Wednesday, February 10, 2010
We think "Stop punishing taxpayers for criminals' actions" sums it up pretty well. Unfortunately, we doubt that the South Carolina Legislature will ever make the recommended changes to the State prison system. There appear to be too many Law and Order panderers in the General Assembly who fail to see the big picture for real reform to occur. They are focused more on getting re-elected than on solving problems. They do not appear to understand that they are spending the State into poverty by jailing people who do not belong in jail.
Labels: Jail Overcrowding, Judicial Reform, Silly Laws
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement, Problems at DSS, Silly Laws, Welfare Reform
Monday, January 04, 2010
The last sentence reminds us of what we have been saying and bears repeating: "in the current hard economic times, strapped states are beginning to realize that they do not have the money to keep people in prison who do not need to be there." So the question is whether states want to be like Michigan with its innovative cost-saving approach or be like Florida with its budget-busting mandate that all prisoners serve a high percentage of their sentences.The United States, which has less than 5 percent of the world’s population, has about one-quarter of its prisoners. But the relentless rise in the nation’s prison population has suddenly slowed as many states discover that it is simply too expensive to over incarcerate.
Between 1987 and 2007 the prison population nearly tripled, from 585,000 to almost 1.6 million. Much of that increase occurred in states — many with falling crime rates — that had adopted overly harsh punishment policies, such as the “three strikes and you’re out” rule and drug laws requiring that nonviolent drug offenders be locked away.
These policies have been hugely costly. According to the Pew Center on the States, state spending from general funds on corrections increased from $10.6 billion in 1987 to more than $44 billion in 2007, a 127 percent increase in inflation-adjusted dollars. In the same period, adjusted spending on higher education increased only 21 percent.
In 2008, the explosion of the prison population ground to a near halt, according to data released last month by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. About 739,000 inmates were admitted to federal and state facilities, only about 3,500 more than were released.
One factor seems to be tight budgets as states decide to release nonviolent offenders early. This can not only save money. If done correctly, it can also be very sound social policy. Many nonviolent offenders can be dealt with more effectively and more cheaply through treatment and jobs programs.
Michigan, which has been hard hit by the recession, has done a particularly good job of releasing people who do not need to be in prison. As the American Civil Liberties Union’s National Prison Project details in a new report, Michigan reduced its prison population by about 8 percent between March 2007 and November 2009 by taking smart steps, notably doing more to get nonviolent drug offenders out, while helping in their transition to a productive, and crime-free, life.
Not every state has gotten the message. Florida, for example, has a state law mandating that all prisoners serve a high percentage of their sentence, which is both dubious corrections policy and terrible fiscal policy.
For many years, driving up prison populations has been an easy thing for elected officials to do, popular with voters and powerful corrections officer unions. The new incarceration figures suggest, however, that in the current hard economic times, strapped states are beginning to realize that they do not have the money to keep people in prison who do not need to be there.
Labels: Jail Overcrowding, Judicial Reform, Silly Laws
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Of course, we--as a society--would never even consider incarcerating a mother merely for being financially irresponsible, particularly without hard empirical evidence that spending some time "in the barb-wired hotel all dressed up and nowhere to go" would somehow teach those mothers how to be responsible. Otherwise, Octoplet Mom would be spending time in Los Angeles County Jail rather than spending time with Dr. Phil. So why are we so eager to take this approach with fathers? Should we not at least answer the question of whether jailing "Deadbeat Dads" is doing more harm than good. Should we not consider not just whether THE RECESSION is contributing to homelessness, but whether it is impacting on the ability of fathers to continue to pay child support at the Court-ordered levels as well.Those demanding the incarceration of fathers in arrears on child support should themselves be jailed for their own overdue payments to their creditors. After all, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Discriminately incarcerating one class of people (fathers) for overdue financial obligations in a society, and not incarcerating others who are guilty of the same, amounts to a state-sanctioned discriminatory inquisition.Perhaps all single mothers with delinquent and outstanding medical bills for treatment of their children should be summarily jailed? If a father becomes involuntarily unemployed following massive layoffs, and is without income and therefore "refuses" (or so he's accused) to pay his child support should be jailed for being a "deadbeat," then it logically follows that a mother who "refuses" to seek medical treatment for a sick child simply because she is without the means to pay is also without a valid excuse and should be locked up as well.
Labels: A. C. L. U., Child Support Collection, Civil Contempt, Family Court Reform, Inmate Labor, Silly Laws, Sixth Amendment, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Sunday, March 22, 2009
A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 20-4-60, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO AN ORDER FOR PROTECTION FROM DOMESTIC ABUSE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE COURT MAY PROHIBIT HARM OR HARASSMENT TO A PET ANIMAL OWNED, POSSESSED, KEPT, OR HELD BY THE PETITIONER AND TO PROVIDE THAT IN ORDERING TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF PERSONAL PROPERTY, THE COURT MAY ORDER THE TEMPORARY POSSESSION OF PET ANIMALS.
SECTION 1. Section 20-4-60(C) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 319 of 2008, is further amended by adding an appropriately numbered item at the end to read:
"( )prohibit harm or harassment, including a violation of Chapter 1, Title 47, against any pet animal owned, possessed, kept, or held by:
(a) the petitioner;
(b) any family or household member designated in the order;
(c) the respondent if the petitioner has a demonstrated interest in the pet animal."
SECTION 2. Section 20-4-60(C)(5) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 319 of 2008, is further amended to read:
"(5) provide for temporary possession of the personal property, including pet animals, of the parties and order assistance from law enforcement officers in removing personal property of the petitioner if the respondent's eviction has not been ordered;"
SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
----XX----
This web page was last updated on December 9, 2008 at 5:11 PM
Labels: Family Court Backlog, Silly Laws
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A South Carolina bill seeks to protect pets in domestic violence cases to make it easier for victims to leave their abusers.
Democratic Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter of Orangeburg told The State newspaper some women stay because their abuser has threatened to kill their beloved pets if they leave. Her bill would allow victims seeking temporary restraining orders to ask a judge for custody of a pet.
Advocates of domestic violence victims praised the legislation as removing one barrier that keeps women from seeking help.
South Carolina consistently ranks high nationwide in domestic violence. The state ranks second nationwide in women killed by men in the latest report by the Violence Policy Center. A House subcommittee hearing for the bill has not been set.
---
Labels: Family Court Backlog, Silly Laws
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Labels: Silly Laws
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Four justices, in concurring opinions, cast doubt on the wisdom of New York’s method of choosing judges. Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer noted that if the rules “do not produce both the perception and the reality of a system committed to the highest ideals of the law, they ought to be changed and to be changed now.” Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter quoted Thurgood Marshall: “The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.”
Labels: Election of Judges, Judicial Reform, Silly Laws
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
Each year about this time the South Carolina newspapers begin to percolate with reports of the pending enactment of long promised and "overdue" legislative reforms. This year is no exception. But, in reviewing the proposed Family Court legislative reforms, we came to the same conclusion that we come to almost every year--the proposed "reforms" are not needed and the needed reforms are not proposed.
Take the burning issue of "common law marriage" for example. How big a problem is this really? And even assuming it is a problem, there is an easy solution to the problem. All South Carolina has to do is pass a law that states:
All adulterers in South Carolina shall immediately be removed from public office. Moreover, in the event that two unmarried adults have sexual intercourse in South Carolina and conceive a child, then they are deemed to be husband and wife as a matter of law with all the rights and obligations attendant thereto. Additionally any unmarried man over forty years of age who shall have sexual relations of any nature within the borders of the State of South Carolina with an unmarried woman more than ten years his junior shall be deemed her husband and upon the subsequent dissolution of their marriage, for whatever reason, shall be required to pay her annual alimony in an amount not less than 50% of his gross yearly income.If we would pass this reform legislation we could guarantee that South Carolina would see a decline in unwanted births, illegitimate births, teenage pregnancies, venereal disease, AIDS, and "fornication." More important, all those gold digging "harlots" feared by the old white men in the legislature would probably leave Hilton Head and move to Florida.
- Require that people actually pay their child support;
- Require that Family Court Judges include "salient findings of fact and conclusions of law" in their Orders;
- Require that lawyers establish entitlement to attorneys fee awards instead of winking and nodding at the judges;
- Require that attorneys actually charge reasonable fees;
- Require that employers report new hires; and,
- Require that all the elements of contempt be proven before people are held in Contempt.
Admittedly, some of the current South Carolina laws are silly and unfair. But, if we are not going to enforce them, we should not enact them. And we should repeal all old silly laws before we enact new laws of any kind.
Labels: Family Court Reform, Silly Laws