I must admit when I read my classmate's blogpost, I was shocked. I have never really worried about crime as long as I've attended ACC, but from the sound of things I ought to.
Apparently colleges have failed to completely comply with security rules in Texas which leads me to wonder, what in the world are they thinking? I understand that some parts of being a cop are not fun... but it's their job and they should do it correctly or not at all. It is not comforting to think that when crimes are committed on some college campuses that they aren't reported. Sure keeping and posting these records on the website might drive potential students away but isn't honesty and the safety of students what matters here?
Hey at least we get the placebo effect of security.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Monday, November 30, 2009
Law of Parties
Despite the name, the law of parties is anything but fun. Recently Robert Lee Thompson was executed due to this controversial law, which says that accomplices can face the death penalty if they were present when the crime was being committed. The Board of Pardons and Paroles which hardly ever urges for clemency, has already twice in the past two years called for a commutation for criminals convicted under this law. While there is a lot about this case that I'm unsure about detail wise, I'm concerned that the law of parties will continue to lead to problems in the future perhaps even leading innocent people to jail or worse. Seems to me that an innocent person, I'm not suggesting that Thompson was innocent by any means, could get roped into one of those wrong place at the wrong time situations.
Why this law was ever devised is beyond me as it sounds like the rule of a parent who wants to punish their child out for less that savory characters and possibly scare them straight. This law if nothing else could use a revision that made it where the accomplice got a lesser punishment or something.
Here is the Law of Parties if you'd like to read it:
Chapter 7.02 of the TX Penal Code says a person can be criminally responsible for another’s actions if that person acts with "the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense" and "solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense, whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be taken". Furthermore, "If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed."
Why this law was ever devised is beyond me as it sounds like the rule of a parent who wants to punish their child out for less that savory characters and possibly scare them straight. This law if nothing else could use a revision that made it where the accomplice got a lesser punishment or something.
Here is the Law of Parties if you'd like to read it:
Chapter 7.02 of the TX Penal Code says a person can be criminally responsible for another’s actions if that person acts with "the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense" and "solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense, whether the defendant actually caused the death of the deceased or did not actually cause the death of the deceased but intended to kill the deceased or another or anticipated that a human life would be taken". Furthermore, "If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed."
Monday, November 16, 2009
Drunk Comment
My classmate Jeremy's most recent blog post on drunk driver blood tests got me to thinking. This somewhat recent policy of drawing blood upon the refusal of the breathalyzer test is downright scary. While I don't think I'll ever find myself in this situation, I don't like the thought of a cop with a needle coming towards me. I don't care how much training the officers are given, as even trained medical professionals (perhaps amateurs is more appropriate if they can't draw blood correctly) can mess something like that up and that is with a sober and calm person presumably. I know I'd be a lot more calm in that situation if someone in scrubs was doing the blood drawing. But hey look at it this way... if the officers get assaulted trying to draw blood via needle, they can just beat the crap out of the drunk and get it that way.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Proposistional Amendments
This November, tomorrow to be more specific, we will be able to vote on some new constitutional amendments to the Texas constitution. While there are 11 different propositions coming to the people to vote on, they are written in somewhat complex language which makes it difficult for the average person to understand which aside from not much being said about them leads to a lower voter turn out. I will break down proposition 11 to an understandable point and hopefully get you to go out and vote.
Proposition 11 says: "The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."
This amendment is meant to limit the eminent domain power of the state, which for those that don't know what that is, it allows the government to take private property for state use with compensation. This sounds like a very good idea to me cause even if you receive compensation for your land the government is taking, you don't really have a choice. This amendment at least limits the purposes in which private land can be taken which is a step in the right direction as far as limiting this power goes.
Not many people actually vote in these types of elections so if you want your voice to be heard get out there and vote tomorrow!
Proposition 11 says: "The constitutional amendment to prohibit the taking, damaging, or destroying of private property for public use unless the action is for the ownership, use, and enjoyment of the property by the State, a political subdivision of the State, the public at large, or entities granted the power of eminent domain under law or for the elimination of urban blight on a particular parcel of property, but not for certain economic development or enhancement of tax revenue purposes, and to limit the legislature's authority to grant the power of eminent domain to an entity."
This amendment is meant to limit the eminent domain power of the state, which for those that don't know what that is, it allows the government to take private property for state use with compensation. This sounds like a very good idea to me cause even if you receive compensation for your land the government is taking, you don't really have a choice. This amendment at least limits the purposes in which private land can be taken which is a step in the right direction as far as limiting this power goes.
Not many people actually vote in these types of elections so if you want your voice to be heard get out there and vote tomorrow!
Monday, October 19, 2009
Overcrowded Jails
On October 15th, Scott Henson, a former journalist, posted a blog on jail over crowding in Howard County viewable at his blog here: Grits for Breakfast.
I've heard a lot about jails being overcrowded and while I never really thought about it much until I read this blog post, it seems that this problem could be easily avoided. Like with most every problem that involves a person in power, they start playing the blame-game. Sheriff Stan Parker blames back ups in the state prisons that leave them holding onto prisoners longer and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as they are supposed to transport inmates to the state facility within 45 days.
Seems to me that the author is saying that the reason the prisons is crowded is because the people aren't getting a speedy trial and thus end up sitting in the slammer before they get to see a judge. Based on the data 44 of 73 inhabitants of the jail of the time were pretrial defendants. It's pretty hard to argue with the numbers right in front of your face that he uses showing the number of people in the jail and what they're in for.
Mr. Henson seems to be a pretty credible based on his credentials and use of reputable sources. His blog's audience and therefore probably the only people who would see this post would people who care enough about this issue or generally politics and there going ons in Texas.
His post is short and sweet providing a pretty solid argument for prison reform and while doesn't say any one particular thing that they should do to fix this problem, he lists some possible solutions they could attempt to solve the problem. He concludes that something should be done about the jails being overcrowded, but someone needs to take the first step and initiate the process, finger pointing won't get us anywhere.
I've heard a lot about jails being overcrowded and while I never really thought about it much until I read this blog post, it seems that this problem could be easily avoided. Like with most every problem that involves a person in power, they start playing the blame-game. Sheriff Stan Parker blames back ups in the state prisons that leave them holding onto prisoners longer and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice as they are supposed to transport inmates to the state facility within 45 days.
Seems to me that the author is saying that the reason the prisons is crowded is because the people aren't getting a speedy trial and thus end up sitting in the slammer before they get to see a judge. Based on the data 44 of 73 inhabitants of the jail of the time were pretrial defendants. It's pretty hard to argue with the numbers right in front of your face that he uses showing the number of people in the jail and what they're in for.
Mr. Henson seems to be a pretty credible based on his credentials and use of reputable sources. His blog's audience and therefore probably the only people who would see this post would people who care enough about this issue or generally politics and there going ons in Texas.
His post is short and sweet providing a pretty solid argument for prison reform and while doesn't say any one particular thing that they should do to fix this problem, he lists some possible solutions they could attempt to solve the problem. He concludes that something should be done about the jails being overcrowded, but someone needs to take the first step and initiate the process, finger pointing won't get us anywhere.
Monday, October 5, 2009
New Water Treatment Plant for Austin?
Due to the terrible drought that Austin and the surrounding area has been experiencing for that past 20 months water issues have grown ever more important in the eyes of the public. This article is about the new water treatment plant they're currently attempting to decide if we need. The author seems to be arguing in favor of the water treatment plant as they say the expectancy of a water treatment plant is ~50 years and the two we have currently the Davis plant built in 1954 and the Ullrich plant built in 1969 are getting up there in age. The author also goes to lengths to say that people who oppose the new treatment plant by saying more aggressive conservation efforts would eliminate the need for a new one but with the rate of growth for Austin water usage will naturally go up. The debate over this treatment plant has been going on for 20 years now and the city council still hasn't even decided where to build it at. The author seems to be aiming the article at the people of Austin hoping to finally get some results because the longer we wait the more expensive it will be to build the thing. I'm not sure who the author of this was so it was hard for me to really evaluate their credibilty, but I think they made a good case for the water treatment plant and if we're going to build it we might as well build it sometime soon before that 508 million dollar price tag gets any bigger.
Link:Counting on greater water needs, Austin American Statesman, 9/17/2009
Link:Counting on greater water needs, Austin American Statesman, 9/17/2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
ACORN causes controversy in Texas
This month in the Austin American Statesman, there was an article about the organization ACORN. Due to some recent undercover video taken from an ACORN advising session and some issues with an earlier voter registration program, they have caused a multitude of controversy recently. ACORN, which stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, does not seem to be all bad from the sound of it. One positive thing that they have done was file a lawsuit recieving money from FEMA after Hurricane Katrina for 4200 families. Bad practices such as suggested money laundering and lying to recieve housing assistance have not only cost ACORN their government funding, but have also overshadowed their positive deeds. At the time of this article, it was unknown if they were receiving money from the state of Texas. I don't know much about ACORN, but it sounds like they started with good intentions and then all these current events are clouding their image. Read the article and see what you think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)