to release parolees on administrative parole violations awaiting a parole hearing. According to Section 508.254, Government Code, currently requires parolees in custody shall remain in custody pending a hearing for parole violations. The push to release these inmates in the community due to cost savings outweigh the risks involved with parole violators in the community.

Protection of the community seems to have taken a back seat for this local jail administrator. Closing the loopholes with the appellate process and concentrating on releasing first time non-violent offenders should take precedence over releasing proven felon violators. It will be interesting to hear from those officers in Bexar County as to alternate solutions to reduce jail overcrowding.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, By Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar, BJS Statisticians

Summary findings
Probationers include adult offenders whom courts place on community supervision generally in lieu of incarceration.
Parolees include those adults conditionally released to community supervision whether by parole board decision or by mandatory conditional release after serving a prison term. They are subject to being returned to jail or prison for rule violations or other offenses.
At yearend 2005, over 4.9 million adult men and women were under Federal, State, or local probation or parole jurisdiction; approximately 4,162,500 on probation and 784,400 on parole.
The 0.6% growth in the probation and parole population during 2005 -- an increase of 31,626 during the year -- was more than a fifth of the average annual increase of 2.8% since 1995.
At the end of 2005 --
-- Among offenders on probation, half (50 percent) had been convicted for committing a felony, 49% for a misdemeanor, and 1% for other infractions. Seventy percent of probationers were being actively supervised at the end of 2005; 9% were inactive cases and 10% had absconded. -- Nearly all of the offenders on parole (94%) had been sentenced to incarceration of more than 1 year. -- Women made up about 23% of the nation's probationers and 12% of the parolees. -- Approximately 55% of the adults on probation were white, and 30% were black, and 13% were Hispanic. Forty-one percent of parolees were white, 40% black, and 18% were Hispanic.
Inmates released from prison as a result of a parole board decision dropped from 50% of all adults entering parole in 1995 to 31% in 2005, while mandatory releases based on a statutory requirement increased from 45% to 51%.
Forty-five percent of parole discharges in 2005 successfully completed their term of supervision, unchanged since 1995. Thirty-eight percent were returned to jail or prison, and 11% absconded.
By the end of 2000, 16 States had abolished parole board authority for releasing all offenders, and another 4 States had abolished parole board authority for releasing certain violent offenders.

Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin

Probation and Parole in the United States, 2005
Reports the number of persons on probation and parole, by State, at yearend 2005 and compares the totals with yearend 1995 and 2000. It lists the States with the largest and smallest parole and probation populations and the largest and smallest rates of community supervision, and identifies the States with the largest increases. The Bulletin also describes the race and gender of these populations and reports the percentages of parolees and probationers completing community supervision successfully, or failing because of a rule violation or a new offense.
Highlights include the following:
The adult probation population grew 0.5% in 2005. This was an increase of 19,070 probationers, or the smallest increase in the last 26 years.
About 50% of all probationers had been convicted of a felony, 49% of a misdemeanor, and 1% of other infractions. Twenty-eight percent were on probation for a drug law violation, and 15% for driving while intoxicated.
In 2005 the Nation's parole population grew 1.6%. This was an increase of 12,556 parolees during the year.