|
News & Noteworthy © ---
Featured Issue 12-7-05 |
|
Texas inflates "recidivism rates" misleading the media and the public!
|
|
12-7-2005 Texas:
Recidivism rates nationally seem to be cause for concern; local officials disagree |
.In the last decade, repeat offenders have been targeted more heavily than they have in previous years. Maybe it's because, according to a 1994 study by the U.S. Department of Justice, more than two-thirds of released prisoners were arrested within three years, with more than half of those returning to prison. Subsequently, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act was passed that year.
This act was passed in hopes of lowering recidivism rates across the country. Recidivism is defined as re-incarceration in a prison or state jail facility after a set time of release, according to the [Texas] Criminal Justice Policy Council. The problem of recidivism also has become apparent in Lubbock, particularly with Gilmore who was accused of capital murder in the April 2005 death of Lubbock resident McGuire. [snip]
Rising Rates: According to the Criminal Justice Policy Council statistics, the two-year recidivism rate for offenders released from prison in 1998 was more than 21 percent, and in 1999 it was more than 24 percent. The Council rated Texas fifth for the highest recidivism rates in the country with 35 percent. California was the ranked highest, with a 56 percent recidivism rate.
When the Council's statistics are broken down, the top repeat offenders include criminals who were released after committing sex or property crimes, with 28 percent recidivism rates. Drugs came in third with 23 percent, and violent crimes - excluding sex crimes - were next with 21 percent.
..more..
: by Brittany Barrientos, News Editor
|
.The Texas article "Recidivism rates nationally seem to be cause for concern; local officials disagree," begins with several comments regarding "Vernon Ray Gilmore" and the murder he committed, we do not take issue with anything said about that, nor do we comment about recidivism rates quoted for states other than Texas.
However, there are a few confusing points within this news article about a study and "recidivism rates." First is, the journalist implies that, the "1994 study by the U.S. Department of Justice" caused the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (VCCLEFA) to be passed. That is not possible as the study was published in 2002 and the VCCLEFA was enacted in 1994. It is true that the VCCLEFA was enacted, in part, to reduce recidivism.
We do take issue with how "recidivism" is inflated with non criminal acts in Texas which misleads many readers and apparently the News Editor.
The News Editor correctly quotes how the Texas Criminal Justice Policy Council (TCJPC) defined "recidivism" in their study, "Two and Three-Year Recidivism Rate for Offenders Released from Prison" pg-1 published 8-22-2002 (PDF File).
However, therein is where the problem begins. The Texas TCJPC definition "Recidivism is defined as re-incarceration in a prison or state jail facility after a set time of release," includes "Technical Violations" of parole or probation which have nothing to do with criminal acts.
It appears that the Texas Legislature was also concerned about that 2002 TCJPC study and in March of 2004 established a "Criminal Justice Data Analysis Team (CJDAT)" to calculate recidivism rates.
Their January 2005 report "Statewide Criminal Justice Recidivism and Revocation Rates" gives us more insight into the definition of recidivism.
pg-ii: "In general, recidivism is defined as a return to criminal activity after previous criminal involvement. Since all criminal activity committed by an offender is not known, indicators of subsequent criminal activity are used to calculate recidivism rates. Some of these indicators include rearrest, conviction, probation or parole revocation, and recommitment to incarceration. Appendix A contains a glossary of terms used throughtout this report." ... "Any ofender that was reincarcerated in either a state jail or prison facility at least once during the three year period was considered a recidivist."
pg-14 Appendix A:
Community Supervision Revocation: ... A technical violation is any violation of their conditions other than committing a subsequent offense (e.g., positive urinalysis, failure to pay fees).
Parole Revocation: ... An offender can be revoked for committing a new offense or for technical violations. A technical violation occurs when an offender violates terms of their conditions of release (e.g., positive urinalysis, going near a school zone.).
Before anyone thinks these non criminal acts cannot affect recidivism rates by much, see:
pg-9 Parole revocations: ... in 2003 ... "The remaining 2,824 offenders (28 percent) returned to prison for technical violations."
pg-10 Probation revocations: ... in 2003 ... "Typically, 55 percent of felony revocations (13,660 offenders) are for technical violations ..."
To summarize, in 2003 that amounts to 16,484 offenders were returned to prison for non criminal acts. This has a significant effect on recidivism rates, in fact, it would reduce recidivism rates by approximately 41.5% in 2003 alone. Accordingly, Texas has inflated its recidivism rates by declaring non criminal acts as criminal acts for recidivism reporting purposes.
Notice one of the technical violations, "failure to pay fees," so Texas does have a debtor's prison? It is insanity to return someone to prison for that reason!
What other constructions or misconstructions are there included within "indicators of subsequent criminal activity" and used to calculate inflated recidivism rates?
Finally, there doesn't seem to be any legislative recommendation to change this inflated definition of recidivism! This clearly explains why Texas has the second highest number of people incarcerated, in the nation, and a good portion for non criminals acts.
|
|
e Ponders:
UPDATE 12-8: Annual cost to taxpayers for 16,484 offenders ($40.00 per day) in prison for no crime: $240,666,400.00