Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 2401 - Endorse Recommendations Of Dallas Criminal Justice Task Force - 08/14/1986Resolution #2401 August 14, 1986 Agenda Item #44 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, crime is a major issue facing the State of Texas and every major city in the State; and WHEREAS, law enforcement officials are needlessly handicapped in protecting law-abiding citizens because of antiquated and overly restrictive state laws; and WHEREAS, A. Starke Taylor, Jr., mayor of the City of Dallas, created a Criminal Justice Task Force, chaired by Charles Terrell, in March, 1985, to study the problems in Texas law enforcement; and WHEREAS, the Criminal Justice Task Force has developed an "Anti - Crime Package" for presentation to the Texas Legislature at its next session; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lubbock believes that it would be in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Lubbock, as well as all citizens of the State of Texas, to endorse said "Anti -Crime Package" for passage by the Texas Legislature; NOW THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: SECTION 1. THAT the City Council of the City of Lubbock hereby endorses the "Anti -Crime Package" of Starke Taylor's Criminal Justice Task Force and urges the Texas Legislature to make the requested changes to Texas criminal laws in order to better protect the lamabiding citizens of Lubbock and the State of Texas; and SEC'T'ION 2. THAT copies of this Resolution be provided to the Criminal Justice Task Force and to members of the Texas Legislature representing the City of Lubbock. Passed by the City Council this 14th day of August , 1986. APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Bob Cass, Deputy City Manager /J-? /-, - A I �e� B. C. MCMINN, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM:, Donald G. Vandiver, First Assistant City Attorney Mayor A. Starke Taylor, Jr, and the CRIMINAL JUSTICE TASK FORCE CHARLES TERRELL, CHAIRMAN present the ANTICRIME PACKAGE Mayor Starke Taylor's Criminal Justice Task Force, chaired by Charles Terrell, and consisting of 70+ citizens from across the metropolitan community and every walk of life, has met in over 50 work sessions since its creation in March, 1985. Meetings have been held with and comments solicited from numerous criminal justice officials throughout the state. Additionally, contact has been made with scores of public officials, law enforcement support groups, and concerned citizens who have a strong desire to assist the criminal justice system in doing its job for the benefit of all Texans. Numerous problems facing the system that fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State of Texas to address and remedy were identified by the Task Force. These items were forwarded by each subcommittee of the Task Force to the Legislative Subcommittee for review and consideration in the development of a broad-based, well-rounded antierime package to be presented to the 70th Session of the Texas Legislature which will convene in Austin, Texas, in January, 1987. ,/ The Legislative Subcommittee, chaired by David A. Dean, fully considered each of those recommendations in addition to others submitted directly from criminal justice professionals across the state and has identified legislative proposals for consideration by the 70th Session of the Texas Legislature. 2 A Obviously, every item recommended to be included, of which there were over 50 different items, could not be included without making the entire package too large and cumbersome to merit the serious consideration to which the package is entitled. Other proposals deemed worthy of strong consideration will be highlighted in a separate section of a future report. While there was much give and take and wording changes, in the end this anticrime package was unanimously adopted by the Legislative Subcommittee, the Executive Committee, and the full Task Force. We are aware that many of the recommendations will require allocations of state tax dollars to various components of the criminal justice system. We believe any fund allocations so required are of the highest priority and constitute one of the most appropriate ways our limited tax dollars can be used. �We see the law enforcement function of government as government's top and most basic priority. We would urge that the proper funding of this function at the state and local levels of government come first before all other government spending programs and that once this need has adequately been provided for, then the remaining unallocated funds should be distributed to other appropriate programs and services. 3 The Mayor's Criminal Justice Task Force takes the position that THE FIRST FUNCTION OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT AND SAFEGUARD THE LIVES AND PROPERTY OF ITS CITIZENS. With those words as our standard, we present this legislative anticrime package. The following proposals are numbered for identification purposes only and do not reflect an order or importance priority, as each is necessary and serves to compliment and balance the entire package. MAYOR'S TASK FORCE LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE I. ORAL CONFESSION A voluntarily made oral statement by defendant to a peace officer admitting his guilt in a criminal offense is not admissible in state courts in Texas except under very restricted circumstances. That is not the rule in the vast majority of other states as well as in the federal courts. In the case of Marshall Dwayne Williams, who placed a pipe bomb in a newspaper rack of The Dallas Morning News causing the death of his stepfather, he made numerous oral statements 4 admitting the construction of the homemade incendiary device to both federal and state peace officers. Those statements. which were a vital component of the evidence were not admissible in state court since the defendant would not write them down nor agree to their being recorded on tape. However, the very same voluntary statements were admitted into evidence in his trial in a federal district court in which he was convicted. The defendant's constitutional rights were protected by the federal court, but the restrictions that blocked the admission of those very same statements in Texas state court did not then or now serve the interests of justice. The law needs to be changed so that a statement made by a defendant who has been warned of his rights and voluntarily confesses to a peace officer is admissible. If voluntarily made oral statements of that type are admissible in some 'courts in the United States, they should be admissible in all. II. EXCLUSIONARY RULE The Fourth Amendment to the United State Constitution provides that citizens should not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has held that evidence which is obtained illegally may not be used to convict a defendant unless there are exceptional circumstances. The most common 5 of these is the good faith exception where an officer acts in good faith relying on an order issuing out of a court of law which is later found to be defective. Under those circumstances evidence secured by a peace officer relying on an officially issued order by a court would be admissible in federal court, but not in the State of Texas. This handicap imposed by Texas law adds nothing to individual liberties, but punishes law enforcement and benefits the criminal. Officers should not be held to a dual standard. If the manner in which evidence is secured in a criminal investigation meets United States Constitutional muster, then that evidence should be admissible in the courts of the State of Texas. PUNISHMENT AND INCARCERATION TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS If Texas courts and juries are going to hand down prison sentences that have any meaning, it is axiomatic that we must have prison facilities to fulfill those needs. The de -population of Texas prisons mandated by the Ruiz decision must be halted and adequate facilities must be provided for G those who have shown by their actions that they are a danger to our community and lives. To accomplish this goal it is necessary that the Texas Department of Corrections capacity be increased to a minimum of 428000 inmates by September 1, 1989. As the population of our state continues to grow, so must our prisons to meet the increasing demands we place upon them. A minimum mandatory ratio of 262.5 beds per one hundred thousand population will maintain prison capacity at the level that existed prior to the Ruiz decision in July of 1985 and address our future needs. With adequate prisons both in size and facilities, there will no longer exist any need for the Prison Management Act. This act automatically credits every inmate with good time in thirty day increments when prison capacity reaches 958 'regardless of their behavior. Repeal of this act and a related provision which allows the early release of inmates to mandatory supervision during the last 180 days of their sentence will curtail the decision to parole absent meaningful consideration of rehabilitative evidence. GOOD TIME LAW The current law as it is written and administered lends itself to the management of the population inside the Texas 7 Department of Corrections rather than the rehabilitation of the inmate incarcerated there. A person sentenced to the Texas Department of Corrections is eligible for parole when he has credit for one-third of his sentence and through the use of good time he may earn that credit at the rate of two days to one served. Therefore, a defendant who receives a nine year sentence is eligible for parole when he has credit for three years and at a two to one rate he may serve one year and be given credit for two additional years. Simply stated, it is possible to serve one year of a nine year sentence and be eligible for parole. While the concepts of parole and good time are valid ones, it is a status that the inmate should earn through evidence of rehabilitation while in prison. Those inmates who refuse to work or take part in any rehabilitative program in the prison system should not be afforded the privilege of good time 'accrual. The line classification of inmates and trustee status needs to be changed to require meaningful work, whether it is manual, vocational or skilled, education or participation in approved prison rehabilitative programs before any good time is awarded. No longer can we afford to release back into society those who will harm our citizens and property merely because they have 8 become mathematically eligible for parole without truly earning any good time off their sentence or being rehabilitated. The cost of crime is too high and the consequences too great to not deal honestly and forthrightly with why inmates are being released. SENTENCING STRUCTURE Current Texas law allows a.judge to order that a defendant serve multiple sentences consecutively. However, present interpretation by the Board of Pardons and Paroles negates this form of sentencing which has been referred to as "stacking". The Board's interpretation is that all prisoners are eligible for parole when they have credit for a third of their sentence or twenty years, whichever is the least. This misapplication of the statute is apparent in reviewing the case of Abdelkrim Belechheb who murdered six people in a 'Dallas night club in June of 1984. He was subsequently convicted, sentenced to six life sentences and ordered to serve them consecutively. The Board of Pardons and Paroles would view those six "stacked" life sentences as, .for example,one hundred years each -- amounting to a six hundred year sentence. One third of that would be two hundred years or twenty years, which ever is the least and therefore, 9 4 Abdelkrim Belechheb, convicted of six cold-blooded murders, will be eligible for parole in twenty years. To slow the early release of inmates from the Texas Department of Corrections and provide adequate time for training and rehabilitation, a minimum period of incarceration needs to be imposed. All inmates who are convicted of a felony offense subsequent to September 1, 1987, should be required to serve at lease twenty five percent of their sentence as calendar time except those who are currently required to serve one third calendar time, before becoming eligible for parole. Additionally, any inmate convicted on a second felony offense should be required to serve a minimum of 50 percent flat calendar time in the Texas Department of Corrections before parole eligibility. No inmate would be released earlier regardless of the prison population situation. As a condition of probation or parole the court at the time of sentencing may require that the defendant in an appropriate case make a contribution to the local "Crime Stoppers program" established by Article 44.13(5) Vernon's Annotated Civil Statues. .Local Crime Stoppers programs are working quite effectively throughout the State of Texas. Currently, a number of judges throughout the State routinely assess a probation fee for the local Crime Stoppers program in their 10 area for anyone who is diverted from the Texas Department of Corrections to probation. This would simply be a clarifying statute that would recognize the permissibility and legality of such a practice. PAROLE PROCESS Since the decision to parole back into society convicted felons has such enormous consequences to our citizens, there must be some accountability to the public. The way to achieve this is to reinstate the governor or other statewide elected official into the parole review process. The selected state official would only be called upon to act when the Board of Pardons and Paroles formally recommends an inmate be released from the prison on parole. The decision will be limited to following the recommendation of the Board or denying the admission of the inmate to parole for good cause shown. IV. RACKETEER -INFLUENCED & CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS 'The purpose of RICO legislation is to curtail criminal activity and lessen its economic and political power in the State of Texas by establishing new penal prohibitions and providing to law enforcement and to victims of criminal activity new civil sanctions and remedies. Twenty-two states and the federal government have enacted similar legislation and consideration is pending in several other state legislatures. 11 The criminal enterprise provisions of the statute allow prosecution of those individuals that plan and direct the criminal activity, but are not directly associated with those people who carry out the criminal acts. If the profit incentive can be removed from certain criminal activities such as prostitution and narcotics, fewer individuals will be willing to risk the criminal liability of conviction. The ability to trace illegal profits from crime into investments of cars, planes, real estate and other financial instruments for the purpose of forfeiture is a valuable weapon. The prosecution of Rex Cauble and others like him will send a message to those who would finance criminal and illegal activity that they stand just as much at risk as those who would carry out their plans. V. JUVENILE JUSTICE Current Texas law provides for the permissive certification of juveniles between the ages of fifteen and seventeen to stand trial as an adult. It is proposed that the age of permissive certification be lowered to thirteen if the juvenile court finds that the juvenile has committed one of the following enumerated felony offenses: capital murder, murder, 12 aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping or aggravated sale or delivery of narcotics. Upon such a finding, a juvenile between the ages of thirteen and fifteen may be certified to district court for disposition of the charges pending against him. Any sentence imposed under this proposed certification process will be served in facilities of the Texas Department of Corrections, segregated physically and by age from current T.D.C. population until attaining eighteen years of age. These facilities will provide reasonable classification standards the least of which is segregation by two year increments of age. Any pre -adjudicatory detention under this proposed certification process will be provided by segregated security facilities. A sentence with commitment to the Texas Department of Corrections will be reviewed by the sentencing court upon the individual's attaining eighteen years of 'age. The hearing, conducted within sixty days of that date, will determine if there is sufficient cause to commute the imposed sentence to time served. If no such finding is made, the individual will remain committed within the Texas Department of Corrections for the duration of the sentence consistent with the classification system of that institution. 13 t An individual attaining the age of fifteen but not yet attaining the age of seventeen years of age who commits one of the following enumerated felony offenses: capital murder, murder, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping or aggravated sale or delivery of narcotics shall be certified to stand trial as an adult upon a finding by a juvenile judge that the individual in this age category has committed the enumerated offense. During the punishment phase of a trial for an individual tried as an adult, a delinquency determination by a juvenile court of a felony grade offense will be admissible. It is misleading to the jury to•allow a many time arrested and convicted seventeen year old juvenile offender to argue that he has never been convicted of a felony. A jury should be given as much complete information as possible when it is J called upon to assess a proper punishment. The retention of juvenile records such as fingerprints, photographs, and criminal history would assist law enforcement in the detection and apprehension of juvenile offenders. All juvenile records retained under.the provisions of this statute would automatically be destroyed upon the individual reaching the age of twenty one. 14 K w VI. JURY PROCEDURES SPEEDY.TRIAL ACT The sixth amendment to the U. S. Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." The Texas Speedy Trial Act has imposed arbitrary and artificial time elements upon the State. The interpretation of these rules by the courts has lead to some very harsh results causing narcotics cases to be dismissed for want of prosecution of a traffic ticket and murder charges to be set aside because technical language was changed in a reindictment. Defendant's Constitutional rights have not been enhanced nor have court caseloads been reduced as a result of this legislation. What it has accomplished is to increase the burden of paperwork and to give defendants one more technicality to avoid prosecution without any commensurate showing of harm to that person. 15 t STATE'S RIGHT TO A JURY With the exception of guilt determination in a felony case, it is the defendant who is permitted to select the judge or the jury in all criminal proceedings. It stands to reason that a defendant, whether in a guilt or innocence determination or penalty assessment, will select whichever forum he perceives to be more favorable to him. If the theory of the jury system is to provide a fair and impartial search for the truth, it should be just as available to the State as it is to the defense. Therefore, jury determination of guilt or punishment should be automatic unless both sides agree in writing that the court should determine the issue. JOINDER OF OFFENSES A defendant who commits and is charged with multiple offenses may,, as a matter of right, demand a separate jury trial for each case. Not only is. this a time consuming and expensive process, but it allows the defendant, by placing convictions on appeal, to argue to each succeeding jury that he has never before convicted of i felony offense and is therefore eligible for probation. 16 A defendant should be prosecuted in a single criminal action for all offenses arising out of the same criminal episode or for repeated commission of the same offense. This substantive procedure has been in effect in many states and the federal courts for several years. VII. CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES The R. B. McAllister Act provides for drug and alcohol abuse prevention and treatment programs. This Act, while initially well intended, has unfortunately never been sufficiently funded. Increased funding for this Act would have a positive effect throughout the state. A dollar spent for prevention in this area will result in many times that in cost savings to the public and state in other areas of law enforcement. Chemical compounds and other substances which have a legitimate medical or business purpose are also used in commercial quantities by those who manufacture speed, PCP, and other controlled substances. California, as .well as several other states, have enacted legislation requiring purchasers of bulk quantities of these precursor chemicals to submit their name, address, telephone number, business and the purpose for which the purchase is made to the seller. The seller would then submit this information to the Department of Public 17 Safety or other authorized state agencies and wait twenty-one days before delivering the chemicals to the purchaser. VIII. CIVIL PROCEDURES INSURANCE INCENTIVE Currently, Texas law provides for home owners to receive reductions in their home owner's insurance if they properly install certain security devices such as dead -bolt locks, etc. The law requires that a specially trained peace officer must inspect the home before the home owner is eligible to receive such insurance reduction. Many cities are not opting to participate in this program because of the tremendous diversion of peace officers from their regular duties that such participation would entail. This law should be amended to allow building inspectors and other designated officials in addition to peace officers to be allowed to inspect these n homes. At the present time, there have not been enough available man hours for peace officers to inspect these homes. This amendment would allow for other officials, other than peace officers, to aid the public in their attempt to provide safety measures in their homes and receive the benefits that are afforded them by law. W3 r • Y LIMITED IMMUNITY Law enforcement officials are often sued for large amounts of money for performing their official duties. Many of these suits are brought in hope that due to the high cost of defending even frivolous suits a settlement offer will be made. Public school officials are reluctant to even report to police suspected use, sale, or delivery of narcotics by students f or fear of civil suit. Limited immunity from civil suit should be granted to officials when performing their official functions in a reasonable manner. Judgments should be limited to the actual and necessary costs to remedy a wrong, with a maximum of not more than two times the actor's gross annual salary, or $100,000, whichever is less. IX. ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION Create and expand community-based resources at all levels, pre- and post -adjudication. Programs of this type will include, but not be restricted to, enhanced use of probation, financial and service restitution programs, expanded use of academic and vocational training of state prisoners, and an innovative use of the family as a rehabilitative tool. Programs of these types should be administered locally by an appropriate non-governmental or governmental agency under subcontract and jurisdiction of the State Board of Pardons and 19 0 Paroles, Texas Department of Corrections, and the Texas Adult Probation Commission. 20