Months
ago, I attended a hearing of the House Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence
Committee to give testimony for HB 1510, which ultimately passed. When the
legislation goes into effect in January, it will remove the risk of lawsuits
from landlords when they decide to lease property to individuals with criminal
background records. The bill was
entirely about the perception of risk.
The actual risk associated with leasing property to someone with a
history of involvement with the criminal justice system is rather low.
There are a number of factors that
mitigate risk. Consistent participation
in recovery groups is a strong indicator that the person will be a responsible
renter. Successfully completing
probation or parole are good signs, but so are meeting all community
supervision conditions such as paying fees on time and fulfilling all community
service requirements. From the
standpoint of a potential landlord, the most likely indicators that an individual
is unlikely to commit a new crime include employment and housing
stability.
That is to say, if a person can meet the criteria on a rental application, a landlord can rest assured that the applicant is worth the risk, regardless of criminal history.
All HB 1510 does is encourage
landlords to place the criminal background check aside and have a conversation
with someone who is trying to create a new life. Landlords who take the risk and lease
property to people with criminal histories actually promote stability and
reduce the risk of recidivism. They can
do this today. They don’t have to wait
until the bill goes into effect.
Despite the gap between the
perceived and actual risk, Legislators remained concerned that the bill would
remove the right to sue landlords who rent to people who have committed violent
crimes like murder, aggravated robbery, or sexual assault. These are known as “3g” offenses, shorthand
for the section of the Texas Code of Criminal Procures that lists the most
serious crimes. Before HB 1510 could
proceed through the legislative process, the bill had to be modified to retain imaginary
barriers between violent “offenders” and unsuspecting neighborhoods.
The Committee hearing ran very
late, so only a few people testified. It was one of those strange moments in
the session when a bill has such strong support that too much testimony
actually does more harm than good. I
decided to merely thank the Members and invited them to read my written
testimony. Then I sat down. There is so much I wish I could have
said.
I thought of my own time in prison
and the “3g offenders” I knew. Every
incarcerated individual doing time in the general population of Texas state
prisons wears white. There is nothing
that distinguishes one individual from another with respect to the crimes that
led them to prison. There are
three paths available to them:
become more entrenched in criminal thinking, make no progress at all, or
work to change the factors that led them to prison. I surrounded myself with people who chose the
more difficult path. My mentors and
friends were people who had fully committed themselves to exemplary lives. Most of them had committed 3g offenses.
Seldom have I met people more
selfless than the “men in white” serving others while serving time. For example, when an increasingly large
number of young men were transferred to my unit, a group of mature men created
a ministry to mentor these younger individuals. They formed group discussions
and developed classes. They taught these young men to take pride in living
upstanding lives, and they helped them to see that being accountable for your
behavior is a sign of strength.
The sad irony is that, had these young men experienced as youth such unconditional regard from committed adults who were truly invested in their lives, they would have gone to college instead of prison.
I joined another group of men to teach
classes on sexual assault and HIV prevention. My fellow educators had spent
years in a culture that told them to mind their own business if they witnessed
a rape. In the decades they had spent in prison, they learned that there is
nothing worse than a “snitch.” Somehow, my peers summoned the courage to oppose
the culture of silence. They refused to
tolerate sexual assault, and they dared to encourage others to report incidents
to prison authorities. Because of them, the culture is changing. I deeply
admired the courage of these men, most of whom had committed violent crimes.
My greatest teachers were so called
“3g offenders.” The man who helped me to
take responsibility for my crimes was serving 40 years for aggravated
robbery. I learned from him that, in
refusing to blame addiction for the robberies I committed, I empowered myself
to change the destructive ways in which I dealt with anger, fear, and
shame. Another man spent hours every
week teaching me how to find serenity in the face of grief and uncertainty. He
is serving a life sentence for murdering his wife during an alcoholic blackout.
He became a father figure to me, especially after my own father died.
These men were not atypical. I
found positive lights on every unit, in every dorm, and on every cell block.
When I asked for help, men-in-white stepped up to help me live a productive and
meaningful life.
Every challenge I successfully master out here in the “free” world, be it professional, emotional, or interpersonal, I owe to my neighbors inside prison.
About 95 percent of those serving time will eventually return to the community. Interestingly, the recidivism rate for those convicted of violent offenses is slightly lower than the rate for those convicted of certain nonviolent offenses. Further, when the crime is drug-related, those convicted of violent offenses respond even more favorably to drug treatment than those convicted of nonviolent offenses. I saw this first hand while in prison. The "3g offenders" I knew embraced rehabilitation and worked hard to share it with others. These are exactly the types of people I'd like to call "neighbor."