Crime In Houston

[WAZ]

For most ex-cons, financial constraints mean that poor neighborhoods are their only option. At least to start out. Obviously it is impractical to distort the market values of housing to ensure their proportionate geographic dispersion. And it would likely be politically unpopular to grant them a housing voucher for some set amount of money per month. And as for Tax Credit or Section 8 housing, those developments are required to run background checks and to deny housing to convicted felons. And if the background checks were abandoned, you can bet that it'd become even more difficult for such housing developments to get past the NIMBYs so that those programs could be carried out in the spirit of the law upon which they were founded...not that it's easy, even as it is.

What real-world solution would you suggest as a possible solution to this real-world problem?

I am not an expert in parole or mandatory releases. I would be happy with an honest, educated discussion on the matter. Experts discuss transit in cities; parks; education - why aren't experts talking about innovative ways to keep poor neighborhoods from being overrun with dangerous ex-cons and sex offenders? I've yet to see any district attorney, judge, or parole board discuss the matter in depth.

I've toyed with adding a requirement in our neighborhood deed restrictions that landlords screen tenants on their rent houses. If reports show that a sex offender lives in our neighborhood, or we have problems at a rent house and we discover the tenant has a criminal history - we could then go after the landlord on a deed restriction violation.

I have no idea if this would work. I haven't vetted it with a lawyer. The City's deed enforcement people would have to be OK with it. Landlords might balk. It wouldn't prevent offenders from living in homes they own - but then you've got the financial barrier to it. Of course, even if it did work, it's just one neighborhood in a giant city.

Surely there are real-world solutions that would address the whole problem - beyond this deed restriction idea - but I unfortunately don't have them.

[TheNiche]

Yes Niche, hear me out.

The founders vision was that people are the government, as established. As owners of that responsibility to self-discipline, we become complacent - and so do politicians. Countries, cities, groups, and yes - neighborhoods, are what they are, because of the actions of the citizens therein. Some, don't like the taste of what they tolerate, and blame it on this Government boogyman that doesn't exist. A good example was... for sake of discussion, Neighborhood A: Screaming for police action against dangerous gangs of kids roaming the streets, criminal mischief running rampant, and rising burglaries. Subsequent to their complaints, a law enforcement task force was activated, and the bad guys were caught in the act. It was their own children! Allowed to roam the streets at all hours, of day, and night - not by the government - by the parents. The residents didn't like that, so they wanted to sue law enforcement, and the county, et al, magnus infinitum. [ Neighborhood A is not an anomoly ] Later, they met, and came to grips with the problem, and tackled it with community-actioned self-discipline, within the family, and on their street. It is the only way to turn it around, as there are not enough policemen, or government officials, or tax money to force a change of that scope, plus... where is the free man in a police state? I've personally witnessed this from the front line, for over 40 years. Government is the people ... I'll save you ... my class on the Constitution was just about to start. I do apologize for the length of my reply, but not the depth of my passion in regard to the law, and We The People.

I'm sure that Col. Crockett would agree that we're on the same page, I just used more letters, commas, and stuff.

Ah, I see. You're one of those "it takes a village" types.

I won't be able to bring myself to buy into that notion until the notion of reproductive rights is banished from the political and legal environment so that adults can be involuntarily neutered/spayed by local authorities at the behest of neighborhood activists. As the old saying goes, a few bad apples spoil the barrel. And sometimes that means cutting down a tree.

But even then, I'm still a fan of due process. As a fan of the U.S. Constitution, I'd think that you would be too...but what should I expect from a die-hard Hillary Clinton fan such as yourself?

[24zulu]

I am not an expert in parole or mandatory releases. I would be happy with an honest, educated discussion on the matter. Experts discuss transit in cities; parks; education - why aren't experts talking about innovative ways to keep poor neighborhoods from being overrun with dangerous ex-cons and sex offenders? I've yet to see any district attorney, judge, or parole board discuss the matter in depth.

I've toyed with adding a requirement in our neighborhood deed restrictions that landlords screen tenants on their rent houses. If reports show that a sex offender lives in our neighborhood, or we have problems at a rent house and we discover the tenant has a criminal history - we could then go after the landlord on a deed restriction violation.

I have no idea if this would work. I haven't vetted it with a lawyer. The City's deed enforcement people would have to be OK with it. Landlords might balk. It wouldn't prevent offenders from living in homes they own - but then you've got the financial barrier to it. Of course, even if it did work, it's just one neighborhood in a giant city.

Surely there are real-world solutions that would address the whole problem - beyond this deed restriction idea - but I unfortunately don't have them.

Waz, I admire your passion for this issue. I will tell you as a first-hand witness, that there are pro-active strategy meetings within combined law enforcement agencies to address, and remedy these problems that you lament. As a decision maker, I am constantly, and consistently, just as frustrated as you as I examine budget, manpower, emergency priority, case load, and the tasks at hand. Don't wait on the Government - call the meeting yourself, within your neighborhood, and prod your neighbors to decide what they want neighborhood life to be like. Then forge a strategic plan, and use that passion of yours to kick it through. Sunnyside is just another neighborhood in a giant city - but, what is it worth to you? Give it value, and you'll be surprised who will rise up to help. But partner, it takes people - not the government.

Good luck, and keep us posted!

[TheNiche]

I am not an expert in parole or mandatory releases. I would be happy with an honest, educated discussion on the matter. Experts discuss transit in cities; parks; education - why aren't experts talking about innovative ways to keep poor neighborhoods from being overrun with dangerous ex-cons and sex offenders? I've yet to see any district attorney, judge, or parole board discuss the matter in depth.

That's because it isn't their job to discuss such matters.

I have a consulting background with experience studying and reporting on affordable housing and special populations...among other topics. So I am suitably qualified to discuss such matters. And I have a lot of time on my hands. The going rate for a study from a consulting firm would probably be around $120,000 at a minimum. I'll only charge half that for a study of the entire State of Texas.

I'm going to warn you though, my conclusions will not address the possibility of longer prison sentences or systemic denial of parole (because we lack the prison capacity to do so), euthanasia of prisoners due for release, or genital mutilation of sex offenders. Although easy solutions, these are not realistic and I will not entertain them. The report would strictly address issues of equity in the geographic distribution of ex-cons as broken down by cohort according to the offense(s) they were jailed for.

[LTAWACS]

There is only one answer. The Running Man. Or maybe The Most Dangerous Game. Either way, except the part where the convicted sex offenders have no chance of winning whatsoever. So yeah, kill sex offenders, period.

Why not ALL criminals?

[20thStDad]

Why not ALL criminals?

Sex offenders are a special kind of criminal. The kind that can't be deterred or rehabilitated, and the damage they do to the victim is greater than any other type of crime. Theirs are not crimes of poverty or convenience, nor are they crimes of passion by definition. They are ticking time bombs that will go off, and someone's life will be ruined each time it does. I would have no remorse or sympathy if every sexual criminal was subject to the death penalty, I'd even volunteer my Friday nights to go flip the switch for them.

[RedScare]

I've toyed with adding a requirement in our neighborhood deed restrictions that landlords screen tenants on their rent houses. If reports show that a sex offender lives in our neighborhood, or we have problems at a rent house and we discover the tenant has a criminal history - we could then go after the landlord on a deed restriction violation.

Only took 10 posts for you to abandon your ideal. You start off looking for a solution for ALL poor neighborhoods, and by post #11, you only care about your own hood.

Sex offenders are a special kind of criminal. The kind that can't be deterred or rehabilitated, and the damage they do to the victim is greater than any other type of crime. Theirs are not crimes of poverty or convenience, nor are they crimes of passion by definition. They are ticking time bombs that will go off, and someone's life will be ruined each time it does. I would have no remorse or sympathy if every sexual criminal was subject to the death penalty, I'd even volunteer my Friday nights to go flip the switch for them.

Does that include the 19 year old who engaged in heavy petting with his 16 year old girlfriend? In Texas, he is a sex offender.

[TheNiche]

Only took 10 posts for you to abandon your ideal. You start off looking for a solution for ALL poor neighborhoods, and by post #11, you only care about your own hood.

Hey now Red, easy up on the guy. My study will include a "drill down" analysis such as addresses existing conditions and vectors of change at the state, regional, municipal, AND neighborhood level, including an analysis of the legal environment. And if you want to be retained as a sub-consultant, then you need to play nice.

[RedScare]

Yeah, but his retreat to NIMBYism screwed up my planned reply. You see, he wishes to protect all poor neighborhoods from these offenders, but there is a finite number of them. Therefore, to protect Sunnyside from offenders necessarily requires that Eastwood take them...or Idylwood...or North Side...or Gulfton...or River Oaks. Someone. If there are 1000 offenders, no matter where they end up, there will still be 1000 of them. Apparently realizing this mathematical conundrum, WAZ decided that rather than save ALL neighborhoods, he'd simply try to save his own.

[kylejack]

There are different types of sex offenders. You've got the Romeo and Juliet relationships, that were not that far apart in age, say 4 years or so. Fairly low risk. Then you've got the incest offenders. Incest offenders are much less likely to reoffend than other types of sex offenders. Then you've got opposite sex child molesters, much higher risk. Then you've got same sex child molesters, which might be the highest risk. There's some data here: http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html

I'd hate to see all offenders painted with the same brush or subject to the same rules.

The best way to defend yourself in the current environment is to look up the offenders in your area and stay vigilant. If you see something suspicious happening, report it. Children should not be traveling around the neighborhood alone. Use the buddy system. Making concentration camps for sex offenders is not the answer.

[AtticaFlinch]

Making concentration camps for sex offenders is not the answer.

But it'll make us feel better.

Reactionary 1. Reasoned debate 0.

[ricco67]

Making concentration camps for sex offenders is not the answer.

But it'll make us feel better.

Reactionary 1. Reasoned debate 0.

Realistically, it's not the answer.

But it would be fun to fantasize about doing a live "running man" with the higher risk ones.

[porTENT]

You could design the sex-offender case study house, where the line of privacy is blurred. Gov't mandated housing typology, the full disclosure house. It could be a condition of parole and not permitted to multiple units or clustering.

[ricco67]

You could design the sex-offender case study house, where the line of privacy is blurred. Gov't mandated housing typology, the full disclosure house. It could be a condition of parole and not permitted to multiple units or clustering.

But then you run the risk of some yahoo looking it up and randomly assaulting or burning down their house.

There has already been a case or two of that as I've seen on the news.

Try again.

[Fringe]

I say send them to the Woodlands. 

[20thStDad]

Does that include the 19 year old who engaged in heavy petting with his 16 year old girlfriend? In Texas, he is a sex offender.

Statutory can be a gray area, but I think it's the only one. I'm talking rapists and child molesters, black and white messed up people.

[LTAWACS]

I say send them to the Woodlands. 

This is going to be one of the best posts of 2010. I can feel it now.

[AtticaFlinch]

Statutory can be a gray area, but I think it's the only one. I'm talking rapists and child molesters, black and white messed up people.

What about the brown, yellow and red messed up people? Or, do the Hispanics, Asians and American Indians get a free pass when it comes to sex crimes?

[ricco67]

What about the brown, yellow and red messed up people? Or, do the Hispanics, Asians and American Indians get a free pass when it comes to sex crimes?

Dude!

Hello! How about Asian Indians?

Feather or Dot, they both have a potential for being sex offenders.

[AtticaFlinch]

Dude!

Hello! How about Asian Indians?

Everybody knows they're only a myth invented to scare children into behaving.

[20thStDad]

What about the brown, yellow and red messed up people? Or, do the Hispanics, Asians and American Indians get a free pass when it comes to sex crimes?

Black and white as opposed to the gray I referred to earlier in the sentence, not race. But I think you knew that. Down with child molesters and rapists of any color or species.

[WAZ]

If there are 1000 offenders, no matter where they end up, there will still be 1000 of them.

The problem is that if you take a sampling of 1,000 offenders in Houston, 250 of them will be in a handful of our poorest neighborhoods. They aren't evenly dispersed around the City.

There is no easy, quick solution to this problem. It would have to involve District attorneys, judges, parole boards, legislators, and others who (presumably) know a lot about the issue. Of course neighborhoods would have to play a big role - but not the ONLY role.

As someone involved in a civic club I made just one suggestion of how neighborhoods could address the problem inside their own borders. This should be a miniscule part of a much bigger debate and solution. Even if it works, it's not a silver bullet to solve the entire issue.

It isn't [district attorneys', judges, and parole boards] job to discuss such matters.

They would be wise to play some role in addressing the problem - if for no other reason than their own public image. When a dangerous ex-con murders or rapes someone, it doesn't bode well for the officials who let them out. Even if the officials followed the letter of the law and did everything they were supposed to do, people will still cry for a pound of flesh.

It would be terrible for a judge to say 'oh it's not my job to discuss how many sex offenders there are in Sunnyside,' - and then have a sex offender whose case he handled, rape kids in Sunnyside.

I'm going to warn you though, my conclusions will not address the possibility of longer prison sentences or systemic denial of parole (because we lack the prison capacity to do so), euthanasia of prisoners due for release, or genital mutilation of sex offenders. Although easy solutions, these are not realistic and I will not entertain them. The report would strictly address issues of equity in the geographic distribution of ex-cons as broken down by cohort according to the offense(s) they were jailed for.

Longer sentences might be possible for sexual predators and other dangerous convicts, but it would have to mean letting other offenders go after shorter sentences. That's a political minefield for a legislator to propose.

I don't have $60k to fund the study that you're talking about. I almost wish I did - but wouldn't it be a re-hashing of the Urban Institute's study? Or are you looking at something else? No offense intended. I am just curious.

[kylejack]

Yeah, I've always maintained that cutting loose non-violent drug offenders would give us quite a few cells to store violent criminals in for longer.

[RedScare]

They would be wise to play some role in addressing the problem - if for no other reason than their own public image. When a dangerous ex-con murders or rapes someone, it doesn't bode well for the officials who let them out. Even if the officials followed the letter of the law and did everything they were supposed to do, people will still cry for a pound of flesh.

It would be terrible for a judge to say 'oh it's not my job to discuss how many sex offenders there are in Sunnyside,' - and then have a sex offender whose case he handled, rape kids in Sunnyside.

So, you advocate that District Attorneys, judges and parole boards violate the law, simply because some in the public may be ignorant? Personally, I hope they follow the law, regardless of public opinion.

Longer sentences might be possible for sexual predators and other dangerous convicts, but it would have to mean letting other offenders go after shorter sentences. That's a political minefield for a legislator to propose.

Interesting. The one group with the constitutional and statutory authority to even attempt a solution, you give a pass, because it might be tough.

We've already established that these offenders live in poor neighborhoods because they are themselves poor. They are not prohibited from living in the wealthier neighborhoods. They cannot afford to live there. Do you propose that sex offenders be given stipends, so that they can afford to live in wealthier neighborhoods? It seems to me that the best way to get rid of poor offenders is to improve the value of your neighborhood to the point that the offenders can no longer afford to live there. Everyone wins.

[WAZ]

So, you advocate that District Attorneys, judges and parole boards violate the law, simply because some in the public may be ignorant? Personally, I hope they follow the law, regardless of public opinion.

Interesting. The one group with the constitutional and statutory authority to even attempt a solution, you give a pass, because it might be tough.

Show me a law that says District Attorneys, judges, and parole boards can't talk about the law. Show me a law that says District Attorneys, judges, and parole boards can't talk to legislators about whether or not to change laws.

And I didn't give legislators a pass on the issue of dangerous ex-cons and sex offenders in poor neighborhoods. If laws have to change to fix the problem, they will have to be written by legislators. Hopefully those laws would be informed by a good, educated debate on the issue among people who really know what's going on (District Attorneys, judges, and parole boards).

I did say that it is a political minefield for a legislator to lessen the sentences of any type of offender. I would guess it's a political minefield to propose stipends for sex offenders, too. (That was your idea; not mine). I wouldn't consider either of those a good answer to the problem.

We've already established that these offenders live in poor neighborhoods because they are themselves poor. They are not prohibited from living in the wealthier neighborhoods. They cannot afford to live there. Do you propose that sex offenders be given stipends, so that they can afford to live in wealthier neighborhoods? It seems to me that the best way to get rid of poor offenders is to improve the value of your neighborhood to the point that the offenders can no longer afford to live there. Everyone wins.

So the only way to get sex offenders and dangerous ex-cons out of a neighborhood is to gentrify it?

That might work here in my neck of the woods - I see it starting already. But what about neighborhoods that can't or don't gentrify? They should remain chock full of sex offenders and dangerous ex-cons?

[RedScare]

Judges have to be careful about what they say, due to their requirement to be impartial. However, within the areas that the law gives them jurisdiction, they can and do discuss these issues a lot. However, a judge's power is limited to the cases before them, and only while the case is pending before them. For instance, while a defendant is on probation, a judge has lots of say over him, including where he lives. Once that defendant is off probation, the judge has virtually no say-so over what the defendant does. I can say that judges do not look at how many offenders live in a Zip Code when imposing residency restrictions. It usually involves making sure the specific victim is safe from the defendant, such as making a relative move away from the child's residence. The DAs can prosecute, and have some authority to argue for conditions of probation or parole. Again, once out of the system, there is little they can do, unless they re-offend. By the way, the DAs have an advocacy group that advises legislators on proposed laws already. They already do what you claim they better start doing.

Parole and probation officers can only do what the judges and parole boards and the law orders them to do. They have no prosecuting, judicial or legislative authority.

Since you seem hung up only on how many offenders live in a specific area, I have not gone into any of the other complex issues involved in this debate, nor do I particularly care to. I am only saying that legislating where offenders can live or how many can live there is an exceedingly poor approach to the problem. Would you or Travis McGee be satisfied that equal numbers of upper, middle and lower class children are victimized? The goal should be how best to limit victimization and recidivism of ANY child, not spreading the victimization around. As you seem to only want to focus on where the offenders live, I will leave you to pontificate alone.

[WAZ]

Judges have to be careful about what they say, due to their requirement to be impartial. However, within the areas that the law gives them jurisdiction, they can and do discuss these issues a lot. However, a judge's power is limited to the cases before them, and only while the case is pending before them. For instance, while a defendant is on probation, a judge has lots of say over him, including where he lives. Once that defendant is off probation, the judge has virtually no say-so over what the defendant does. I can say that judges do not look at how many offenders live in a Zip Code when imposing residency restrictions. It usually involves making sure the specific victim is safe from the defendant, such as making a relative move away from the child's residence.

So why don't judges look at how many offenders live in a zip code when imposing residency restrictions? Other than "they just don't do it." Is there some legal reason why they don't?

The DAs can prosecute, and have some authority to argue for conditions of probation or parole. Again, once out of the system, there is little they can do, unless they re-offend. By the way, the DAs have an advocacy group that advises legislators on proposed laws already. They already do what you claim they better start doing.

Maybe one of those DA advocates should talk to Travis McGee and other neighborhood advocates about these problems.

Parole and probation officers can only do what the judges and parole boards and the law orders them to do. They have no prosecuting, judicial or legislative authority.

There is validity in asking bus drivers how to change a transit system. Why not include parole and probation boards and officers in talking about laws regarding parole and probation?

Since you seem hung up only on how many offenders live in a specific area, I have not gone into any of the other complex issues involved in this debate, nor do I particularly care to. I am only saying that legislating where offenders can live or how many can live there is an exceedingly poor approach to the problem.

The neighborhood standpoint is simple. Rich or poor, we all want safe, vibrant communities in which to live and work. Nobody wants to have a disproportionately high number of sex offenders and dangerous ex-convicts in their neighborhood.

You might not like that I bring it up; but it is a very real concern.

The goal should be how best to limit victimization and recidivism of ANY child, not spreading the victimization around.

Of course the ultimate goal should be how best to limit recidivism and the victimization of any child or adult. On the way, we need to address the problem of offenders accumulating in poor neighborhoods.

[editor]

Charges Filed in HPD Officer's Death at 101 North Loop East

Charges have been filed against a suspect arrested in a traffic accident that killed an on-duty Houston police officer at 101 North Loop East (North Interstate Highway 610 East) about 3:45 a.m. today (May 29).

The suspect, Johoan Rodriguez (H/m, DOB: 4-13-85), is charged with intoxication manslaughter of a peace officer, felony evading in a motor vehicle and possession of a controlled substance in the 183rd State District Court. A photo of suspect Rodriguez (with injuries sustained in the accident) is attached to this news release.

Officer Kevin S. Will, 38, was pronounced dead at the scene. Officer Will, who was sworn in as an officer in Sept. 2009, was assigned to the Vehicular Crimes Division. A photo of Officer Will is attached to this news release.

HPD Vehicular Crimes Division Sergeant D. Usher and Officer C. Hall reported:

Officer Will was on duty, conducting an investigation on a previous accident on the 610 North Loop near Yale when Rodriguez, driving a silver Volkswagen Beetle, passed through a police barricade blocking the freeway. Officers pursued the Volkswagon but, before it could be stopped, the vehicle fatally struck Officer Will. Rodriguez was taken into custody at the scene and then transported to Ben Taub General Hospital where he was treated for minor injuries.

Officer Will is survived by his wife and two children.

Officer Will:

Johoan Rodriguez:

[LTAWACS]

Throw the book at this worthless scumbag. Don't spare the needle.

[Jeebus]

I guess no one wants to touch the illegal angle. Don't want to offend anyone, right?