Side Issues With the Economy

Well, bad news all around. With the slow economy, the state is cutting expenses. Apparently it is not cheap to keep people locked up, so they are letting some out early and not locking others up at all. I guess it is job security, but we have been quietly told to try to find alternatives before filing violation reports and taking our offenders to court. We aren't told what alternatives, I guess if they fail a drug screen, try to send them to teatment first. I already did this with people who were positive for pot, but not for anything else, and meth was already an automatic warrant.

Everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon and get their 15 minutes of fame. An article a month or so back in a Tennessee newspaper had a sheriff claiming that his jail was full of people locked up because they couldn't pay their fees. The newspaper went on to state that most parole and probation violators were in jail simply for technical violations. The paper never explained what technical violations were and it left the reader with the impression that a technical violation was simple the inability to pay. It made the state come off like a greedy, thoughtless entity locking up poor people.

So, for anyone who actually bothers to cruise by, here is the truth:

A TECHNICAL VIOLATION is, in the state of Tennessee, any violation of the rules of parole or probation other than an arrest or conviction for a new crime. Therefore, failing to pay supervision fees or court costs ect, is a technical violation. Failing a drug screen, not reporting to your officer, leaving the state without permission, absconding (running away), being in a bar or nightclub, being intoxicated, are all technical violations, so someone locked up for a technical violation could have been locked up for repeated illegal drug use, running away from their parole or probation, not reporting, failing to obey lawful instructions, or many other things.

RANT...The rules are explained to them before they are place under supervision. If they don't want to obey them they are welcome to remain incarcerated. The rules they are under aren't that bad, 90% of them are just the same things any law-abiding citizen does anyway. The few that aren't, visiting your probation officer, having your probation officer visit your home, providing proof of employment, staying out of bars and nightclubs, are still a lot better than being locked up. ...END OF RANT

However, back on topic. You cannot lock up a probationer for failing to pay supervision fees, according to our judges. Parole you can lock them up, but I doubt the board would revoke parole only for failing to pay fees. However in a parole hearing you only have to prove one violation to get a revocation. So it is possible you could have someone up for 6 new offenses as well as failing to report, failing to pay fees when he has the means (in parole you have to prove the parolee has the ability to pay), and moving without notifying his officer. If the officer proved the failing to report and failing to pay fees, then the officer decides to stop without addressing the other alleged violations to save time. Now you have a parolee revoked and incarcerated on technical charges even though he might have new charges pending. The other charges were dismissed as far as official statistics are concerned. Now judges can revoke probationers for failing to pay court costs and restitution. Usually they will simple extend the probation period if the violator seems to be trying to pay, but if no effort is made they might revoke them and lock them up although rarely for the full sentence, usually just for a short period of time, otherwise the money would never be paid. However, the state does not get this money, court costs go to the county court clerk's office. Restitution is money paid to reinburse a victim of a crime. It could be for damage caused by vandalism, items lost to theft, medical bills, loss of income, ect. If the offender does not pay the restitution, and does not seem likely too, or if the probation has been extended to the legally allowed maximum sentence, then the judge might revoke the offender to serve the full sentence, or if the victim wants to pursue a civil case, he might dismiss the warrant. However in these situations we are required by policy to take a warrant and let the court address the situation.

Now why the sheriff I mentioned was griping, other than to get in the paper, I don't know. If a person serving a felony sentence is in his jail, he is given a monthly fee for housing the inmate. This is the main source of income for most jails. He doesn't have to keep the inmate, unless there are pending court cases in his county, he can place him on the next state bus going to a state penetenary. Inmates awaiting trial are county prisoners (unless serving a state sentence on another case) these people, as well as inmates serving a misdemeanor sentence, are charged a daily fee for being incarcerated. This is part of the court costs mentioned. Since the likelihood of this being paid varies, most jails get most of their money from state housing fees and the comissary (inmate store).