Bending the law to satisfy the need for revenge

I would hope that we could all agree that the brain of a 13-year-old functions differently than the brain of a 28-year-old. I would hope that we could all agree that a 28-year-old has a better grasp on the consequences of actions than a 13-year-old has.

Fifteen years ago Robbie Middleton, who was eight years old, was tied to a tree, doused with gasoline and set on fire. He survived, horribly disfigured, but died in 2011 of cancer that a medical examiner said was caused by his burns. The case was refiled as a homicide.

Donald Collins, who was 13 at the time of the incident, was charged at the time but the case was later dismissed due to a lack of evidence. Shortly before his death, Robbie Middleton recorded a statement in which he claimed Mr. Collins sexually assaulted him a couple of weeks prior to the attack.

Prosecutors in Montgomery County moved to try Mr. Collins as an adult. The law at the time of the attack said that a defendant had to be at least 14 to be tried as an adult (which is in itself absurd). This week State District Judge Kathleen Hamilton ruled that Mr. Collins would be tried as an adult.

Of course we all know what the real argument was about. Forget about the law at the time regarding trying juveniles as adults. The problem was that if Mr. Collins were tried as a juvenile there would be little the court to do in the realm of punishment. The only way for the state to get its pound of flesh was to try Mr. Collins as an adult. So, despite the law, that's what happened.

The juvenile courts were set up with the understanding that kids are fundamentally different than adults and that we should be careful about the sanctions imposed on young people for their transgressions.The idea was to take the child away from the situation that got him into trouble and to rehabilitate him so that he didn't head back down that path as an adult.

Now let's just assume for a second that Mr. Collins is guilty of murder. The crime was heinous. The consequences for Robbie Middleton and his family were profound. But the fact remains that Mr. Collins was a teenager at the time of the attack. His brain wasn't fully developed. He didn't have a firm grasp on the consequences of his actions. Just think of yourself at 13 - did you do things back then that you wouldn't imagine doing today?

Trying Mr. Collins as a juvenile wouldn't satisfy the public's thirst for revenge. But that isn't the purpose of the criminal (in)justice system. At least it shouldn't be.

He may be an adult now, but he wasn't at the time of the attack. Trying him as a juvenile likely wouldn't lead to a very satisfying result, but it would lead to the right result. Sometimes the outcome can be right - even if we don't like it.

And sometimes we can jump through hoops to justify doing the wrong thing. That's just what Judge Hamilton did this week.

Two for Texas

Hey, make no mistake about it, I love living in the Lone Star State. I've lived here all my life and have no intentions of going anyplace else. But, let's be brutally honest, Texas has more than its fair share of stupid ideas.

The latest comes from our esteemed Lt. Governor David Dewhurst. As best as I can tell, Mr. Dewhurst was dead serious when he proposed that the state fund specialized weapons training for teachers and administrators selected to carry guns on campus. Under his proposal districts could decide whether they wanted to designate one teacher and one administrator on each campus to pack heat. The state would then provide the funds to train them in how to use a gun correctly and how to handle a situation in which a gunman starts firing inside a school.

Just let that sink in for a minute.

Apparently Mr. Dewhurst is still licking his wounds from getting beaten by that tea-baggin' wingnut Ted Cruz who two-stepped into the U.S. Senate promising to introduce legislation to repeal Obamacare. Somewhere along the line he felt the need to dial up the wingnut tendencies to appease the far right.

I know the NRA seems to think the solution to gun violence is to put more guns out on the street. And if that notion seems absurd - the notion of more guns on school campuses seems downright obscene.

And, just to prove that Mr. Dewhurst's latest brainstorm isn't a fluke - over in Pearland (a suburb of Houston), an 11-year-old was arrested for threatening to bring a gun to school. He wasn't sent to the office and placed in an in-school suspension program. He wasn't placed in an alternative school. He was arrested.

Someone please enlighten me as to what good it does to place handcuffs on a 5th grader and cart him off to the police station. As a rule, kids that age don't appreciate the consequences of their actions. They live in a bubble and have a hard time understanding that the things they do may affect others.

Now, instead of learning math and science and grammar, this young boy is learning all about the criminal (in)justice system. What an education he will receive. Instead of reaching out and trying to help this young boy, the folks entrusted to educate him threw up their hands and passed him off to law enforcement.

Sure, they were probably a bit skittish after what happened last month in Connecticut. I get that. But the kid is only eleven.

Farming out discipline problems to the courts is a losing proposition but it sure is a hell of a lot easier than dealing with the problem yourself. The administrators responsible for this incident should be ashamed of themselves and might want to take a long hard look at themselves in the mirror. There is no excuse for putting an 11-year-old in handcuffs.

Shucking the mark of the beast

How ironic it was that Northside ISD in San Antonio decided to put radio tracking devices on students' ID badges.

It's hard to believe that in that same city over 175 years ago a ragged band of Texians and other settlers decided that freedom from Mexican tyranny was worth dying for. (We'll just forget about the part where the Mexican government had declared that slavery was illegal over the objections of large landowners in modern-day Texas.)

Andrea Hernandez decided not to wear the device. She based her decision on religious principle. To Ms. Hernandez, the badge was the equivalent to the mark of the beast found in Revelations. I don't know what that makes driver's licenses and smart phones, but that's another topic for another day.

She wasn't the first student to rebel over the school district's plan to obliterate the concept of privacy on campus. But she was the one the school district decided to go after when she took off the badge and refused to put it back on. Northside ISD decided it's only recourse was to expel her from school.

That's right. There is no indication that Ms. Hernandez was a disciplinary problem. There is no indication that she's not a good student. So, because she rebels against an edict that violates her religious beliefs, we must kick her to the curb and get her out of the school. What an example we are setting for the other students.

This nation (and this state) were founded because a group of folks stood up when they felt they were being wronged. They made noise. They caused problems. They questioned authority. They listened to their consciences.

And now, in the name of keeping tabs on every single student on one campus, a cabal of so-called educators is doing its best to squelch out any dissent. Just why does the school administration need to know who's in the restroom and who's in the lunchroom and who's in the stairwell with a member of the opposite sex? Our schools are slowly becoming police states in what would appear to be an attempt to socialize our young folks with the attitude that authority must, without question, be obeyed.

Mr. [John] Whitehead said student tagging and locating projects were the first step in producing a "compliant citizenry". 

"These 'student locator' programmes are ultimately aimed at getting students used to living in a total surveillance state where there will be no privacy, and wherever you go and whatever you text or email will be watched by the government," he said.

No, children are not adults. No students don't have the same degree of privacy on a school campus as they would at home. But at some point we must draw a line. At some point we must stand up and say that enough is enough. Students deserve a certain degree of privacy. And that degree of privacy must trump a school adminstrator's desire to track their every move.

While I may find the source of Ms. Hernandez' opposition to the ID badges comical, I do salute her for standing up for what she believes. Her parents should be proud of the daughter they've raised.

Now we can only wait and see if a court values the right of a student to seek redress of her grievances over the insatiable desire of the state to control our each and every movement.

Group rips school districts' priorities

Thanks to the economic meltdown, and the refusal of state leaders to do anything, funding for public schools in Texas plunged. The results were fewer teachers and larger classes.

But even more disturbing was the amount that 11 school districts serving a quarter of the school-age population spent on disciplinary measures and security.

The group Texas Appleseed took a look at the ways in which we are turning our schools into prison pipelines for those with disciplinary problems. In an era in which funding is at a premium it just doesn't make sense to waste money on suspension programs and the like. It certainly makes little sense to fund fully staffed school district police departments when districts are laying off teachers and not filling vacancies.

"We recognize that many Texas school districts are struggling as a result of the $5.4 billion cut in state funding for public education approved last year to help address a state budget shortfall," the group's Deputy Director Deborah Fowler said. "We are releasing this report, not to point a finger at spending in the surveyed school districts, but to open a dialogue with schools about different approaches to student discipline that are more effective and less costly to implement."

The schools surveyed spent about $140 million in the 2010-11 school year on out-of-school suspensions, referrals to Disciplinary Alternative Education Programs and discretionary expulsions to Juvenile Justice Alternative Education Programs. They also spent $87 million on security, monitoring services and campus policing, according to the group.

Suspending students from school and assigning them to so-called alternative schools only serves to make those students more of a risk to drop out before graduating.

Somewhere along the line we have completely lost sight of what public education is all about. In the rush to rank schools based on test scores, we have introduced programs that marginalize students who might not score as high as school administrators might wish. Those students who drop out will not be able to get jobs that pay a living wage and will either subsist on government handouts or take up a life of crime.

Not that state leaders care. What happens five or ten years down the line isn't their concern. Those are problems that can always be pawned off on someone else. With our short election cycle the only things state legislators are interested in is telling their constituents that they didn't vote to raise taxes.

Click here to read Texas Appleseed's report.

Cuffing and stuffing a 10-year-old

A ten-year-old boy was disruptive in class. No news there. But this young man attended elementary school in a suburban Houston school district.

Of course there are various accounts as to what happened in that classroom. The boy's great-grandmother said he had thrown a plastic container. Being as great-grandma was not in the classroom at the time, we can only assume that that's what he told her he did.

School officials paint a different picture. According to district officials the classroom was left in a shambles.

Instead of being sent to the principal's office, suspended or placed in detention, the child was arrested for assault of a public servant, handcuffed and taken to the Harris County Juvenile Detention Center.

Let that soak in for a little bit.

A ten-year-old child was placed in handcuffs and booked into a detention facility. A ten-year-old was charged with a felony offense.

What is wrong with these people?

Yes, he created a disturbance. Yes, I'm sure it was more than just a plastic container. No, I'm not condoning his actions. But arresting and cuffing a ten-year-old?

It allows the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District to wash its hands of the child. Now it's in the hands of authorities in the juvenile (in)justice system. We have moved from trying to figure out whether the child has a problem to locking him up in jail.

We have moved beyond providing a basic education in math, reading and science to providing an education in the inner workings of our criminal (in)justice system. He is learning what it means to be an inmate. What it means to be cuffed and stuffed. What it means to have a judge and prosecutor look at you like you're not worth shit. Please, oh educators in the suburbs, explain to us how this helps the child.

Don't tell me you've forgotten. It's all about the children. Don't y'all remember. Well, except when it's not. Except when it's about telling a ten-year-old that he's worthless and deserves to be in jail.

The half-full (or half-empty) glass

On Monday the Supreme Court, in Miller v. Alabama (combined with Jackson v. Hobbs) put the kibosh on mandatory life in prison without parole for juvenile offenders. According to the Nine in Robes, sentencing a juvenile to LWOP is a violation of the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Court did not declare that sentencing a juvenile to life in prison without parole was a Constitutional violation. Courts are still free to tell a teenager that his or her life isn't worth anything. The states, however, cannot mandate LWOP for a juvenile.

It's the classic six of one, half a dozen of the other decision. The ruling does not mean that the more than 2500 men and women in prison who were sentenced to LWOP under mandatory sentencing laws get to go home. Nor does it mean their cases are remanded for sentencing. It just means that they will find themselves eligible for parole at some point in the future.

Let's face it, there are some kids out there who have done some pretty heinous things to get themselves locked up for life in the Big House. But I don't see how a rational person could think that a 14- or 15-year-old fully understands the consequences of his actions in the same way that a 25- or 26-year-old would. The brain of a 15-year-old is not fully developed - that doesn't happen until sometime in the mid-20's.

It's not right to condemn a teenager to death in prison for something he did while his brain was still forming. We wouldn't think of locking up an 8-year-old for life. Would anyone consider locking up a 12-year-old for life?

Just think back to when you were in high school. Now think of all the incredibly dumb things you did at that point in your life. While you may not have taken the life of another, I'm certain there are some things you did that you'd just as soon no one else ever find out about.

There's a reason we don't allow teens to drink alcohol. There's a reason we don't allow 16-year-olds to vote or join the military. There's a reason we don't let 13-year-olds drive cars.

The United States is one of the only nations on this earth that locks up juveniles in prison. We are certainly the only nation that would throw a 14-year-old in a prison and tell him he will die behind bars. Why? Why do we value the lives of our children so little? Why are we so willing to cut funding for education whenever the state encounters a budget shortfall?

We're the adults here. We're the ones making the decisions that affect the lives of our children. We're the ones who ought to be setting an example of how to steward in the next generation. We're the ones who are supposed to have the wisdom and judgment to make the decisions that affect us all. But when our politicians are willing to sacrifice the lives of teenagers in order to curry favor with right-wing voters, what does it say for the rest of us?

The Supreme Court didn't go nearly far enough in this opinion. There are no circumstances that should ever warrant telling a child he's worthless and will die in prison. The life of a teenager is still redeemable - even if his actions are unspeakable. And, as I've stated many times before when discussing the death penalty - locking up a kid forever is not going to undo what he did nor is it going to bring anyone back to life.

Juvenile judge critical of public defender

Well here's a surprise - a judge who doesn't care for the Harris County Public Defender's Office. Could it be that Judge John Phillips (presiding judge over the 314th Judicial District Juvenile Court) doesn't like not being the one pulling all the strings in his courtroom?

His argument is that it costs more money to use the PD's office to represent an indigent juvenile that it does to use a court-appointed attorney. That statement may or may not be true. Alex Bunin, the head of the PD's office, claims the numbers Mr. Phillips is using were based on a feasibility study and that the actual numbers are comparable.

Maybe the real issue is that with a fully funded PD's office there is a real check on the power of the bench and the DA's office in juvenile court. No longer can the DA and the court gang up on a defendant and force him to enter a plea.

Of course Judge Phillips can no longer favor his friends and supporters with court appointments and that seems to have the surprising effect of reducing the number of quick pleas in his court. Mr. Bunin has assembled, quite possibly, the best criminal defense firm in Texas over the past year and they have the time and energy to fight against injustice. And, for at least the next three years, the funds.

I have never believed that the Harris County PD's Office was set up by county commissioners to provide a powerful advocate for indigent defendants. I believe the office was set up because enough questions had been raised about both the level of competence and cost of the appointed system used in most Harris County courts. The PD's office was seen as a more economical way of obtaining mass pleas while providing cover for the county under the Fair Defense Act.

With the staggering number of reversals on appeal and trial wins by the PD's office, it will be interesting to see what happens when the county is left footing the bill for the office. How enthusiastic with county commissioners be to write a check to pay for a group of attorneys who will actually put up a fight? Is the purpose of the PD's office to provide an effective defense for the indigent - or to plead more cases on the cheap?

We'll know the answer when the grant money runs out.

Cop shoots unarmed teenager

No, the 14-year-old shouldn't have been breaking into a temporary building at a local middle school. He certainly shouldn't have been taking electronic equipment out of the classroom. When the officer told him to stop, he should have stopped.

But he didn't deserve to get shot.

Unfortunately that's what happened in the early morning hours on Tuesday. A young boy is in critical condition with a bullet wound to the chest because a Pasadena school district police officer pulled out his gun and panicked.



You just gotta love how the reporter felt compelled to tell us that the officer was okay after shooting the kid. We certainly mustn't do anything to piss off the powers that be who might be watching our early morning "news" cast.

And just why do we allow school districts to have police departments? There's already an over-proliferation of police in Harris County. We have the Harris County Sheriff's Office, the Harris County Constable's Office, the Houston Police Department, police departments in Pasadena, Baytown, Deer Park and Jacinto City. There are police departments in bedroom communities such as Bellaire, Spring Valley, Southside Place and West University. The two main universities in Houston both have police departments. METRO has its own police department. The Port of Houston and the Medical Center both have departments. And so do most of the school districts in and around the city: Houston, Spring Branch, Cy-Fair, Klein, Spring and Pasadena.

On a weekend run I might see cars from three or four different law enforcement agencies in Spring Branch alone.

The officer who shot the child said that he was in fear for his safety when he pulled the trigger. He also said the child was clutching a backpack when he refused to stop. Now which was it? If the child was clutching a backpack with both hands he didn't have a gun drawn.

There was no reason for the officer to have his gun out of its holster. A police officer is trained in the use of escalating force. The use of deadly force is a last resort and it is not used to prevent a suspect from running. Deadly force is only to be used when the officer has a reasonable belief that his life may be in danger. It's not enough to have a hunch.

This is not to excuse the actions of the teen. But stealing some computer equipment hardly merits a bullet in the chest. I'm certain I'll receive a flood of e-mail telling me how wrong I am to criticize a police officer in his use of deadly force. I'm sure I'll receive anonymous comments telling me that the officer who shot the kid is a really good guy.

So what. He shot an unarmed 14-year-old in the chest. I have absolutely no sympathy for that. He was a trained law enforcement officer with 17 years experience, six with the Pasadena school district. He knew better.

Disposable lives

So how much stupid shit did you do when you were a teenager?

Just think about all the things you did in high school and college. Makes you wonder what you were thinking, doesn't it? You didn't think of the consequences. You were having fun and living life.

For most of us, sometime in our mid-20's we finally caught on to the fact that there were consequences to our actions. We began to think a little bit ahead. We had things to lose.

Teenagers, for the most part, haven't developed the ability to think in the long run. And why should they? Their lives are lived in the moment. The brain hasn't fully matured. The future is an abstraction.

We'll do almost anything to protect our children from the harsh realities of the world around us. There will be plenty of time for them to understand they will have to make choices - some of them unpleasant - as they get older.

But while we are more than willing to do whatever it takes to keep our children in their bubble, we are only too happy, as a society, to lock up those kids for the rest of their lives because of some really bad decisions. While we are programmed to give our kids second, third and even fourth chances, we have no tolerance for the poor choices made by those kids.

Of course Scott Burns, the leader of the National District Attorneys Association, says seeking life without parole for a juvenile is one of the most difficult decisions a prosecutor can make. Because it's all about the prosecutor, you know. I'm not so certain about that, though.

That's because defense attorneys and prosecutors see numbers differently. For a defense attorney, that number represents the tearing apart of a family. We see the effect that number has on parents and siblings and children.There is nothing at all pleasant about hearing a jury sentence your client to years in prison.

For prosecutors, on the other hand, the number only represents a metric of how tough on crime the DA's office can be. It's a notch on the belt, it's a shiny gold coin, it's a quote on the evening news. It's a file being closed and another person locked away.

This isn't to say that teenagers are incapable of committing heinous crimes. They are. Some of it can be explained away by their tragic upbringings: poverty, neglect, abuse. But is justice really served by throwing away another life? By throwing away a life that hasn't even begun?

This is the only nation that locks juveniles in prison for life without the possibility of parole. We are the only society that is so willing to throw lives away.

Some of those lives can be saved. Yes, it will take a shift in attitude. It will take a society that is willing to forgive. A society that is willing to give a teenager a second chance. A society that understands that the mind of a teenager doesn't work like the mind of an adult.

We have a great capacity in this nation for vengeance. What we need is a greater capacity for compassion and understanding. That a young man has been rehabilitated is cold comfort for the family who lost a member to a crime of violence; but locking away that child for the rest of his natural life isn't going to change what happened either.

Our future as a society depends on our children. There are a multitude of politicians who shout as loudly as they can that they are pro-life and pro-family. But their concern for life doesn't extend beyond birth and their concern for family doesn't extend to anyone who doesn't look like them or who grew up in different circumstances.

It is time we stopped sacrificing our youth. It is time to end the insanity of locking up teenagers for life. Maybe our choices weren't nearly as bad nor as destructive - but we all did things when we were younger that we now regret. These lives can still be saved and it makes a whole lot more sense to spend our time and money trying to save those lives than it does to build and deploy deadly weapons.

Exporting a bad idea

Even the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Wallace Jefferson, thinks issuing Class C citations to students for "disrupting class" is a bad idea.

According to this article from the Guardian, Judge Jefferson thinks introducing children to the criminal (in)justice system is helping drive them to jail. Even the US Attorney General, Eric Holder, thinks it's a bad idea.

It appears that the British government is looking to take cues from the Lone Star State in dealing with juveniles. Crispin Blunt, the UK's justice minister, toured juvenile courts and detention centers in Texas this fall on a fact-finding mission.

Emulating the way in which Texas handles its school disciplinary issues will only succeed in introducing more young people to the criminal (in)justice system. The most common citation issued to students in Texas is "disrupting class." Can you imagine a more nebulous term? What constitutes a disruption serious enough to warrant charging a student with a criminal offense?

Do we really need to make kids miss class to attend court because they spoke out of turn? Because they made an inappropriate joke? Because they insulted another student? Because they took too long coming back from a potty break?

And what are the leaders of the Texas State Teachers Association took no position on the issue when the legislature last debated it. The head of the union said that most of his members are in favor of issuing criminal citations to students.

And what message is that sending? The job of our schools is to educate our youth, not to socialize them in the workings of the criminal (in)justice system. Those who support the current law, and those who take no position, are doing our children a grave injustice.

Instead of looking for excuses to enter people into the criminal (in)justice system, we should be looking for ways to keep them out.

More than half of Texas students suspended or expelled

The results of a longitudinal study that followed one million Texas seventh-graders for six years reveals that 60% of those students were suspended or expelled at least once before finishing high school.

That is an astounding number - and an indictment of disciplinary policy in Texas schools.The purpose of public education is to ensure that every child in Texas receives a quality education through high school. Policies that result in more than half of our children being suspended or expelled and policies that introduce children to the criminal (in)justice system for misconduct at school are antithetical to the mission of our schools.

Mike Thompson of the Council of State Governments Justice Center said that this is a continuation of a 20-year trend that has seen suspension and expulsion rates double across the country. I guess it's a lot easier to educate the children who behave and leave everyone else to fend for themselves. But kids who drop out, are expelled or who fail to graduate for some other reason are more likely to find themselves caught up in the criminal (in)justice system as adults.

There are already too many folks under the thumb of the government. We don't need more.

Thompson said that's the problem: Expulsion and suspension policies focus too much on punishment, and not enough on addressing the misbehavior and having students learn from their mistakes. 

"We think the findings in this report should prompt policymakers in Texas and everywhere else to ask this question: Is our state school discipline system getting the desired results?" Thompson said.

According to the study, almost one-in-six children were punished eleven times or more. Of those, about half ended up in juvenile justice centers or alternative schools for 73 days or more. Those are the kids who tend to repeat grades or drop out of school without graduating.

The study also revealed that 70% of black girls were either suspended or expelled compared to 37% of white girls for the same or similar offenses. That's hardly a coincidence. Disciplinary decisions tend to be made solely by a teacher or administrator - hence there are no checks-and-balances to ensure that all students are treated equally.

The report also looked at the fascination that Texas schools have with issuing Class C citations for behavior that a generation ago would have been handled in class or within the school. Talking back to the teacher or disrupting class make it harder for teachers to do their jobs -- but charging a kid with a criminal offense and requiring them to miss school to appear in court with their parents is not the way to resolve it. We should be looking at ways to reduce the number of people introduced to the criminal (in)justice system, not the other way around.

State Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston) voiced his concern to the Houston Chronicle about schools farming out disciplinary problems to the courts:

Whitmire complained of "large inner-city school districts creating a large bureaucracy to deal with oftentimes just dumb teenage behavior that can be corrected short of making it a crime." 

Whitmire said the report confirms his concern over the continual growth in criminalizing classroom behavior. 

"We all want safe schools, an orderly environment and for teachers to be left alone," said Whitmire, the senior member of the Texas Senate. "The nonsense begins with overusing the issuance of Class C misdemeanor tickets and the tremendous growth of school district police departments."

Schools should be places of learning. Schools should be a refuge from the harsh realities of life. They shouldn't serve as a way station to the criminal (in)justice system.

See also:

"Majority of Texas middle and high school students suspended or expelled," Grits for Breakfast (July 19, 2011)
"Breaking Schools' Rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to students' success and juvenile justice involvement," The Council of State Governments

Reading, writing and citing

Add Texas State Senator John Whitmire (D-Houston) to the growing chorus of voices calling for school districts to stop issuing Class C misdemeanor citations to students for disrupting class and truancy.

According to Sen. Whitmire's op/ed in Friday morning's Houston Chronicle:

Despite evidence that Class C misdemeanor ticketing does little to change student behavior, the practice is widespread in our public schools. According to a recent report released by the public interest law center Texas Appleseed, more than 275,000 non-traffic tickets are issued annually to juveniles in Texas - many for low-level misbehavior commonly ticketed at school. 

Appleseed's research shows that minority and special education students, who are at greatest risk for school dropout, are being ticketed at higher rates for low-level, non-violent offenses. 

In a recent legislative address, Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson made an important point: 

"More than 80 percent of adult prison inmates are school dropouts. Charging kids with criminal offenses for low-level behavioral issues exacerbates the problem." This is a warning worth heeding.

The problem is out of control in the Houston area. According to Sen. Whitmire, over a five-year period, Dallas ISD issued citations to 1,200 students while during the 2008-2009 school year alone, Houston ISD issued over 5,700 citations.

There is absolutely no need to drag young children into the criminal (in)justice center. If we stay on this path we are only socializing our children that their place is in the courtroom. It's time that school districts take back responsibility for disciplinary matters in schools. Schools should look at their behavior modification techniques and fine tune or change them if necessary. School district police should be trained to de-escalate situations instead of pulling out the ticket book. School districts should look to youth courts allowing peer-based solutions to behavioral problems.

Back to the schoolhouse

A few weeks ago I wrote about the Texas Appleseed report on school districts farming out their disciplinary problems to the criminal (in)justice system. It seems as if at least one state legislator, Armando Walle (D-Houston) paid attention to the report.

According to the Texas Tribune, Rep. Walle has introduced three bills regarding the ticketing of school children. One would allow students to pay their fines through community service or tutoring. The others would require school districts to keep data on the citations issued to students and would require school districts to offer specialized training for officers.

While these bills may be a first step in the right direction - they fall far short of fixing the problem.

If we are going to allow our schools to place juveniles in the criminal (in)justice system for misbehavior on campus, it should only happen for specific offenses such as fighting and possessing weapons or drugs.Disrupting class is much too vague a concept for a student to face criminal charges. Disrupting class is something that should be handled on campus through a suspension or detention program.

Fighting, on the other hand, is an actual criminal offense; as are possessing weapons or drugs.

Rep. Walle's proposals also fail to address the burden placed on parents when a school issues a citation to their child. A parent is required to accompany the child to court (while school is in session). Should the child be required to perform community service, the parents will be required to drive the child there and back again. If a fine is levied, guess who will be opening up the checkbook?

What happens if both parents work? What if one parent stays at home with younger children or older parents? The parent didn't do anything - yet the parent is being punished.

It is time we stop the outsourcing of discipline by schools. It's time school districts disclose to parents the consequences of ticketing students for disciplinary problems. It's time we stop looking for excuses to force people into the criminal (in)justice system.

It's time we stop criminalizing school discipline

Texas Appleseed, a public interest organization whose mission is to promote social and economic justice for Texans, recently released a report detailing the criminalization of discipline in our public schools. The report, entitled Texas' School to Prison Pipeline:Ticketing, Arrest & Use of Force in Schools, takes a critical look at how Texas school districts have shifted disciplinary problems from the schools to the courthouses.

Described by Texas’ premier juvenile law scholar as “the shadow juvenile justice system,” municipal and justice courts are now the primary venue for many types of cases that historically were adjudicated as civil matters by juvenile courts. However, unlike juvenile courts, municipal and justice courts are courts of criminal jurisdiction. As harsh as it may seem, children convicted in these courts are aptly labeled “common criminals.” -- Passing the Paddle: Nondisclosure of Children's Criminal Cases

Estimates are that there are some 275,000 non-traffic citations issued to juveniles in Texas every year. Since many Justice of the Peace Courts don't report all of their juvenile matters, that estimate understates the number of teens ticketed by police. According to Texas Appleseed, the vast majority of those citations are issued for school disciplinary problems: disrupting class, disorderly conduct, fighting, truancy and misbehaving on the school bus.

In Texas, students as young as six have been ticketed at school in the past five years, and it is not uncommon for elementary-school students to be ticketed by school-based law enforcement. School-based arrest of students is not as common, but does occur—and often without prior notice to parents or a lawyer being present during initial questioning of the student. -- Texas Appleseed report

It's a basic tenet of criminal law that one must have the intent to commit a bad act in order to be guilty. While there are some exceptions (notably, DWI), the Texas Penal Code lists a culpable mental state for each criminal offense. Those mental states run from criminally negligent to reckless to knowing to intentional. 

Young children act up. It's part of the process of growing up. But young children rarely consider the consequences of their actions -- their minds aren't developed enough to do so. And you certainly can't compare the average six or seven year-old to the "reasonably prudent man" we studied about in law school.

According to Texas Appleseed, ticketing students for disciplinary matters has the following financial and legal consequences:

The most common misdemeanors for which students are ticketed in Texas public schools are non-violent Disruption of Class or Transportation, Disorderly Conduct, and curfew violations (leaving campus without permission)—however, unlike juvenile court, children convicted or entering “guilty or no contest” pleas in municipal and justice courts have criminal records.

Legislation (SB 1056) adopted by the 81st Texas Legislature in 2009 mandated criminal courts (including municipal and justice courts) immediately issue a nondisclosure order upon the conviction of a child for a misdemeanor offense punishable by fine only, however due to the large volume of these cases and the burden on courts to clear Class C tickets through the Texas Department of Public Safety, the “non-disclosure law” is not working—and Class C misdemeanors are staying on a youth’s “criminal record” accessible by future employers and others.

Students who fail to pay a court-imposed fine or complete court-imposed community service in the wake of a Class C ticket issued at school can be arrested at age 17—and incidents of this happening in Hidalgo County are currently being challenged in court.

The courts providing information for this study reported assessing fines and court costs for Class C tickets ranging from less than $60 to more than $500—and many students receive multiple tickets in a single school year.

Minority, particularly African-American, students and special education students find themselves disproportionately ticketed compared to their rates of enrollment.

Texas Appleseed recommends that Chapter 37 of the Texas Education Code be amended to remove Disruption of Class and Disruption of Transportation as criminal offenses. They also recommend that Chapter 37 be amended to prohibit the ticketing of students under the age of 14. The groups also recommends that truancy no longer be a criminal offense.

We should be doing everything we can to keep young people out of the criminal (in)justice system. Parents need to be informed of the school district's policies regarding the ticketing of students for disciplinary issues. Parents should be warned of the consequences involved in ticketing students.

Maybe it's time we stopped focusing so much on teaching to a standardized test so that schools can get back into the discipline game instead of farming it out to the police.

Legislature takes critical look at citing students for misbehavior

While surfing on Google Reader this morning at the municipal courthouse, I came across a post over at Grits for Breakfast about the goings-on with the State Senate Criminal Justice Committee. The post mentioned discussions regarding the Driver Responsibility Program, deferred for DWI's, reducing the number of offenses that can lead to driver's license suspensions and a new look at using the criminal (in)justice system to discipline students who disrupt class.

I was particularly interested in this last item because I have a friend whose child has been dragged into the justice of the peace courts for allegedly disrupting class. She and I discussed the absurdity of charging children with a criminal offense because they interrupted class. It's bad enough that the students are missing class sitting in a courtroom; but the absurdity continues when the courts hold the parents liable for the fines and court costs owed by their children. My friend was told that if she didn't pay the fines and court costs for her son's case then her driver's license would be suspended for nonpayment of a court-ordered fine.

These are the recommendations of the committee regarding secondary school disciplinary laws:

1. Amend Chapter 37 of the Education code by narrowing the definition for "Disruptive Activities", "Disruption of Classes", "Serious and Persistent Misbehavior" to eliminate non-criminal acts.

2. Amend Chapter 37 of the Education Code by changing the dangerous or disruptive violation to dangerous and disruptive, In order to insure students are not being removed for simple disruptions to class.

3. Require TEA to evaluate and modify education standards at DAEPs and JJAEPs. 

4. Require TEA to notify school districts of disproportionate referrals.

5. Require TEA to develop a tracking system for the funds generated by citations. 

6. Require an evaluation of district with continued disproportionate referrals.

7. Require school district to implement some form of evidence based programs that are proven to reduce truancy, crime, and drug offenses.  

8. Require more training for teachers and administrators in discipline in a educational setting, and early intervention options.

9. Exempt 18-21 year olds from the truancy laws.

10. Require the state auditor to evaluate the use of dropout funds by TEA.

During hearings before State Senator John Whitmire (D-Houston) last April, Mr. Jeff Miller of Advocacy Incorporated testified about the disproportionate numbers of special needs students who get dragged into the criminal (in)justice system.

Jeff Miller, policy specialist, Advocacy Incorporated, testified in agreement of the statements and recommendations made by TA with regard to students with disabilities. Miller stated that while ten percent of students receive special education, they represent twenty-one percent of the students expelled in Texas. He stated that this overrepresentation was the result of systemic problems with assessment done by school districts, programming and accountability for implementation of special education students' Individualized Education Plans and Behavioral Improvement Plans. He also stated DAEPs are especially lacking in these areas.

Miller also testified to the topic of citation. He explained that often students with disabilities are disciplined and also cited; meaning they are directly involved with the justice system. Instead of criminalizing these students and removing them from schools for issues that are directly related to their disability, steps should be taken to develop plans to address the behavioral issues when they are not violent or criminal. The first step in accomplishing this is supplying teachers with needed help, and identifying students with special needs.

Ms. Elysha Aseltine, who wrote a dissertation on the ticketing of students also testified before the committee regarding the rampant increase in tickets issued for misbehavior.

Elyshia Aseltine, representing herself, testified regarding her dissertation on school ticketing. She testified that in 1994 only 1.5 percent of tickets were issued by school police officers. In 2007 40 percent of the ticket for juveniles were issues by school police officers. She stated that the majority of tickets were for curfew violations, typically for leaving campus during lunch. The next most frequent ticket is for disorderly conduct, and next abuse of language. Many citation are also given for drug paraphernalia and disruptive behavior. She also provided statistics pertaining to the number of juveniles who experienced increased penalties for citation as a result of school disciplinary. Approximately 14,200 ticket were issued over a fourteen year period issues; 2,119 resulted in a warrant being issued or the juvenile serving jail time.  

The president of the Texas Association of School District Police, Mr. Jeff Ward, denied that school districts encourage officers to issue citations as a way of raising funds. He did point out, however, that while a student could be cited for disrupting class, he could not be cited for carrying a knife to school.

Jeff Ward, president, Texas Association of School District Police, testified that revenue for citations was not a factor in issuing citations. He stated that only five dollars for every citation is returned to the district from the county in adjudicated cases. He stated that school police officers report to the police department or the superintendent of a school district; and that school administrators can not require that police issue a ticket. They can be the complaining witness if involved in the incident. He also stated there has been a reduction in the issuance of tickets. He also states that as a result of a change in law, possession of a knife on campuses is no longer a criminal offense therefore is no longer a citable [sic]offense. He also stated that officers are trained in crisis intervention and many have mental health training.  

The report also stated that the conflict resolution programs, such as peer mediation and school-based teen courts have proven to be effective alternatives to citing students.

In short, the committee realizes that what we're doing now isn't working and that we need to look at some fresh ideas when it comes to handing campus disciplinary issues. Removing those matters from the criminal (in)justice system is a healthy first step.

Farming out discipline

Recently, in his blog "Simple Justice," New York criminal defense attorney Scott H. Greenfield wrote about zero tolerance and "three strike" policies in public schools (see "Zero Tolerance for Three Strikes").

This made me think about how school discipline in this part of Texas has largely been turned over to the justice of the peace and municipal courts. It used to be if you got into a fight at school that you were sent to the principal's office and you either received a paddling or in-school suspension. Not that I'm a big fan of corporal punishment in schools, but there was a mechanism in place to handle discipline problems.

Somewhere along the way school districts in the Houston area decided that they didn't want to handle disciplinary problems anymore (I think it was about the same time we allowed standardized tests to determine the school curriculum). They farmed them out to the local courts.

Now, instead of a trip to the office to see the principal (who's usually out and about schmoozing with community leaders for donations and sponsorships), our unruly juveniles are issued a citation by the school's resident police officer (more and more local districts now have their own police departments, too, but that's another story for another day) requiring them to appear in court with a parent.

Ironically enough, the court appearance typically is scheduled on a weekday morning -- while school is in session. So not only is the child missing class (?), now he's facing a criminal charge. And isn't that the last thing we need -- more citizens under the watchful eye of the criminal (in)justice system?

While most of these cases are dismissed as the result of deferred disposition (or adjudication), the costs are severe. The child has missed class, the parent has missed work and someone has to pay the fines, court costs and attorney fees.

Is this really a good thing?