League City: Burglary suspects arrested

[seamusTX]

In League City Monday a homeowner in the 6200 block of Silver Leaf Drive came home around 1 p.m. and found two suspected burglars in a vehicle in his driveaway. The suspects fled in the vehicle. The homeowner tailed them until they were stopped by a police officer. No one was injured.

The suspects, 19- and 21-year-old males from Pasadena, had stolen only an iPod, although they had staged other items in the kitchen.

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/221278" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This location is an upscale neighborhood about two miles west of I-45. It's a quick getaway. If the homeowner had been a few minutes later, probably the burglars would have gotten away.

Now they have a slam-dunk felony conviction for a used iPod that probably is worth $100.

- Jim

[chasfm11]

Now they have a slam-dunk felony conviction for a used iPod that probably is worth $100.

- Jim

What are the chances that they will receive punishment in line with a felony conviction? I haven't seen many cases around here where this type of conviction results in any punishment that is likely to act as a deterrent to future bad behavior. Perhaps the League City DA will have a different approach. I'd be willing to bet that this wasn't the first time that these two fine upstanding fellows have been the subject of police attention. It sure seems like career criminals figure out that our legal system is more of a speed bump than an impediment to their pursuits. They are more than willing to try and learn from their mistakes (i.e. getting caught) and try again soon, maybe before the ink is dry on the deferred adjudication forms.

[seamusTX]

What are the chances that they will receive punishment in line with a felony conviction?

I don't know. It depends upon other factors that I don't at this time:

• Did they have prior adult offenses?
• When arrested did they have illegal drugs, weapons, or stolen goods from other crimes?
• Can the state prove that they are gang members?

If it is their first adult offense, most likely they will get a plea bargain and probation. If it's a felony, even if they get deferred adjudication, they will have a couple of years of supervision, which they have to pay for, filling up a specimen jar once a month, etc., and they will carry some consequences of that for life. For example they can never get a CHL or hold a position of trust.

The Galveston County DA, Jack Roady, has jurisdiction over this case. He is self-described as tough on crime.

I'm not convinced that prison sentences are a deterrent to the kind of people who commit violent crimes. Those people are either too stupid to consider the consequences of their actions, or think they're smart enough not to get caught.

BTW, the closure rate on crimes like burglary and robbery is around 30%. Those are not great odds, but better than roulette.

- Jim

[chasfm11]

I'm not convinced that prison sentences are a deterrent to the kind of people who commit violent crimes. Those people are either too stupid to consider the consequences of their actions, or think they're smart enough not to get caught.

BTW, the closure rate on crimes like burglary and robbery is around 30%. Those are not great odds, but better than roulette.

- Jim

Nor am I. I understand that a stay in the "big house" is more likely to refine whatever skills that they have rather than dissuading them from future errant behavior. That said, a few years off their youthful exuberance is not necessarily a bad thing in my view. If they cannot be reformed, separating them from society seems like the only opportunity to protect the rest of us. It sure beats re-arresting and trying them multiple times within the same period.

[WildBill]

The court system has a probation department for evaluating these questions. Sometimes it works, and sometimes not. [Maybe not better than roulette? ] Since these suspects are fairly young, maybe they will learn from this experience and make better career choices in the future.

[seamusTX]

I understand that a stay in the "big house" is more likely to refine whatever skills that they have rather than dissuading them from future errant behavior.

I do not hesitate to admit what I don't know, and in this case I don't know.

Supposedly some inmates spend a lot of time talking about crime techniques, how to avoid getting caught, how to beat the legal system, etc.

What I am sure of is that many join gangs who were not formerly gang members, and some come out with a huge chip on their shoulder. Those issues, combined with their slim employment prospects, lead to recidivism.

I have seen wildly varying numbers for recidivism rates. Frankly, I think the statistics can be doctored to favor or oppose any particular correctional program.

We tend to see the worst cases of career criminals who are convicted and paroled multiple times until they either commit a capital offense or get killed during a criminal exploit.

We don't know how many first-time offenders who get probation never offend again.

Finally, I will once again say that long prison sentences cost the taxpayers money. Perhaps they save money and lives for society overall, but the bills and salaries for the prison still have to be paid.

- Jim

[ELB]

Prison sentences most certainly deter - by preventing - crimes the prisoner would otherwise commit if still out walking the street. Yes there is a "cost to society" for the prison and the guards, but at least it is a scheduled, controlled payment extracted in a relatively non-violent way. The alternative is the have the young thug walking the streets, extracting the "cost to society" on an ad hoc basis, in theft, fear, blood, and lives, from whoever is unlucky enough to fall in his field of view. Even if someone could make the case that is somehow a lesser cost in $$ terms, it is certainly not a lesser moral cost.

I can see giving one chance to a first-timer who otherwise is clean, but after that, no.

[seamusTX]

Prison sentences most certainly deter - by preventing - crimes the prisoner would otherwise commit if still out walking the street.

The concept of deterrence is to discourage someone from taking a course of action in advance, by warning of the consequences.

It seems obvious that imprisoning a convict would prevent the convict from committing further crimes while in prison, but that is not always the case.

According to prison officials and prosecutors, prisoners using cell phones (which they cannot legally possess) are operating gangs and orchestrating witness intimidation and assassinations from prison. These are the so called drug lords and gang bosses who do much more damage than your run-of-the-mill thief or burglar.

They also bribe guards to smuggle drugs into the prison, arrange liaisons with women, and provide other luxuries.

Prisoners also assault and murder other prisoners. Granted, the victims are themselves convicted felons, but they were not sentenced to torture and execution.

- Jim

[chasfm11]

Some of this is pretty easy to fix. Cell phone jamming equipment is available, though I admit is not cheap. There should be video tapes of visitors which could be monitored for bribe situations. I realize that this costs money, too.

My opinion is that rather than the government spending so much money to monitor everything that I do, the same amount of money would completely clean up the prisons. They are only spread so thin in the criminal justice system because they elect to spread themselves into so many things where they do not belong.

[seamusTX]

Some of this is pretty easy to fix. Cell phone jamming equipment is available,...

Cell phone jamming is illegal under federal law. This is a hot topic. You can search the web for it.

I agree the law can be changed, but someone has to lobby for it. The extent of prison corruption is not widely known until it turns into a sex scandal, and then the news-consuming public just twitters and smirks about it.

Legislators are busy advancing their own pet projects. In this forum we say that you can't prevent crime by fettering law-abiding citizens, and I agree. However legislators and public officials on both sides of the aisle are quick to do exactly that, requiring registration of over-the-counter antihistamines and going on witch hunts for pornography and prostitution.

P.S.: Again, it's easy to say that government can't spend more than it takes in. Fine, that's obvious. State prisons are paid for largely by state sales tax. County jails are paid for by local real-estate tax and the county share of sales tax. If we want to spend more on prisons and jails, something else has to give. That could road construction and maintenance, schools, policing, Medicaid, parks, etc. A small number of lines items are a big proportion of the budget.

TANSTAAFL.

- Jim

[chasfm11]

Some of this is pretty easy to fix. Cell phone jamming equipment is available,...

Cell phone jamming is illegal under federal law. This is a hot topic. You can search the web for it.

I agree the law can be changed, but someone has to lobby for it. The extent of prison corruption is not widely known until it turns into a sex scandal, and then the news-consuming public just twitters and smirks about it.

Legislators are busy advancing their own pet projects. In this forum we say that you can't prevent crime by fettering law-abiding citizens, and I agree. However legislators and public officials on both sides of the aisle are quick to do exactly that, requiring registration of over-the-counter antihistamines and going on witch hunts for pornography and prostitution.

P.S.: Again, it's easy to say that government can't spend more than it takes in. Fine, that's obvious. State prisons are paid for largely by state sales tax. County jails are paid for by local real-estate tax and the county share of sales tax. If we want to spend more on prisons and jails, something else has to give. That could road construction and maintenance, schools, policing, Medicaid, parks, etc. A small number of lines items are a big proportion of the budget.

TANSTAAFL.

- Jim

I also understand the free lunch problem. Your registration of anti-histamines is indeed a great example of how I'm monitored and criminals are not. Those programs cost money and if the cell phone traffic out of the prison were monitored (hospitals have prohibitions against cell phones so there is no reason those could not be made in prisons, too - then the only traffic coming out of the facility would have to be deemed illegal) My point is that there are ways to get underneath some of this and the money is better spent there than in the constant catching, trying and re-incarceration of recidivists.

[seamusTX]

hospitals have prohibitions against cell phones so there is no reason those could not be made in prisons, too

Hospitals have a rule against using cell phones. I can tell you first-hand that cell phones work fine in hospitals, and most patients and their visitors use them.

It is already illegal under state law for prisoners to possess or use a cell phone. It is also illegal for them to have alcohol, weapons, drugs, or sexual contact—but they do.

The prison management can detect cell phone activity, but they probably can't pin down the location closely enough before the conversation ends. They do catch thousands of prisoners with cell phones every year, and also visitors and employees trying to smuggle them in.

Again, the state legislature establishes the budget. It's their call. They respond to what their voters and contributors want. That's why we have longer actual sentences for growing pot than murder or child molesting.

- Jim