Capital Punishment--Expensive and inefficient.

Re: Should the Death Penalty be a Time of the Past?

Kathryn, I agree with your opinion that life without parole is a more effective alternative to the death penalty, and that hopefully capital punishment will become obsolete in the future. In your argument, you mentioned several important reasons for your logic, including a concern for executing innocent people and that life without parole is equivalent to execution in our "eye for eye" culture of justice.

However, there are some points that you did not include in your post, such as the high cost of capital punishment. In Texas, the average cost of a death penalty is $2.3 million per case, which is about three times as much as imprisoning someone in a high security unit for 40 years. This is due to the fact that capital trials are more lengthy and expensive than other murder trials. Because of the need for expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity of two separate trials (for guilt and sentencing), these trials are much more costly even before the appeals process begins. Even more, during many of the trials, life sentences are issued instead of guilty pleas, thus the state has to pay not only for the trial, but also for life imprisonment (which is about $750,000).

Additionally, recent studies have found that the death penalty is not effective in deterring crime. Both criminologists and police chiefs agree concur with this, and believe that capital punishment is not smart on crime. Therefore, in an economy marked with deep budget cuts, I think it’s time for a more efficient to be developed.

--"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed, but by the punishment that the good have inflicted." Oscar Wilde--

Sources:
http://tcadp.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/What-makes-the-Texas-death-penalty-so-expensive-print.pdf
http://www.fnsa.org/v1n1/dieter1.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

YEE-HAW. Texas is doing something right--Senate Bill 653.

 Amidst the budget debacle and the numerous cuts to several important services that help Texans, many people (including me) are discouraged more than ever about Texas politics. However, even though it seems like the only legislative news is bad news, shockingly there is a policy area that has been improving steadily- the juvenile justice system.

Looking at the history of the juvenile justice system, this is a surprise. For example, in 2007 the entire system was shook by a scandal that uncovered not only the sexual abuse of inmates by top TYC officials, but also a failed cover-up effort. Even more, the remote, far-off facilities, the poor staff ratios, inadequate surveillance, and improperly trained corrections officers made the Texas juvenile system not only insufficient, but also unjust.

Since then, reform efforts have been high in order to combat the “get tough on crime” technique that saturates Texas criminal justice.  Laws have been enacted that prohibit sending young people that were merely guilty of misdemeanors from being locked up, and $100 million was poured into effective community-based programs.

This legislative session, the “sunset bill” was passed with a unanimous vote (Senate Bill 653). This abolished the Texas Youth Commission and Texas Juvenile Probation Commission to form the Texas Juvenile Justice Commission. This system will work in partnership with the courts and communities to provide effective services to those involved in the juvenile justice system and their families. This is predicted to save the state $150 million annually, because with the new stress on local treatment and probation, many state facilities will no longer be needed. Thus, three out of the ten state youth prisons will be closed, and the funds will be sent to local rehabilitation programs.

This is great news for the welfare of juvenile offenders, because according to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, community-based treatment programs show statistically significant positive effect sizes for institutionalized offenders. Even more, they will help youth get to the roots of their negative behavior, which often is the result of mental health needs. County probation departments will now have the funds to help youth learn better coping methods in relation to past abuse, family issues, or substance abuse. Even more, the community programs allow families to be involved in the rehabilitation process, which helps to transform not only the individual but also the entire family system.

 
However, in order for these reforms to continue the improvement of juvenile justice programs and help offenders avoid recidivism, close attention will need to be paid to the new bureaucracy of the Texas Juvenile Justice Commission and the counties in charge of rehabilitation services. Not only does the efficacy of the programs need to be regularly audited, but also local governments must have sufficient resources to serve juvenile offenders.

 Sources:

In Texas, scandals rock juvenile justice system

Lawmakers in lockstep on juvenile-justice bills

Civil Rights vs. Rick Perry (A response)

 In response to: Eternal Drought.

Sam, I wholeheartedly agree with your post. I currently share a home with my sister and her wife, and through this I have become more passionate and knowledgeable about gay civil rights. The experiences they have had while obtaining a civil union, employment rights, and now a new baby are atrocious. Thus, like you, imagining a day where intolerance is obliterated and civil rights are finally celebrated in our narrow-minded state seems almost impossible.

I enjoyed the article you posted about Rick Perry and his opinion on gay marriage in New York. His lackluster level of “support” was not shocking, however I was surprised that he didn’t oppose the statute more ardently due to his history of defending the marriage between man and woman. This led me to research his response more in depth, and as of today he has realized the “faults” in his comment and has corrected them. In a radio interview with the conservative advocacy group, Family Research Council, Perry remarked:

“I probably needed to add a few words after that ‘it’s fine with me, and that it’s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue. Obviously, gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn’t changed.” (Source.)

However, this elitism (as you suggested) can turn into a much larger problem. Even though Perry still claims that gay marriage is not okay, his original comment on New York established a much more moderate platform. This drew many reactions from adamant conservatives, though, so personally it seems like his radio interview was a defensive reaction (perhaps he thought God would smite him if for one second he believed that homosexuality was not a incorrigible sin?). Anyway, his federalism is a great political move, because he has made himself more attractive to those that are conservative but who are against anti-gay bigotry. Horrifyingly, this might actually win him some votes. If so, justice won't be raining in Texas any time soon. This "eternal drought" will continue.

The students on the bus go $cha-ching, $cha-ching, $cha-ching, all through the town!

            Due to voter rejection of a recently proposed tax increase in Keller, a suburb just north of Fort Worth, parents of children attending public schools in the district will begin to start paying a fee for a service normally covered by local taxes (See here: Parents pay for bus rides). The district passed a pay-to-ride bus service that will charge parents $185 for their child to ride the bus to school, with an additional $135 per sibling. Because of a $30 million gap in the 2011-12 budget and a reduction in state funding, the district is scrambling to make cuts, and by slashing the bus service the school will raise $2 million. It is expected that the new system will affect more than 7,000 students, and even though this is a wealthy district it will hit low-income families hard. Thankfully, though, the school altered the original plan to allow parents to pay in installments instead of a full payment in August. Also, there are reductions for those qualify for free and reduced lunch.

            Fiscally speaking, this plan seems reasonable to taxpayers who do not have children in schools. Why should their taxes get bumped up for children that aren’t their own? On the other hand, parents of students should be furious. The district property tax increase that projected to provide $16 million in revenue was an additional 13 cents for each $100 in assessed value. For example, this would cost the owner of a $200,000 an extra $260 a year. However, parents with two children riding on the bus system will be charged a whopping $640 a year.

             So, what’s the most reasonable solution? Did the 55.8% of the voters who rejected the tax increase make the right decision? In my humble opinion, they certainly did NOT. It not only cost the school district their education transportation, but also eliminated more than a 100 teaching positions, most notably in the music and arts departments. (See the full list of cuts here: Tax Ratification Election). Personally, I think this (and other districts being forced to follow this trend) is outrageous. Did people forget the value of education? Surely they remember that the benefits from educating a child and helping them become productive members of society are universal. Even more, the Constitution establishes that it is the duty of the state to maintain a system of “public free schools” (Article VII), but with parents having to pay for transportation resources is this education actually free? When I was in school, I rode the bus because my parents could neither afford the gas or time off of work to take me to and from school. If the state requires students to go to school, shouldn’t a district allow a reasonable way for students to get there? What are they going to do when a parent cannot pay? Make them walk? Kick them out of school? Take their lunch money?

            All of this points to a much larger problem, though. The tax-less-cut-more ideology of the state government is affecting public education and Texas children. Keller ISD is just one of the hundreds of examples of the major flaws in our state’s educational policy.

 Sources:

http://www.kellerisd.net/community/communications/news/Pages/KellerISDresidentsvoteagainsttaxincreaseproposition.aspx

http://www.kellerisd.net/community/communications/news/Pages/DispellingtheMythsKellerISD%27sTaxRatificationElection.aspx

http://www.wfaa.com/news/education/Keller-Parents-Pay-for-Bus-Service-125846563.html

http://www.wfaa.com/news/education/Keller-ISD-Prepares-for-More-Cuts-124217894.html

 

UrbanGrounds? More like UrbanIdiot.

Robbie Cooper, author of the blog UrbanGrounds, is a professional writer, veteran, and blogging enthusiast living in Austin. A native Texan and conservative, his blog has been a sanctuary for his fervent rants about the daily events in the very liberal city of Austin since 2004. Self-acclaimed to be an “opinionated sonofabitch”, it appears that he takes pride in his politically incorrect viewpoints, exclaiming that “… I won’t accept race, gender, age, religion, or political ideology as an excuse for stupidity, and I’ll call bullshit every time I see it” (See here: About me). Therefore, in order to tolerate his blog the audience consists of those that are like-minded, which are most likely those that lean to the very far right. However, as seen by some of the comments on the blog, the “other side” is attracted as well (like me), who are too shocked to stop reading his furious and ridiculous online tirades. All of this said, is Ubrangrounds a credible, objective source of information? Of course not! However, it doesn’t claim to be. Robbie Cooper is just an average guy, with a big opinion, and even a bigger mouth.

In the blog post, Mayhem in Dallas as hundreds scramble for Section 8 vouchers, Cooper explains his opinion about a recent fiasco in Dallas County. Last Thursday, thousands of people lined up overnight to receive vouchers for the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program through the Dallas County Department of Health and Human Services, which provides rental assistance to low-income households. DISD and Dallas County Security were in charge of controlling and organizing the event, but chaos broke out when hundreds of people began to rush the line. During this, at least eight people were injured. According to Cooper, though, this mayhem was not due to the lack of organization by the local government or police force, but because of the uncivilized nature of the crowd  (more specifically African Americans). Cooper was outraged that the organizers of the event were accused, as seen by this quote: “…who’s to blame for the piss-poor manners and near-riotous behavior to these blacks acting…well…black? That’s right—the organizers (heaven forbid we hold these people accountable for their own behavior”. Even more, Cooper exclaimed that the problem was that the entire crowd felt entitled to welfare. Thus, instead of getting a job and working hard to support themselves, they're lazy.

In my opinion, I fervently disagree with every single thing about this blog post. The bigotry of Robbie Cooper is nauseating, and my only hope while reading this is that few people that share his Republican ideology actually feel the same way. Cooper’s logic for the problem is utterly ridiculous. I could go on and on about his negative stereotypes, but I think that his racism is very clear. All emotion aside, though, Cooper does not have any evidence for his claims. In his introductory sentence he stated, “No other group in America is as dependent on Government hand-outs, charity, and entitlement than are black people.” However, according to a study done by the Economic Research Service, which is under the USDA, a greater percentage of people who are non-black receive welfare services than those that are black. Thus, I believe that Robbie Cooper is completely misguided about the social services. There are many factors at the individual, family, community, and state level that play into one’s decision to go through the process of receiving aid. It is rarely a simple question of whether one wants to work or not, and it is never a result of simply “being black”.

Source:
Measuring the Well-Being of the Poor: Demographics of Low-Income Households

Politics & Race-baiting.

Victor Landa, a native South Texan, has been reporting bi-cultural news for almost thirty years. His career has encompassed positions such as editor, reporter, columnist, anchor, and news director. He currently works for a Spanish television station in San Antonio and writes a Spanish language weekly column for the San Antonio Express. This being said, it is apparent that Victor Landa is an aficionado when it comes to reporting news that affects the Hispanic population of Texas. While this could bias his responses, he definitely is passionate about achieving equality for Latinos.

In the op-ed "Isn't GOP approach to Hispanics race based?" , Landa’s audience includes the readers of the San Antonio Express, however because it was published online it is limited to those who have Internet access.

Landa’s claim is that due to the recent sanctuary cities bill proposed by State Senator Jeff Wentworth (R) and a redistricting plan that will affect many Hispanic voters, there are aspects to the Republican approach that are race-based.  He claims that because the sanctuary cities bill allows Texas officers to ask about the immigration status of any arrested or legally detained person, it is anti-Latino. Also, he believes that the redistricting plan will rob the voting power of Latinos, thus allowing Republicans to take advantage of Hispanic voters. Because the election of 2012 might very well be a swing vote, Republicans need to ensure that the voting power attributed to the growing population of Hispanics is minimized. However, while Landa’s opinion seems valid, he does not cite evidence for his claims.  He references an editorial written by Sen. Leticia Van de Putte, who is the head of the Senate Democratic Caucus. However, Van de Putte’s editorial lacks hard evidence as well, specifically when comparing the effects of the Arizona Immigration Law to Texas.

Personally, I have mixed reactions to these claims. I do agree with Landa that law enforcement will be inhibited because immigrants will be less likely to cooperate with authorities or report criminal activity for fear of deportation. Also, I agree that there are other consequences to the sanctuary cities bill, such as the promotion of racial and ethnic profiling. However, if Landa was trying to persuade his audience to believe in a Republican race-based agenda, he didn’t thoroughly convince many readers (or at least those that felt particularly moved enough by the article to comment). For example, his argument against redistricting seems obvious. Of course the GOP is trying to minimize the voice of those less likely to vote for them. I am not a Republican, but I do know that this doesn’t necessarily make them anti-Hispanic. It’s a political move in order to maintain dominance--regardless of ethnic background. Nevertheless, the voices of Landa and Van de Putte have started a controversial debate about race baiting between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Take a look at this article:  "Senator's editorial causes backlash"

Sources:
Who is Victor Landa?
Perry, lege GOP pushing anti-Hispanic agenda. (Written by: Van de Putte)

Brace Yourself for Budget Cuts

Austin-area Care Providers Brace for State Cuts

The article, “Austin-area Care Providers Brace for State Cuts”, written by Mary Ann Roser of the Austin American Statesman, explains budget cuts enacted by the Texas legislature last month. The following summary of the article highlights the major points, specifically the crippling effects the funding cuts will have on health and human services.

The Texas legislature recently made deep financial cuts to health and human services, which reduced spending by a whopping $11.3 billion. These cuts have huge effects on local clinics, affecting the elderly who receive home services, those in mental health programs, and Medicaid recipients. For example, with the reduction in Medicaid payments offered by the state, hospitals are less able to offer care to low-income patients.  However, an overwhelmingly large portion of the cuts was directed to forbid the funding of abortions for low-income women. The Republican majority of the legislature hit Planned Parenting hard, cutting funding by $70 million.  These cuts to family planning do not just cover abortions, though, but also services such as cancer screenings and access to birth control. Other women’s health clinics that offer family planning services are experiencing budget cuts as well.

            The importance of this article resides in the fact that it delineates an issue that will be affecting thousands of low-income women in Texas.  Also, it highlights controversial issues between opposing ideologies, specifically the offering of social services to Texans.