The Scarlet-er Letter

According to an article in today’s Houston Chronicle, Texas has decided to take the sex-offender registry information one step further.  Currently, if you’re a sex offender in Texas, anyone who looks you up online can find your name, home address, and a photo, among other information.  Our legislature has decided that apparently, that’s not enough information.  Starting sometime in the next few months, the sex offender registry will include where the person works and their job title.

The reason for doing this?  Nothing more creative than the usual answer.

While some say that offering the offenders’ job information will be an additional crime-fighting tool, others worry that making places of employment easily accessible could harm offenders who are trying to succeed.

“The more information people have about who may potentially have access to their children, the better that is,” Mange said.

Of course, protecting the children.

I don’t often find myself agreeing with the ACLU, but I think they got it right this time.

Rebecca Bernhardt, director of policy development for the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said the fundamental issue is whether providing employment information “makes us more safe or less safe.”

“If it leads to offenders losing their jobs, that’s destabilizing — even in anybody’s life. And if we’re concerned about the risk of folks re-offending, being less connected, not having gainful employment, not having a roof over your head — these are things that put people in a more vulnerable position if they’re susceptible to having run-ins with the law.”

I haven’t completely made up my mind with how I feel about sex offender registries.  I certainly understand why we have them, and why politicians won’t vote against them.  Who wants to run for reelection when you’re the guy who voted against giving little Johnny and Suzy’s parents the ability to find out if there’s a sexual predator next door.  Gotta think of the children if you want to stay in office.

The sex offender registries made for good sound bites with politicians, but do they actually work?  I did a quick Google search but couldn’t find anything.  And really, how do you determine if they work?  Does the website let people know where sex offenders live, or help stigmatize people?  They work for that.  But do the registries actually make people (mostly children) safer?  Heck if I know, but I doubt it.

My other problem is the Constitutionality.   To me, the sex offender registrations seem like they’re an additional punishment on top of whatever their sentence is.  The Supreme Court has held that these registries are regulatory and not punitive.  Far be it from me to question the Supreme Court, but I don’t see how having your name, address, photo, and now employment information available isn’t just a bit of a punishment.

And I’ll admit, before we bought our house, I pulled up the DPS website just to see if there were any in the neighborhood.  What makes the sex offenders so special though?  According to some admittedly old data from the Justice Department, the recidivism rates for sex offenders is lower than the general criminal population.  I’d be a lot more interested in which of my new neighbors have done time for aggravated robbery, assault, burglary, or any of those types of crimes than knowing which ones are sex offenders.

Jump In The Pool, Its Filled With Sharks

I was browsing the ABA website seeing what’s happening in the legal world outside of the Great State of Texas. A press release caught my eye, claiming that there was only a “slight change” in law school enrollment statistics from last year to this. According to the ABA:

• Total enrollment for J.D. degrees increased from 141,031 to 141,433 from the academic year starting fall 2006 to the year starting fall 2007.  The increase in first-year enrollment was smaller, from 48,937 to 48,964 or only .1 percent.
• Looking at gender for all students enrolled for J.D. degrees, there were 74,946 males in the 2006 academic year, but 75,383 in the current year, an increase of .6%.  But the number of women decreased by .1 percent, from 66,085 in 2006 to 66,050 in the current year.  Males represent 53.2 percent of total J.D. enrollment this year.
• Among first-year students, the number of males dropped from 26,322 to 25,799, or 2 percent.  But the number of females increased from 22,615 to 23,165, or 2.4 percent. Males represent 52.7 percent of the first-year class.
• While the number of minorities enrolled for a J.D. degree increased from 30,557 in the 2006 academic year to 30,598 in the current year, they continued to represent 21.6 percent of all J.D. students. 
• While there was a .9 percent increase in the number of minorities enrolled as first-year students, from 10,898 to 10,992, as a proportion of the first-year class they dropped from 22.4 percent to 22.3 percent.

Across this great country, roughly 50,000 people decided to plunk down tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of dollars to go into an overcrowded profession that has one of the highest rates of depression and alcohol abuse, and one of the lowest rates of job satisfaction.

As of 2004, there roughly 950,000 attorneys in the United States, according to the State Department.  According to WikiAnswers (citing the ABA without a link), there are 1,116,967 practicing attorneys.  This article (again, citing the ABA without link) states that in 1995 there were 896,000 attorneys.  So in the course of 13 years, there number of attorneys has risen by roughly 200,000 and some change.  During that same time, the population of the United States has risen by roughly 40 million.  And I’m not smart enough to figure out of lawyers or the US in general is growing at a faster rate.

Looking the numbers, it would seem that every year, roughly 40,000 fresh faces are dumped unprepared by law schools onto the streets to try to earn enough money to raise the law schools average starting salary for graduates.  Does this country really need 40,000 new lawyers every year?  Granted, the 40,000 number is probably high when you factor in those who take non-lawyer jobs and ones who don’t pass the bar.  Still, that’s a lot of people put into a field that’s arguable overpopulated anyway.

Not really sure how to wrap this up, but I have to.  I guess its just an extension of previous posts where my message is don’t go to law school

Do Not Call

Last night, I had my first late night phone call from someone needing help. It was a lady I had spoke with earlier in the day who wanted to hire me. She managed to call me late at night, since when I called her to set up the appointment, I used my cell phone to call her. Of course, she’s telling me that she doesn’t have the money to hire me, but could I please tell her what to do anyway.

As a rule, I try not to use my cell phone to contact clients. I have some clients that I really wish didn’t have my office number, but there’s not a whole lot I can do about that. There are some that do have my cell number for a variety of reasons, but as a whole I tell people to call me at the office.

My philosophy is that when I leave the office/courthouse/jail to go home, then I’m done for the day. I need to keep a barrier between my job and the rest of my life, I’d go insane if I didn’t. When I’m making dinner, or laying in bed reading (as I was last night) or fishing; the last thing I want to do is be interrupted by work.

So, question for my readership: do you give your personal cell number and/or home number to clients?