|
|
Forum: The Other Side
Thread (Discussion): Re-Entry Task Force Report
Message 170735
Posted by orolan
on Jan 06, 2006 08:46 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
GOVERNOR’S EX-OFFENDER
TASK FORCE
PRELIMINARY REPORT
http://exoffender.myflorida.com/PDF/Report_to_Gov_05.pdf
An interesting report on what is wrong with current policies. Specific to Florida but in many ways relevant throughout the nation. I would like to hear comments from all regarding the findings of the Task Force. Most importantly what do you feel they may have missed?
For DP1 and DTCDTT in particular along with our Florida forum members, what do you think of this particular part:
The Problem:
Within the last few years, Florida DOC has adopted a “zero tolerance”
policy on technical violations of the conditions of supervision. Probation officers no longer have any discretion in deciding whether to violate an individual or not. Some sense that this policy shift was in reaction to certain high profile cases where an individual was not sent back to prison on a technical violation and then committed a
heinous crime. But what has troubled the Task Force are the instances in which there is an absence of any apparent nexus between the nature of the violation and any propensity to commit another crime, let alone a heinous crime. What is the policy rationale behind sending an otherwise compliant and gainfully employed ex-offender back to prison on a curfew violation? And in cases where the violation is for drug use, might not treatment be more conducive to rehabilitation than more time in prison? When the violation is related to the past offense, such as would be the case of a sexual predator loitering around a school yard, it is one thing. But when the offense is unrelated to both past crimes and any potential new crimes, the policy rationale is unclear.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 170763 (In Reply to Message 170735)
Posted by rodsmith
on Jan 07, 2006 05:24 AM | Also by rodsmith
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
at last...a govt group with a brain..........as fred sanford said "I feel the big one coming on!"
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (170735)
Message 170790 (In Reply to Message 170735)
Posted by Valerie
on Jan 07, 2006 03:19 PM | Also by Valerie
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Thank you for inviting my response..I have very mixed emotions about that question...the Brusia case involving Smith seemed to have many drug related charges in his past, correct me if I am wrong but I don't remember any "heinous" sex crime in his history. Also Couey did have SO status but alot of his past involved burglaries and drug charges...so i guess I was left with an opinion that drug charges could be an indicator for more escalating offenses. I think DP1 stated in another post that VOP involving failure to attend treatment and other things were a red flag in more than one instance. I always thought PO's had the ultimate say so in violating, I mean isn't that part of the job description? I suppose your ultimately asking for someone with the power to use their gut feelings and if I were an offender that could be the kiss of death or a God send. The question is vague to me I am reading and re-reading "sending an otherwise compliant and gainfully employed ex-offender back" in Florida we have had thrown in our face the case of Daniel Tate" the 13 year old who killed the little 6 year old girl, the world was outraged at his sentence and the do-gooders got him out..well his first re-encounter was for a curfew violation...and all things just diminished from there, the last being holding up a pizza delivery guy with a weapon. Floridians I would say at this point are "once bitten, twice shy" I believe you will continue to see us swing in a more safe than sorry direction for quite a while.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (170735)
Message 170793 (In Reply to Message 170735)
Posted by suicidalnut
on Jan 07, 2006 03:49 PM | Also by suicidalnut
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: Iowa,
Country: United States |
i swear the 2 or 3 high profile cases this past year is sparking a rampage i have never seen before. I still think that we are sending the wrong message to some of these folks - if your gonna do it do it 'BIG' because the punishment is going to be as if you do it 'BIG'..
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (170735)
Message 170811 (In Reply to Message 170790)
Posted by orolan
on Jan 07, 2006 07:40 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 30 - 39,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
so i guess I was left with an opinion that drug charges could be an indicator for more escalating offenses
True, both of these men had a history of drug offenses and went on to commit heinous sex crimes. Per the task force thoughts though, both would have been returned to prison for drug violations because that is directly related to their offense. Also per the task force, is it "correct" to create statewide policy based solely on Smith's actions? Florida has nearly 54,000 offenders on probation for drug offenses right now. If all those people are going to escalate to raping and killing kids after the judge refuses to send them to prison for being behind on their supervision fees like was the case with Smith, your state is in serious trouble.
I always thought PO's had the ultimate say so in violating
In a way they still do. DP1 might go out and do curfew verifications and if a guy isn't home when he's supposed to be she could always not say anything. But if she got caught, she might get fired. Because the bosses in Tallahassee say she has to cuff'em and stuff'em for EVERY violation and let the judge decide the merits. The task force says she needs to be given that discretion back to decide if she's going to believe his story about the flat tire that caused him to get home at 10:02 instead of 9:30.
I suppose your ultimately asking for someone with the power to use their gut feelings and if I were an offender that could be the kiss of death or a God send.
From the offender's standpoint it can only be an improvement. With zero-tolerance the offender has no choice but to sit in jail until he can see the judge. Even if the PO believes his flat-tire story and tells the judge so, the offender STILL must wait on that day. With PO discretion the offender has a shot at the PO chewing him a new one and warning that next time he better plan on 9:00 instead of 9:30 so even with a flat he'll make it home before curfew.
we have had thrown in our face the case of Daniel Tate
Again. Determining statewide policy on a single case. Daniel Tate is not the norm. How many 13 year-olds are there in the state killing 6 year-olds by practicing wrestling moves on them? Tate's entire case was handled wrong from the beginning. For one thing he shouldn't have been released back into the public. He needed help, of the sort one can only get in a controlled and disciplined environment. You don't get that in prison. And he certainly didn't need to be dumped back in to the family environment that created him.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (170790)
Message 170823 (In Reply to Message 170811)
Posted by victimoftheLAW
on Jan 08, 2006 12:12 AM | Also by victimoftheLAW
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: 21 - 29,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
so i guess I was left with an opinion that drug charges could be an indicator for more escalating offenses
I guess I could agree with this because drugs can effect one's thoughts and actions and cause them to lose grip on self control. But if that is true, then why don't people with drug offenses get the same rules as RSO's? It seems to me that someone who has a drug problem would be more dangerous than someone who was dating a minor who lied about their age (as is what happened with my friend). Anyways, I'm getting off topic. What would be ideal is if each offender of a crime went through a thorough evaluation process to decide if they were likely to reoffend. I know that they say there isn't enough manpower to do that, but if they really think public safety is important enough to make the laws that are currently in effect, they should be willing to get the manpower that would be needed for evaluations of each offender. For people in prison, it could be a part of the process before they get out. I just believe that it would help them find the people who really are more likely to offend and focus more on them. My friend who unknowingly dated the minor has no desire to have a sexual relationship with any child, but the people he is in prison with who are in on drug or robbery or some other charges scare and disgust him constantly by talking about how they want to get with some young teenage girl. Those guys have never had an SO charge, but it seems like they would be high risk. Ok, I feel like I've gone off on a rabbit trail, but oh well.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (170811)
Message 170835 (In Reply to Message 170735)
Posted by dp1
on Jan 08, 2006 04:59 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Most importantly what do you feel they may have missed?
This is all about controlling the prison population. Either you reduce the number of inmates going in or you increase the speed in which they get out to make room for all the sex offenders they plan on incarcerating. The zero tolerance policy was simply a quick fix to cuff 'em and stuff 'em in mass quantities until the new laws came into effect. We can't possibly continue incarcerating at the rate we have been this last year and still have room for all the RSOs we anticipate going to prison for long periods.
The only other option down the road they'll have to look at to control the inmate population will be a new parole or early release program. But, before they get to that point they will have to exhaust all means by attacking the zero tolerance policy and providing alternative intervention programs. I just hope we don't get to the point where the 85% rule is reduced. Nothing surprises me anymore though:-)
Don't get your hopes up that if they relax the zero tolerance policy it might help sex offenders. The tolerance for sex offenders has NEVER been above zero. Do you really see that changing anytime soon?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (170735)
Message 170873 (In Reply to Message 170835)
Posted by orolan
on Jan 09, 2006 12:02 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Hey, I'm not the one slamming zero-tolerance. That's your Governor's hand-picked people. One of them head of the Parole Board:-))
The task force is not about sex offenders nor is it mutually exclusive of sex offenders. When these people say inmates need proper preparation including assistance with employment, housing, education etc on re-entry to society they are addressing ALL offenders. I didn't see a word in the report about "except sex offenders".
And I disagree on "why" zero-tolerance was instituted. At the time you had no idea if there would be any sort of laws passed because of Smith. From what I've seen there hasn't been a law passed that would prevent judges in the future from refusing to revoke an offender's probation. Have you?
Your department reacted to media frenzy that blamed DOC for Smith being free. That sounds familiar. Some of us sex offenders lash out when media frenzy blames us for something that wasn't our fault. Of course when DOC does it you call it a valid policy and when we do it you call it whining. Bottom line is that DOC threw a tantrum like a 5 year-old and decided to just lock everybody up no matter what. The task force says that's an idiotic policy.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (170835)
Message 170890 (In Reply to Message 170873)
Posted by dp1
on Jan 09, 2006 02:09 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
The zero tolerance policy has been in effect long enough now to make the point clear that a lot of the cases the Judges place on probation either score out to prison or should have gone to prison in the first place. Now it's simply a matter of prioritizing cell space. It's a constant juggling act.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (170873)
Message 170900 (In Reply to Message 170890)
Posted by orolan
on Jan 09, 2006 04:58 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
The JLA mandated a particular report regarding a total review and accounting of offenders on supervision and why they were returned to prison on violations. Assuming that it tells the truth (doubtful), we'll see just how many offenders really commit new sex crimes and how many simply didn't pay their supervision fee last month.
No doubt you believe cell space should be reserved for sex offenders who don't pay supervision fees. If that means letting the crack dealer on probation slide after getting caught again selling to the 5th-graders, so be it.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (170890)
Message 170909 (In Reply to Message 170900)
Posted by dp1
on Jan 10, 2006 01:39 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
It wouldn't surprise me in the least that most offenders who get revoked and sent to prison have/had overdue COS or Court fees. However, it would surprise me if a substantial amount were sent to prison for that sole reason. To get a true picture of why someone actually went to prison one has to consider the entire list of violations and sort out which ones he was actually found guilty of. To take one of many violations such as not paying COS and drawing the conclusion that's why he went to prison is ridiculous. Just to put things in perspective, I've never in my career saw ANY case go to prison for only overdue COS fees. I'm sure it does happen in a Court room somewhere in the state.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (170900)
Message 170935 (In Reply to Message 170909)
Posted by orolan
on Jan 10, 2006 04:26 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I've never in my career saw ANY case go to prison for only overdue COS fees
Then why the uproar over Smith, if it was just "another day at the office"?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (170909)
Message 170975 (In Reply to Message 170935)
Posted by dp1
on Jan 11, 2006 04:25 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Great question. The answers aren't quite that simple. But, let's put things in perspective first. The way I see it, paying COS from the standpoint of sex offender management is the least of anyone's concerns. Yes it's required, but a non-payment isn't exactly a PO's first clue he might be reoffending. If a sex offender doesn't pay COS in a certain month it's probably because he paid his therapist, polygrapher, his child support, his attorney or is simply looking for a place to live because he was in violation of a proximity rule or something. If he's a month behind he's likely to catch up his arrears the next month because he's probably gainfully employed.
We can't say the same thing about the average drug offender. There are no big expenses other than the ones he creates due to his drug addiction. So a non-payment is a sign of re-offending for a drug offender. Granted it's not always the case, but lack of stability for a drug offender is most certainly a sure sign something isn't right. Think about how long you've been on probation and how easy life would be if they took all the standard sex offender conditions away and you never had to worry about getting banned, going somewhere you weren't supposed to, curfews, contact with kids, yada yada yada. How hard really would probation be?It's not hard at all. Simply pay your probation, report once a month and stay out of jail. So with the easy cases, the first indicator of instability is a period of non-payments. The first indicator of instability for a RSO is called registration.
I realize paying COS is like the lowest priority for a sex offender. But we must get in a drug offender mindset to even begin discussing the issue. Do you see what I am saying?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (170935)
Message 171083 (In Reply to Message 170975)
Posted by orolan
on Jan 12, 2006 10:46 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
So you think that zero-tolerance, rather than being applied across the board to all offenders for all violations, should be narrowly tailored to the specifics of the offender and the known triggers/signals? I can agree with that and I think the Task Force would as well.
So who makes that determination? The PO on the assumption that they know the tendencies through historical knowledge and being familiar with the offender? Or staff in Tallahassee that have never supervised a probationer in their life but think they know it all?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (170975)
Message 171192 (In Reply to Message 171083)
Posted by dp1
on Jan 14, 2006 06:50 PM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
So who makes that determination? The PO on the assumption that they know the tendencies through historical knowledge and being familiar with the offender? Or staff in Tallahassee that have never supervised a probationer in their life but think they know it all?
Don't Floridians already have tailored probation programs? i.e. sex offender probation and drug offender probation which have additional unique special conditions? Are you suggesting a revamp or fine tuning of the existing specialty probation orders?
It's a tough balance maintaining flexibility yet enforcing the Court orders. A zero tolerance approach is basically enforcing every single condition of supervision to the letter of the law. So if your probation orders stated that you are to pay $50 COS per month and you only paid $49 I suppose that's a technical violation. Of course this is a ridiculous example, but where do we draw the line?
I like being able to have some flexibility. Problem is that each PO has a different opinion as to what's important. If I thought it wasn't important that you only paid $49 and failed to enforce the $50 rule then an auditor or superviser looked at the file and wrote me up for not enforcing the rule then arrested you on the spot, how stupid would that situation be? Mixed messages are not a good thing.
I've given the flexibility issue a lot of thought over the years. The only answer seems to be to manage sex cases like we do drug cases with periodic case reviews in Court where the Judge can hear the issues frequently, get familiar with the case then modify as appropriate. I would much rather see the Judge every single month to talk about an offender's case to update him on the offender's progress or lack thereof than to wait until things blow up. Further, with all the new nagging issues RSOs are dealing with compounded by the mixed messages society and POs are sending, I believe it's in the best interests of protecting the offender's rights and insuring equality in regards to enforcement.
Of course, the alternative is to establish DOC policy. Well....let's not go there for now. lol
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (171083)
Thread
170735, orolan, Jan 06, 2006 08:46 PM
170763, rodsmith, Jan 07, 2006 05:24 AM
170790, Valerie, Jan 07, 2006 03:19 PM
170811, orolan, Jan 07, 2006 07:40 PM
170823, victimoftheLAW, Jan 08, 2006 12:12 AM
170793, suicidalnut, Jan 07, 2006 03:49 PM
170835, dp1, Jan 08, 2006 04:59 AM
170873, orolan, Jan 09, 2006 12:02 AM
170890, dp1, Jan 09, 2006 02:09 PM
170900, orolan, Jan 09, 2006 04:58 PM
170909, dp1, Jan 10, 2006 01:39 AM
170935, orolan, Jan 10, 2006 04:26 PM
170975, dp1, Jan 11, 2006 04:25 AM
171083, orolan, Jan 12, 2006 10:46 PM
171192, dp1, Jan 14, 2006 06:50 PM
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
