In their annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Corrections Corporation of America had this to say about their view of the future:

The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws. For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them.

This is what a free market solution to crime prevention creates: vested intrest in the status quo.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2011/11/bearish-on-private-prison-stocks-if.html

In music, contrary motion is the term used for two voices or melodic lines which move in opposite directions (one ascends as the other descends). It is frequently heard in the fugues of Bach and other counterpoint heavy music.

Statistics from the Department of Justice recently released indicate crime is down nationwide. Highlights from the press release include:

• The rate of total violent crime victimizations declined by 13% in 2010, which was about three times the average annual decrease observed from 2001 through 2009 (4%).
• The decline in the rate of simple assault accounted for about 82% of the total decrease in the rate of violent victimization in 2010.
• In 2010 the property victimization rate declined by 6%, compared to the average annual decrease of 3% observed from 2001 through 2009.
• Strangers perpetrated 39% of violent victimizations in 2010, down from 44% in 2001.
• About 50% of all violent victimizations and nearly 40% of property crimes were reported to the police in 2010. These percentages have remained stable over the past 10 years.

Testimony from Police Inspector John Matthew Tierney at the Trial of Daniel M’Naughten (1843):

“”I suppose you will assign some reason this morning to the Magistrate for the act you have committed?”—he said he would, a short one—I said, “For that matter, you might have stated anything you chose last night after the caution I have given you”—he then said he was the object of a persecution by the Tories, or Tory persecution, or something of that sort—that they followed him from place to place with their persecution—he seemed inclined to go on—I said, (merely to turn the conversation, I did not want to hear the confession,) “I suppose you are aware of the gentleman you have shot at?”—he said, “It is Sir Robert Peel, is not it?”—I said, for the moment, “No,” and then retracted, and said, “We don’t exactly know who it is yet, but recollect the caution I gave you last night, not to say anything that might be used in evidence against you”—he replied, “But you won’t use this against me?”—I said, “I will make no promise, I gave you a caution” (emphasis added)

(Inspector Tierney reading from his written statement later in the trial)

(read)—”The prisoner after being cautioned as to his statement, says, ‘The Tories in my native city have driven me to this, and have followed me to France, Scotland, and other parts; I can get no sleep from the system they pursue towards me; I believe I am driven into a consumption by them; they wish to murder me. That is all I wish to say at present; they have completely disordered me, and I am quite a different man before they commenced this annoyance towards me.’ ”

The defense presented multiple witnesses to M’Naughten’s strange behavior leading up to the crime. The prosecution had no rebuttal for this evidence and offered no evidence of their own regarding his sanity.

According to wikipedia, “When the prosecution declined to produce any medical witnesses to counter this evidence, the trial was halted. Follet then made a brief, apologetic closing speech which he concluded with the words “I cannot press for a verdict against the prisoner…”. Chief Justice Tindal, in his summing up, stressed that the medical evidence was all on one side, and reminded the jury that if they found the prisoner not guilty on the ground of insanity, proper care would be taken of him. The jury, without retiring, duly returned a verdict of not guilty on the ground of insanity. (emphasis added)

These are hardly the jury instructions one might hear today in a case where the insanity defense is put forth.

It is interesting to note that M’Naughten was under the impression he had shot the Prime Minister, Edward Peel. It was many years later and another attempted assassination (Hinkley/Reagan) that would lead to changes and limitations put on the insanity defense.

Chief among those new rules would be Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) which now states:

“No expert witness testifying with respect to the mental state or condition of a defendant in a criminal case may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Such ultimate issues are matters for the trier of fact alone.”

The previous version of this rule stated:

“Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.”

And, in the the misleading headline department, there is this: Pre-Cog is Real – New Software Stops Crime Before It Happens

In 2007, the Texas Legislature approved legislation that would allow a limited number of sex offenders in Texas the possibility of ending the requirement of registering as a sex offender (deregistration process). The Texas Council of Sex Offender Treatment (TCSOT) was tasked with implementing this process.

Earlier this year, TCSOT completed the process and revealed the risk assessment tools they will be using as well as the names of the approved deregistration specialists. The approved tools are as follows:

“The three risk assessment devices for adult males shall include the Static-2002, Hare Psychopathy Checklist – Revised and the Level of Service Inventory – Revised.” (from the TCSOT Directive 3.3)

If neuroscience can one day provide tools that would provide accurate, individualized predictions of the likelihood of a person reoffending, this is an area where they are badly needed. So far, there has not been a successful petition for sex offender deregistration in Texas.

Until very recently, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has been imposing sex offender conditions (the ominously named Condition “X”) on inmates and releasees who have no conviction for a sexual offense. May I suggest you take a moment to re-read that last sentence.

A series of recent court cases has forced the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to implement new rules regarding how Condition “X” can be imposed on those offenders who have not been convicted of a sexual offense. This area of the law is developing rapidly and it is estimated that there are about 7,000 inmates who have been forced to comply with sex offender conditions in the absence of a conviction for a sexual offense.

Ex Parte Evans, the most recent decision from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on this matter was handed down earlier this year and makes for interesting reading. A quick scan of the opinion in Evans will demonstrate very plainly the difficulties faced by someone who is living with Condition “X”.

I do not envy the job of the Parole Board. However, in stigmatizing those who have never been convicted of a sexual offense by placing them on sex offender conditions, they have gone too far. They have ignored legal precedent and painted with too broad a brush.

The test the Board should be following comes from Coleman v. Dretke, 03-50743 (5th Circuit 2005) and states that sex offender conditions may only be imposed if a person is found to be a danger to society by virtue of their lack of sexual control.  It is an open question as to what that test might one day look like.

As it stands now, sex offender treatment providers have a financial incentive to find that their clients are a threat to society and need to continue treatment and deregistration is a myth.