CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Criminal Law Blog by Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Mr. Billy Sinclair

December 18, 2010

TEXAS COMMUNITY SUPERVISION REVISITED

Legislative Rush to Punish “Sex” Offenders Removes Punishment Alternatives, Probation, Unnecessarily Increases Prison Overcrowding

By: Houston Criminal Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

In 2008 we posted a piece about the restrictions the Texas Legislature had placed on the availability of probation. Historically probation was an alternative to penal incarceration designed to give first offenders and minor offenders a second chance.

As the American society entered the industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries, which forced more people to “leave the farms” and relocate into tightly congested urban areas where the manufacturing jobs were, crime increased exponentially, as did the rate of penal incarceration. Probation gradually evolved from the humanitarian efforts of states like Massachusetts to “save the souls” of miscreants with a second chance at life to a necessary sentencing tool needed to divert increasingly more serious offenders away from overcrowded state penal systems. Prosecutors also found probation to be an effective leverage against criminal defendants to get them to enter into “plea bargains” and thereby avoid the costly trial by jury process.

But as violent crime increased probation and its first cousin, parole, became the “whipping boy” for a developing “law and order” movement—a movement whose roots can be traced back to the racial segregation of the Old South. According to the 1935 FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the Southern states had a murder rate of 21.9 per 100,000 people—a rate that was nearly six times the national average. In his book The Mind of the South (Vantage Books 1941), W.J. Cash wrote: “The Negro in the slums was the main, though by no means the whole, explanation for this appalling showing. Police reports and maps for cities like Atlanta and Charlotte (the two which had the highest murder-rate for the South) reveal plainly that the murder line follows the location of black slums with great exactness, that most of the criminal and the majority of their victims are found there, and that the greatest incidence of the crime occurs in exactly the slums where unemployment, crowding, squalor, and want are most prevalent.”

By the 1970s, when the “crime victim rights movement” was established in California, violent crime had migrated from the slums of the South to the larger urban areas across the rest of the country. The militancy of the late 1960s spawned Richard Nixon’s presidential “war on crime” declaration as many Americans had increasingly grown disenchanted with Lyndon Johnson’s liberal social programs known as the president’s “Great Society.”  “States rights” racists politicians of the Old South, led by Alabama Gov. George Wallace, found allegiances with Northern politicians who were seeing one “big city” after another going up in the flames of “race riots.”  Demands for “law-and-order” became a political right of passage.

(more…)

May 29, 2010

THE RIGHT TO CONFINE FOREVER

Indefinite Detention: Preemptive Punishment for Future Sex Crimes

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

On May 17, 2010 the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Comstock upheld a federal statute that gives Government the power to civilly commit indefinitely a “sexually dangerous person” after he has completed serving his criminal sentence. The statute, 18U.S.C. Sec. 4248, was the subject of one of our blogs earlier this year. §4248 has three basic components. First, it allows a federal district court to civilly commit an offender currently in the “custody of the [Federal] Bureau of Prisons” if that offender (1) has previously “engaged or attempted to engage in sexually violent conduct or child molestation,” (2) currently “suffers from a serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder,” and (3) “as a result of” those conditions is “sexually dangerous to others” in that “he would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexual violent conduct or child molestation if released.”

Second, before the “sexually dangerous” determination can be made, the U.S. Justice Department must certify to the federal district court that the offender meets the “sexually dangerous” criteria. When the Government files this certification, the offender’s release from custody on his criminal sentence is automatically stayed until the Government has an opportunity at a fact-finding hearing to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” (psychiatric reports, etc) that the offender is “sexually dangerous.” § 4248 permits an offender to be represented by counsel, the right to testify at the hearing, present evidence, subpoena witnesses on his behalf, and confront and cross examine Government witnesses.

Third, if the Government carries the “sexually dangerous” burden, the district court will order the offender’s continued commitment in “the custody of the Attorney General” who must “make all reasonable efforts to cause” the State where the offender was convicted or his domicile State to “assume responsibility for his custody, care, and treatment.” If neither State will accept the offender under that legal obligation, the Attorney General “shall place the person for treatment in a suitable [federal] facility.”

All 50 states have established some kind of system for the mandatory registration of sex offenders and community notification. A few states have gone so far as to impose residency restrictions on sex offenders. But less than half of the States (22) have enacted civil commitment statutes similar to § 4248. The primary reason for the lack of overwhelming support at the state level for such statutes is costs: $64,000 a year to confine a “sexually dangerous” offender under civil commitment. That is precisely why most states with civil commitment provisions will not accept federal offenders determined to be “sexually dangerous.”  They simply cannot afford to confine them for indefinite and extended periods of time. They already have too many on their hands.

(more…)

February 15, 2010

RELEASED SEX OFFENDERS – A GROWING UNDERCLASS

By: Houston Criminal Attorney John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

In 1994 the United States Congress passed the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act which required all states to create programs mandating that certain kinds of sex offenders register with state or local authorities. Congress added teeth to the Act by threatening the states with a ten percent loss of federal anti-crime funding for failure to comply.

Child protection advocates like Marc Klaas, whose daughter (Polly) was brutally raped and murdered in the 1990s by a released sex offender who is currently on California’s death row, offer these reasons for sex offender registration laws:

  • Sex offenders pose a high risk of re-offending after release from custody;
  • Protecting the public from sex offenders is a primary governmental interest;
  • The privacy interests of persons convicted of sex offenses are less important than the government’s interest in public safety; and
  • Release of certain information about offenders to public agencies and the general public will assist in protecting the public safety.

Two years later, in 1996, Congress amended the Jacob Wetterling Act with Megan’s Law which mandated “community notification” when a sex offender moves into a given neighborhood. The notification laws make public virtually all private information about sex offenders. Klaas defends “notification” laws on these grounds:

  • Assists law enforcement in investigations;
  • Establishes legal grounds to hold known offenders;
  • Deters sex offenders from committing new offenses;
  • Offers citizens information they can use to protect children from victimization.

Then in 2006 President George W. Bush signed into law the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. This Act requires the U.S. Justice Department to create a national sex offender database accessible to the public through the Internet allowing nationwide searches about registered sex offenders.

(more…)

January 20, 2009

CHILD PREDATORS AND PUNISHMENT

Disparate Treatment of Sex Offenders, Punishment and Public Policy

Houston Criminal Defense Lawyer John Floyd and Paralegal Billy Sinclair

“Child predator” is now among the two worst words in the American lexicon. A 42-year-old Houston resident, we will call him John Doe, recently learned as much. According to allegations by law enforcement, the Magnolia High School institutional aide decided last October to look up former students on Facebook from high schools where he had worked.

Law enforcement authorities believe it started out as an innocent venture. But it did not remain innocent. A 16-year-old boy responded to John Doe’s query. John Doe had known the teenager at Westwood High School in the Round Rock school district between 2004 and 2007. Austin Detective Joel Pridgeon said the communications between the school employee and student quickly escalated from innocent online chatting to sexual solicitation.

The Houston Chronicle report about the episode did not disclose how law enforcement got involved in the case. The newspaper briefly reported that John Doe confessed when he was confronted by Pridgeon in Houston. The detective then returned to Austin where he secured a warrant charging John Doe with online solicitation of a minor. The school employee could have been charged under either of the two Texas solicitation of a minor statutes.

First, Texas Penal Code Article 33.021 defines “online solicitation of a minor”:

(a) In this section:
(1) ”Minor” means:
(A) an individual who represents himself or herself to be younger than 17 years of age; or
(B) an individual whom the actor believes to be younger than 17 years of age.
(2) ”Sexual contact,” “sexual intercourse,” and “deviate sexual intercourse” have the meanings assigned by Section 21.01.
(3) ”Sexually explicit” means any communication, language, or material, including a photographic or video image, that relates to or describes sexual conduct, as defined by Section 43.25.
(b) A person who is 17 years of age or older commits an offense if, with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, the person, over the Internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, intentionally:
(1) communicates in a sexually explicit manner with a minor; or
(2) distributes sexually explicit material to a minor.
(c) A person commits an offense if the person, over the Internet, by electronic mail or text message or other electronic message service or system, or through a commercial online service, knowingly solicits a minor to meet another person, including the actor, with the intent that the minor will engage in sexual contact, sexual intercourse, or deviate sexual intercourse with the actor or another person. (more…)

Powered by WordPress © 2010 John T. Floyd III Crimnal Defense Attorney : Webmaster Kevin Grey Lee