This is my direct opinion on the subject if it were to happen in the city of Hartford or some lonely slum in Connecticut it would be the news of yesterday and oh well that it happened to a family of however many that were victimized. It's a shame that you have to be a doctor and live in a certain life style for change to occur without uncovering the true fact of this subject. Justice is truly blind but not ignorant to what one person experiences and what the rest already know to be a real. The truth is our laws are not dictated by one mans anger of what happened or some small community to doesn't represent the rest of us who have to deal with the rath of crime because of our inability to live in that self created egg with open doors and unlocked fences.
WE DONT NEED BANDADES TO SOLVE ISSUES WE HAVE HAD FOR SO LONG WE NEED REAL LEADERS AND HARD WORKING THINKERS WHO HAVE HAD THE TIME TO EXPERIENCE THESE TEACHINGS OF OUR LIVES.
We need change but maybe this will be a teaching for us to work together in a system that needs change but also needs care. We created a blind fold of justice in order to protect from biases from instances like these. Lets start with education not rage.
By, Emiliano Arroyo Jr
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Wikipedia Definition of Three Strikes Law
Three strikes laws are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which require the state courts to hand down a mandatory and extended period of incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. These statutes became very popular in the 1990s. They are formally known among lawyers and law professors as habitual offender laws.[1] The name comes from baseball, where a batter has two strikes before striking out on the third.
The stated rationale for these laws is that the automatic and lengthy imprisonment of individuals who commit three or more felonies is justified on the basis that recidivists are incorrigible and chronically criminal, and must be imprisoned as a matter of public safety
The stated rationale for these laws is that the automatic and lengthy imprisonment of individuals who commit three or more felonies is justified on the basis that recidivists are incorrigible and chronically criminal, and must be imprisoned as a matter of public safety
Tribune
Three strikes and you're out. It sounds simple and oh-so satisfying. Give a man a couple of chances to play by the rules. If he can't, lock him up and throw away the key. Think of all the crime we will prevent.
The General Assembly is poised to consider such a reform of the penal code. It is rushing to judgment in the wake of the murder of members of the Petit family in Cheshire. The alleged assailants in the Cheshire case had long records. Had there been a three-strikes law in place, both men would have been locked up and unable to commit the crime.
That's facile reasoning akin to blaming obesity on Eve's decision to eat that apple. But for the fatal decision of hers that fouled paradise, there would be no sin. Without obesity, we'd all be trim. This line of reasoning is playful but pointless. Call it a truism.
Connecticut does not need a mandatory three-strikes law. Lawmakers itching to look tough on crime like Sen. Sam Caligiuri are twitching with self-righteous rage. They want to do something to look good for the good folks of Chernobyl, Connecticut, once the peaceful town of Cheshire, but now radiating hatred after last summer's murders.
Wholesale reform of the penal code and criminal procedure is probably a good idea. Knee-jerk legislation is, however, irresponsible. This is a short session of the legislature, for starters. Major initiatives are typically saved for long sessions, which take place every other year. We designed it that way for a reason. We want lawmakers to look before they leap.
Here is what reform of the criminal justice system would look like if lawmakers were acting thoughtfully.
First, any three-strikes provision would not be mandatory. While the need to deal with recidivism is real, it could more adequately be dealt with by making stiff punishment for repeat offenders a rebuttable presumption rather than a mandatory consequence. We appoint judges to make difficult decisions about particular crimes and particular defendants. Mandatory rules make a mockery of justice. Ask any judge who just sent a teenager away for the mandatory nine months for having consensual sex with another teenager.
Second, Connecticut should enact sentencing guidelines. There have been complaints that the Board of Pardons and Parole does not get sentencing transcripts when it makes a decision about whether to release a defendant.Most sentencing transcripts are meaningless. Judges, or if there is a trial rather than a plea, juries ought to be required to make detailed factual findings about an offender and his crime. That way the parole board and others would know why particular sentences are imposed. The guidelines again should operate on the basis of rebuttable presumptions. It would take the guesswork out of justice.
Third, we ought to revisit whether we really need individually sequestered voir dire. I try cases in both the state and federal courts. I see no difference in the outcome based upon the manner in which juries are selected. The time we save on jury selection could be spent deciding what justice requires when there is a finding of guilt.
Finally, we ought to pore over the penal code and eliminate the chatter that makes a crime of just about everything.
Play acting at reform in the name of rage is wrong. Let's get serious about reform of the criminal justice system and put off until a long session of the legislature deciding what to do about crime. •
The General Assembly is poised to consider such a reform of the penal code. It is rushing to judgment in the wake of the murder of members of the Petit family in Cheshire. The alleged assailants in the Cheshire case had long records. Had there been a three-strikes law in place, both men would have been locked up and unable to commit the crime.
That's facile reasoning akin to blaming obesity on Eve's decision to eat that apple. But for the fatal decision of hers that fouled paradise, there would be no sin. Without obesity, we'd all be trim. This line of reasoning is playful but pointless. Call it a truism.
Connecticut does not need a mandatory three-strikes law. Lawmakers itching to look tough on crime like Sen. Sam Caligiuri are twitching with self-righteous rage. They want to do something to look good for the good folks of Chernobyl, Connecticut, once the peaceful town of Cheshire, but now radiating hatred after last summer's murders.
Wholesale reform of the penal code and criminal procedure is probably a good idea. Knee-jerk legislation is, however, irresponsible. This is a short session of the legislature, for starters. Major initiatives are typically saved for long sessions, which take place every other year. We designed it that way for a reason. We want lawmakers to look before they leap.
Here is what reform of the criminal justice system would look like if lawmakers were acting thoughtfully.
First, any three-strikes provision would not be mandatory. While the need to deal with recidivism is real, it could more adequately be dealt with by making stiff punishment for repeat offenders a rebuttable presumption rather than a mandatory consequence. We appoint judges to make difficult decisions about particular crimes and particular defendants. Mandatory rules make a mockery of justice. Ask any judge who just sent a teenager away for the mandatory nine months for having consensual sex with another teenager.
Second, Connecticut should enact sentencing guidelines. There have been complaints that the Board of Pardons and Parole does not get sentencing transcripts when it makes a decision about whether to release a defendant.Most sentencing transcripts are meaningless. Judges, or if there is a trial rather than a plea, juries ought to be required to make detailed factual findings about an offender and his crime. That way the parole board and others would know why particular sentences are imposed. The guidelines again should operate on the basis of rebuttable presumptions. It would take the guesswork out of justice.
Third, we ought to revisit whether we really need individually sequestered voir dire. I try cases in both the state and federal courts. I see no difference in the outcome based upon the manner in which juries are selected. The time we save on jury selection could be spent deciding what justice requires when there is a finding of guilt.
Finally, we ought to pore over the penal code and eliminate the chatter that makes a crime of just about everything.
Play acting at reform in the name of rage is wrong. Let's get serious about reform of the criminal justice system and put off until a long session of the legislature deciding what to do about crime. •
New Haven Register
August 21, 2007
CT: Calif. ‘3-strikes’ law could be state model
Calif. ‘3-strikes’ law could be state modelPhil Helsel, New Haven Register Staff
A district attorney from California who believes strongly in the effectiveness of the "three strikes and you’re out" law said if Connecticut were to adopt a similar measure the state should model at least part of it on California’s law.
"The court should have the discretion to rein in a prosecutor who may overreach; there has to be checks and balances," said San Mateo County District Attorney James P. Fox., who has been district attorney for 25 years.
At first the law gave judges no leeway in imposing a 25-years-to-life sentence, but the California Supreme Court ruled in 1996 judges should be able to waive a third strike in "the furtherance of justice," which means those defendants would be treated as second strikers.
Connecticut Senate Republicans began calling for minimum mandatory sentences for repeat offenders days after paroled burglars Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes allegedly broke into the Sorghum Mill Drive home of Dr. William Petit Jr., and killed his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, and daughters, Michaela, 11, and Hayley, 17.
A California-style three-strikes law would not have applied to Komisarjevsky or Hayes. Komisarjevsky had no record when he was caught for a string of burglaries and Hayes committed mainly low-rent car break-ins.
Republican senators say they are considering writing a law in Connecticut that would have guaranteed both life sentences.
Fox said Monday that he "misunderstood" Komisarjevsky’s criminal past when he last week said the serial burglar would have likely been given 25 years to life under that state’s law.
Len Fasano, R-North Haven, who is state Senate minority leader pro tempore, said Monday the Senate Republicans remain committed to a "three-strikes" law here, though neither Komisarjevsky nor Hayes would have been eligible under the California system.
Fasano said the issue would require "brief discussion," but a law could be written so that suspects with no criminal history could rack up all three strikes at one time for a burglary spree, like Komisarjevsky.
"That’s something we’re going to have to look into," Fasano said. "It could lose the word ‘prior’ and say that if you plead to three crimes and are convicted, you could get 25-to-life. We could absolutely write a law that would have gotten Komisarjevsky." Fox said of his state’s system, "Absolutely it works. When I was first elected, we had three full-time prosecutors devoted to career criminal prosecution. Two years ago I eliminated the last of those positions, because we just aren’t seeing repeat offenders."
While Fox said he’s noticed a difference and the law allows prosecutors to keep the most dangerous felons off the streets, a 2005 report by that state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office found the law appears to have had little effect on preventing violent crime.
There was no noticeable difference in the decrease of violent crime rates between counties that prosecute "third strikers" more vigorously, than others where the law is used far less, the report says.
As of December 2004, 7,574 people had been given 25-to-life sentences under California’s three-strikes law; the report says about 43 percent of those got a third strike for a violent offense, 31 percent for property crimes such as burglary, 17 percent for a drug-related offenses, and 9 percent for weapon possession.
But what has drawn some of the most outrage at California’s law is a provision a researcher said "no one was even thinking about when the law was passed": It allows those already convicted for theft to accrue a third strike on another theft charge, no matter how small.
"If you did a musical comedy about California at the time (the law was passed) it would have been called ‘Anything Goes,’" said University of California at Berkeley law professor Franklin E. Zimring, who studied crime rates before and after the law was passed. "The only general mantra was that punishments should go up; it’s nuts."
The way it works is that if someone were previously convicted of petty theft, a prosecutor could elevate what would ordinarily be a misdemeanor charge to a felony; any felony can qualify for a third strike. If someone were convicted only of violent crimes in the past and gets picked up for shoplifting, the charge stays a misdemeanor.
"That means if I had two murder (convictions) and I steal a pack of gum, that’s a misdemeanor," Zimring said. "If I had two burglaries, it would be a felony and I would qualify for a third strike — that’s utterly nuts."
Leonardo Andrade, already convicted of three counts of burglary, petty theft and transporting marijuana, was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison for stealing five videotapes in 1995 in Montclair, Calif. Gary Ewing, a repeat felon whose prior convictions include burglary and robbery, is serving 25-to-life for shoplifting three golf clubs from an El Segundo, Calif., pro shop in 2000.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld both sentences in 2003, in a 5-4 vote.
Connecticut passed what was dubbed a "three strikes and you may be out" law in 1994 that gives judges power to sentence persistent dangerous offenders to life in prison on a third offense, but it is rarely used. It allows double sentences for a felon on a second conviction.
According to state Department of Correction records, there are 28 people serving prison terms under Connecticut’s repeat offender laws; of those, 21 were convicted of violent crimes such as murder and armed robbery, or burglary. Three are serving sentences greater than 60 years.
But infrequent enforcement of the law is more a product of the pretrial system than unwillingness of prosecutors to pursue it, prosecutors say. Most often it is used as a threat to induce someone to plead guilty.
The majority of criminal cases are settled in a plea agreement, after closed-door meetings between defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges. During pretrial conferences, judges review criminal records and tell both sides how much time they think a defendant should serve.
"When a judge tells you, ‘I think it’s worth five years (in prison), suspended after three and five years probation,’ why would we then go and file for a persistent offender?" said State’s Attorney Kevin Lawlor, who prosecutes serious felony cases in the Milford Judicial District. "Ultimately, sentencing is up to the court."
More often, the state’s persistent felony offender law is used in case a career criminal is convicted of a lesser charge at trial.
Michael Armfield, now 40, was acquitted of first-degree sexual assault in 2004, but a jury convicted him of a second-degree charge.
But Armfield, who had been convicted of raping a college student and trying to rape a North Carolina woman in the past, was sentenced to 24 years in prison for a charge ordinarily punishable by up to 10, using the persistent offender law.
The legislature’s Judiciary Committee will begin holding hearings on justice system reforms Sept. 11; Democrats have refused calls for a special legislative session.
But already some Democratic leaders, such as state House Speaker James A. Amann of Milford, said some Republican requests, such as classifying burglaries into occupied homes as a violent crime that would require convicts to serve at least 85 percent of their time, is something both sides can agree on.
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said he believes a three-strikes law here is a matter of time, and he’s not troubled by stories of a man serving up to a life sentence in California for stealing golf clubs.
"I’d rather have that occur than another Cheshire," McKinney said. "I think at the end of the day, the legislature is pretty responsive to the demands of the people. This is something that the people of Connecticut are not going to let go."
CT: Calif. ‘3-strikes’ law could be state model
Calif. ‘3-strikes’ law could be state modelPhil Helsel, New Haven Register Staff
A district attorney from California who believes strongly in the effectiveness of the "three strikes and you’re out" law said if Connecticut were to adopt a similar measure the state should model at least part of it on California’s law.
"The court should have the discretion to rein in a prosecutor who may overreach; there has to be checks and balances," said San Mateo County District Attorney James P. Fox., who has been district attorney for 25 years.
At first the law gave judges no leeway in imposing a 25-years-to-life sentence, but the California Supreme Court ruled in 1996 judges should be able to waive a third strike in "the furtherance of justice," which means those defendants would be treated as second strikers.
Connecticut Senate Republicans began calling for minimum mandatory sentences for repeat offenders days after paroled burglars Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes allegedly broke into the Sorghum Mill Drive home of Dr. William Petit Jr., and killed his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, and daughters, Michaela, 11, and Hayley, 17.
A California-style three-strikes law would not have applied to Komisarjevsky or Hayes. Komisarjevsky had no record when he was caught for a string of burglaries and Hayes committed mainly low-rent car break-ins.
Republican senators say they are considering writing a law in Connecticut that would have guaranteed both life sentences.
Fox said Monday that he "misunderstood" Komisarjevsky’s criminal past when he last week said the serial burglar would have likely been given 25 years to life under that state’s law.
Len Fasano, R-North Haven, who is state Senate minority leader pro tempore, said Monday the Senate Republicans remain committed to a "three-strikes" law here, though neither Komisarjevsky nor Hayes would have been eligible under the California system.
Fasano said the issue would require "brief discussion," but a law could be written so that suspects with no criminal history could rack up all three strikes at one time for a burglary spree, like Komisarjevsky.
"That’s something we’re going to have to look into," Fasano said. "It could lose the word ‘prior’ and say that if you plead to three crimes and are convicted, you could get 25-to-life. We could absolutely write a law that would have gotten Komisarjevsky." Fox said of his state’s system, "Absolutely it works. When I was first elected, we had three full-time prosecutors devoted to career criminal prosecution. Two years ago I eliminated the last of those positions, because we just aren’t seeing repeat offenders."
While Fox said he’s noticed a difference and the law allows prosecutors to keep the most dangerous felons off the streets, a 2005 report by that state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office found the law appears to have had little effect on preventing violent crime.
There was no noticeable difference in the decrease of violent crime rates between counties that prosecute "third strikers" more vigorously, than others where the law is used far less, the report says.
As of December 2004, 7,574 people had been given 25-to-life sentences under California’s three-strikes law; the report says about 43 percent of those got a third strike for a violent offense, 31 percent for property crimes such as burglary, 17 percent for a drug-related offenses, and 9 percent for weapon possession.
But what has drawn some of the most outrage at California’s law is a provision a researcher said "no one was even thinking about when the law was passed": It allows those already convicted for theft to accrue a third strike on another theft charge, no matter how small.
"If you did a musical comedy about California at the time (the law was passed) it would have been called ‘Anything Goes,’" said University of California at Berkeley law professor Franklin E. Zimring, who studied crime rates before and after the law was passed. "The only general mantra was that punishments should go up; it’s nuts."
The way it works is that if someone were previously convicted of petty theft, a prosecutor could elevate what would ordinarily be a misdemeanor charge to a felony; any felony can qualify for a third strike. If someone were convicted only of violent crimes in the past and gets picked up for shoplifting, the charge stays a misdemeanor.
"That means if I had two murder (convictions) and I steal a pack of gum, that’s a misdemeanor," Zimring said. "If I had two burglaries, it would be a felony and I would qualify for a third strike — that’s utterly nuts."
Leonardo Andrade, already convicted of three counts of burglary, petty theft and transporting marijuana, was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison for stealing five videotapes in 1995 in Montclair, Calif. Gary Ewing, a repeat felon whose prior convictions include burglary and robbery, is serving 25-to-life for shoplifting three golf clubs from an El Segundo, Calif., pro shop in 2000.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld both sentences in 2003, in a 5-4 vote.
Connecticut passed what was dubbed a "three strikes and you may be out" law in 1994 that gives judges power to sentence persistent dangerous offenders to life in prison on a third offense, but it is rarely used. It allows double sentences for a felon on a second conviction.
According to state Department of Correction records, there are 28 people serving prison terms under Connecticut’s repeat offender laws; of those, 21 were convicted of violent crimes such as murder and armed robbery, or burglary. Three are serving sentences greater than 60 years.
But infrequent enforcement of the law is more a product of the pretrial system than unwillingness of prosecutors to pursue it, prosecutors say. Most often it is used as a threat to induce someone to plead guilty.
The majority of criminal cases are settled in a plea agreement, after closed-door meetings between defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges. During pretrial conferences, judges review criminal records and tell both sides how much time they think a defendant should serve.
"When a judge tells you, ‘I think it’s worth five years (in prison), suspended after three and five years probation,’ why would we then go and file for a persistent offender?" said State’s Attorney Kevin Lawlor, who prosecutes serious felony cases in the Milford Judicial District. "Ultimately, sentencing is up to the court."
More often, the state’s persistent felony offender law is used in case a career criminal is convicted of a lesser charge at trial.
Michael Armfield, now 40, was acquitted of first-degree sexual assault in 2004, but a jury convicted him of a second-degree charge.
But Armfield, who had been convicted of raping a college student and trying to rape a North Carolina woman in the past, was sentenced to 24 years in prison for a charge ordinarily punishable by up to 10, using the persistent offender law.
The legislature’s Judiciary Committee will begin holding hearings on justice system reforms Sept. 11; Democrats have refused calls for a special legislative session.
But already some Democratic leaders, such as state House Speaker James A. Amann of Milford, said some Republican requests, such as classifying burglaries into occupied homes as a violent crime that would require convicts to serve at least 85 percent of their time, is something both sides can agree on.
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said he believes a three-strikes law here is a matter of time, and he’s not troubled by stories of a man serving up to a life sentence in California for stealing golf clubs.
"I’d rather have that occur than another Cheshire," McKinney said. "I think at the end of the day, the legislature is pretty responsive to the demands of the people. This is something that the people of Connecticut are not going to let go."
July13th 2007
Life Sentence for 0.03 grams of Meth
Yesterday, Marin Superior Court Judge Stephen Graham imposed a 25-to-life sentence for simple possession of 0.03 grams of methamphetamine under California’s Three Strikes law. (People v. Foroutan, No. 114626A.) The defendant has never committed a crime of violence and his prior strikes were residential burglaries, the most recent of which was from 1992.
Full disclosure: Mr. Foroutan is represented by the Stanford Law School Criminal Defense Clinic, which provides free legal services to inmates serving three strikes sentence for non-violent offenses. I am a supervising attorney at the clinic. This blog ordinarily doesn’t publicize our own cases, but I’m obviously making an exception.
Posted by Michael Romano at 10:53 AM in Three Strikes Law
NO TO CONNECTICUT THREE STRIKES
Connecticut prisons are already filled to way beyond capacity. The governor, in response to a horrific home invasion, just revoked parole for violent offenders, something which will just make them even more crowded.
Unlike California, prison officials and the guards union are not working in concert. The officials say everything is just fine while the guards say the overcrowding creates a powder keg environment.
Worse, in response to the Cheshire home invasion torture murders by two parolees, some want a Three Strikes law like California has. But that law has imprisoned people for decades when all their strikes were non-violent. Plus, the judge has absolutely no leeway in sentencing.Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes, a grassroots organization started by the families and friends of the incarcerated, has 150 case histories showing the grotesque unfairness of the law. For example, Rene Landa had two priors for burglary. He then stole a spare tire, and this became his third strike. He’s now doing 27 years to life - and must do the full 27 years before being considered for parole.
Connecticut: please don’t pass a law like this. It solves nothing, is hideously unjust, and comes down hardest on people of color (as there are more of them in prisons.) If such a law is to be passed then a) the judge must have discretion to override the guidelines. 2) All the strikes should be violent felonies only. 3) No sliders. A slider is a crime that could be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. Rene Landa should have been charged with a misdemeanor for stealing that tire, and not with a felony.
The alleged humans who committed the Cheshire murders should never be allowed out of prison. But that doesn’t mean that new laws should be passed in reaction to their crimes that condemns those whose crimes were not violent to decades in prison.
Unlike California, prison officials and the guards union are not working in concert. The officials say everything is just fine while the guards say the overcrowding creates a powder keg environment.
Worse, in response to the Cheshire home invasion torture murders by two parolees, some want a Three Strikes law like California has. But that law has imprisoned people for decades when all their strikes were non-violent. Plus, the judge has absolutely no leeway in sentencing.Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes, a grassroots organization started by the families and friends of the incarcerated, has 150 case histories showing the grotesque unfairness of the law. For example, Rene Landa had two priors for burglary. He then stole a spare tire, and this became his third strike. He’s now doing 27 years to life - and must do the full 27 years before being considered for parole.
Connecticut: please don’t pass a law like this. It solves nothing, is hideously unjust, and comes down hardest on people of color (as there are more of them in prisons.) If such a law is to be passed then a) the judge must have discretion to override the guidelines. 2) All the strikes should be violent felonies only. 3) No sliders. A slider is a crime that could be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. Rene Landa should have been charged with a misdemeanor for stealing that tire, and not with a felony.
The alleged humans who committed the Cheshire murders should never be allowed out of prison. But that doesn’t mean that new laws should be passed in reaction to their crimes that condemns those whose crimes were not violent to decades in prison.
Connecticut Considers Three Strikes Law
by Martin Magnusson, Editor-At -Large for Criminal Justice
This summer, a gruesome crime shocked the small town of Cheshire, Connecticut. In the early morning hours of July 18, two men invaded the Petit family home. The two men held the Petit family hostage for several hours, robbed them, and killed three of them. The sole surviver was the family father. In the small state of Connecticut, it was one of the most heinous crimes in recent memory.
The Cheshire home invasion left many Connecticut residents concerned for their safety as well as that of their family members. Gun sales increased and the interest in installing security systems skyrocketed. Many Connecticut residents also sought to protect themselves and their loved ones through an online petition asking the state legislature to pass a “three strikes” law. More than 42,000 people have signed this petition thus far. The proposed law would eliminate judicial discretion and require life imprisonment for a third serious felony conviction.
The New York Times editorial page recently contended that such habitual offender laws comprise a misguided attempt at replacing discretion with hard-line rules:
The appeal of a “three strikes and you're out” law is understandable, but these laws have proven to be blunt instruments that cause more injustice than they prevent. In California, which has a particularly draconian law, a man who shoplifted $153.54 worth of videotapes was sent to jail for 50 years. These laws are not only overly harsh. They are enormously expensive, because of all of the prison cells that are needed to warehouse minor criminals who pose little threat to society, many of whom are elderly by the end of their sentence.
Community outrage, though, was not only fueled by the fact that the two suspects, Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes, had twenty-one and seventeen felony convictions respectively. Both of them had also been released on parole earlier in the year. This precipitated calls not only for a three strikes law, but also for the State of Connecticut to severely circumscribe parole eligibility; Governor Jodi Rell indefinitely stopped the paroles of violent offenders this past Friday.
The most concerning issue in regard to the parole proceedings is that the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles never received Mr. Komisarjevsky's sentencing transcript. Within that transcript, the presiding judge described Mr. Komisarjevsky as a calculating, “cold-blooded predator” who specialized in nighttime burglaries of homes that were occupied. Needless to say, this is precisely the sort of information that the Parole Board needs to have in front of it when it determines whether to release an inmate. Indeed, the New York Times editorial page goes on to note that the
Board of Pardons and Parole released Mr. Komisarjevsky despite having woefully incomplete information. That happens routinely in Connecticut, where for 10 years absurd fights over which department should pay photocopying costs kept criminal records from being shared. Had board members read the judge's characterization of Mr. Komisarjevsky's actions as “predatory” they might never have released him.
This state of affairs has gotten so bad that state Representative Bob Godfrey recently noted that “[w]e're almost using parchment paper and quill pens.” Many critics of proposed reforms contend that parole eligibility is not a proper focus of reform, but rather that reform should concern itself with the lack of inter-agency information-sharing.
The debate over three strikes laws is certainly not new. When California passed its three strikes law, critics contended that the law violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, though, has upheld the constitutionality of prior convictions as an aggravating factor in determining the severity of a sentence.
The Supreme Court has also held, in Ewing v. California, that three strikes sentences do not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Writing for the majority in Ewing, Justice O'Connor noted that the Supreme Curt does not
sit as a “superlegislature” to second-guess . . . policy choices. It is enough that the [s]tate . . . has a reasonable basis for believing that dramatically enhanced sentences for habitual felons advances the goals of its criminal justice system in any substantial way . . . To be sure, Ewing's sentence is a long one. But it reflects a rational legislative judgment, entitled to deference, that offenders who have committed serious or violent felonies and who continue to commit felonies must be incapacitated.
In the wake of these holdings, states have been left to decide whether three strikes laws constitute sound policy, which is what Connecticut now finds itself doing. In an opening move, the state legislature's judiciary committee recently held a hearing on sentencing and parole reform. The session was well-attended; it filled the largest hearing room in the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. Many of those at the hearing were in favor of more severe sentencing and parole policies. State GOP chairman Christopher Healy characterized the current state of Connecticut criminal justice as one in which “criminals are given the benefit of the doubt and the door, rather than the sound of bars closing behind them.” Others, such as state representative Mike Lawlor, are hoping that the legislature will focus on providing court and prison officials with the necessary tools to identify dangerous offenders before they are released on parole. As seen in the case of Mr. Komisarjevsky, one of the most essential tools is simple access to sentencing transcripts.
This summer, a gruesome crime shocked the small town of Cheshire, Connecticut. In the early morning hours of July 18, two men invaded the Petit family home. The two men held the Petit family hostage for several hours, robbed them, and killed three of them. The sole surviver was the family father. In the small state of Connecticut, it was one of the most heinous crimes in recent memory.
The Cheshire home invasion left many Connecticut residents concerned for their safety as well as that of their family members. Gun sales increased and the interest in installing security systems skyrocketed. Many Connecticut residents also sought to protect themselves and their loved ones through an online petition asking the state legislature to pass a “three strikes” law. More than 42,000 people have signed this petition thus far. The proposed law would eliminate judicial discretion and require life imprisonment for a third serious felony conviction.
The New York Times editorial page recently contended that such habitual offender laws comprise a misguided attempt at replacing discretion with hard-line rules:
The appeal of a “three strikes and you're out” law is understandable, but these laws have proven to be blunt instruments that cause more injustice than they prevent. In California, which has a particularly draconian law, a man who shoplifted $153.54 worth of videotapes was sent to jail for 50 years. These laws are not only overly harsh. They are enormously expensive, because of all of the prison cells that are needed to warehouse minor criminals who pose little threat to society, many of whom are elderly by the end of their sentence.
Community outrage, though, was not only fueled by the fact that the two suspects, Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes, had twenty-one and seventeen felony convictions respectively. Both of them had also been released on parole earlier in the year. This precipitated calls not only for a three strikes law, but also for the State of Connecticut to severely circumscribe parole eligibility; Governor Jodi Rell indefinitely stopped the paroles of violent offenders this past Friday.
The most concerning issue in regard to the parole proceedings is that the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Paroles never received Mr. Komisarjevsky's sentencing transcript. Within that transcript, the presiding judge described Mr. Komisarjevsky as a calculating, “cold-blooded predator” who specialized in nighttime burglaries of homes that were occupied. Needless to say, this is precisely the sort of information that the Parole Board needs to have in front of it when it determines whether to release an inmate. Indeed, the New York Times editorial page goes on to note that the
Board of Pardons and Parole released Mr. Komisarjevsky despite having woefully incomplete information. That happens routinely in Connecticut, where for 10 years absurd fights over which department should pay photocopying costs kept criminal records from being shared. Had board members read the judge's characterization of Mr. Komisarjevsky's actions as “predatory” they might never have released him.
This state of affairs has gotten so bad that state Representative Bob Godfrey recently noted that “[w]e're almost using parchment paper and quill pens.” Many critics of proposed reforms contend that parole eligibility is not a proper focus of reform, but rather that reform should concern itself with the lack of inter-agency information-sharing.
The debate over three strikes laws is certainly not new. When California passed its three strikes law, critics contended that the law violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, though, has upheld the constitutionality of prior convictions as an aggravating factor in determining the severity of a sentence.
The Supreme Court has also held, in Ewing v. California, that three strikes sentences do not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Writing for the majority in Ewing, Justice O'Connor noted that the Supreme Curt does not
sit as a “superlegislature” to second-guess . . . policy choices. It is enough that the [s]tate . . . has a reasonable basis for believing that dramatically enhanced sentences for habitual felons advances the goals of its criminal justice system in any substantial way . . . To be sure, Ewing's sentence is a long one. But it reflects a rational legislative judgment, entitled to deference, that offenders who have committed serious or violent felonies and who continue to commit felonies must be incapacitated.
In the wake of these holdings, states have been left to decide whether three strikes laws constitute sound policy, which is what Connecticut now finds itself doing. In an opening move, the state legislature's judiciary committee recently held a hearing on sentencing and parole reform. The session was well-attended; it filled the largest hearing room in the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. Many of those at the hearing were in favor of more severe sentencing and parole policies. State GOP chairman Christopher Healy characterized the current state of Connecticut criminal justice as one in which “criminals are given the benefit of the doubt and the door, rather than the sound of bars closing behind them.” Others, such as state representative Mike Lawlor, are hoping that the legislature will focus on providing court and prison officials with the necessary tools to identify dangerous offenders before they are released on parole. As seen in the case of Mr. Komisarjevsky, one of the most essential tools is simple access to sentencing transcripts.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
'3 Strikes' Measure Called Costly
Analysis Cites Expense Of Prison Expansion
By MARK PAZNIOKAS Courant Staff Writer
September 11, 2007
Article tools
E-mail
Share
Digg
Del.icio.us
Facebook
Furl
Google
Newsvine
Reddit
Spurl
Yahoo
startChangeSocialBookmarkingBG();
Print
Single page view
Reprints
Reader feedback
Text size:
A "three strikes" law proposed for habitual offenders in the wake of the Cheshire triple slayings could increase the inmate population by 1,000 a year and require a new $110 million prison, nonpartisan legislative analysts say.The legislature's Office of Fiscal Analysis describes the law, which would require mandatory life sentences for some three-time felons, as the most expensive proposal floated since the brutal home invasion in July.New mandatory life sentences, tighter standards for parole and other proposals all come with a cost, said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, who requested the fiscal analyses of a half-dozen proposals.
"If the legislature does certain things, it will result in increases in the prison population," said Lawlor, co-chairman of the judiciary committee. "If that is what's going to happen, I feel very strongly you have to put the resources in place or the system will melt down."Ending parole and transitional supervision would exceed current prison capacity and also require new prison space, the Office of Fiscal Analysis said. The state's 17,000-bed prison system now has 19,000 prisoners.OFA also placed a price tag on the more modest proposition of tracking every parolee with global positioning technology. For every 30 parolees tracked by GPS, the annual cost is $212,000.The analyses are nonpartisan, but a political tension underlies their preparation as Lawlor generally opposes mandatory sentences and new prison construction, while the most strenuous calls for tougher measures have come from legislative Republicans.Republicans last week called for a "strong three strikes law that eliminates judicial discretion and requires life imprisonment for a third serious felony conviction, keeping career criminals in jail and out of our neighborhoods." Previously, they had called for an examination of parole standards.Joshua Komisarjevsky, 26, and Steven Hayes, 44, were free on parole when they were arrested fleeing the home of Dr. William Petit Jr. of Cheshire. Authorities say they beat Petit and killed his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, and their daughters, 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela.House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, said cost will be a part of any discussion about legislation enacted in response to the Cheshire case, but he complained that Lawlor seemed to be building a case against tougher sentences."What's the first thing you do, develop the public policy?" Cafero said. "Or get a report on the cost and say, `I dare you?'"Cafero said the cost estimates assumed that Connecticut would adopt a three-strike law similar to the one in California, where any third felony can trigger a life sentence. He said Republicans are considering requiring that a serious felony be the trigger, which could send fewer offenders to prison.Lawlor said the California law defines a life sentence as 25 years in prison, while Connecticut Republicans are talking about a three-strikes law with a penalty of life without possibility of parole.Lawlor said he hopes the legislature will focus on providing court and prison officials with the tools to "find the needle in the haystack" - identifying dangerous offenders such as Komisarjevsky before they are eligible for parole."You need to find the Komisarjevskys of the world," Lawlor said. "Some are a complete mystery. Some have some indicators."Lawlor said he believes that Komisarjevsky never would have been released had parole officials reviewed a transcript of his sentencing, which discussed the defendant's mental health and his dangerous predilection for breaking into occupied homes.But parole officials never saw the transcript before releasing Komisarjevsky, despite the passage of a law in 1997 requiring prosecutors to provide transcripts before parole hearings.Democrats and Republicans agree that no parole hearing should be conducted without the parole board having the transcript and other relevant information.One of the fiscal analyses recently provided to Lawlor says that the transcripts could be provided in all cases for $45,000 a year.Contact Mark Pazniokas at
mpazniokas@courant.com
By MARK PAZNIOKAS Courant Staff Writer
September 11, 2007
Article tools
Share
Digg
Del.icio.us
Furl
Newsvine
Spurl
Yahoo
startChangeSocialBookmarkingBG();
Single page view
Reprints
Reader feedback
Text size:
A "three strikes" law proposed for habitual offenders in the wake of the Cheshire triple slayings could increase the inmate population by 1,000 a year and require a new $110 million prison, nonpartisan legislative analysts say.The legislature's Office of Fiscal Analysis describes the law, which would require mandatory life sentences for some three-time felons, as the most expensive proposal floated since the brutal home invasion in July.New mandatory life sentences, tighter standards for parole and other proposals all come with a cost, said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, who requested the fiscal analyses of a half-dozen proposals.
"If the legislature does certain things, it will result in increases in the prison population," said Lawlor, co-chairman of the judiciary committee. "If that is what's going to happen, I feel very strongly you have to put the resources in place or the system will melt down."Ending parole and transitional supervision would exceed current prison capacity and also require new prison space, the Office of Fiscal Analysis said. The state's 17,000-bed prison system now has 19,000 prisoners.OFA also placed a price tag on the more modest proposition of tracking every parolee with global positioning technology. For every 30 parolees tracked by GPS, the annual cost is $212,000.The analyses are nonpartisan, but a political tension underlies their preparation as Lawlor generally opposes mandatory sentences and new prison construction, while the most strenuous calls for tougher measures have come from legislative Republicans.Republicans last week called for a "strong three strikes law that eliminates judicial discretion and requires life imprisonment for a third serious felony conviction, keeping career criminals in jail and out of our neighborhoods." Previously, they had called for an examination of parole standards.Joshua Komisarjevsky, 26, and Steven Hayes, 44, were free on parole when they were arrested fleeing the home of Dr. William Petit Jr. of Cheshire. Authorities say they beat Petit and killed his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, and their daughters, 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela.House Minority Leader Lawrence F. Cafero Jr., R-Norwalk, said cost will be a part of any discussion about legislation enacted in response to the Cheshire case, but he complained that Lawlor seemed to be building a case against tougher sentences."What's the first thing you do, develop the public policy?" Cafero said. "Or get a report on the cost and say, `I dare you?'"Cafero said the cost estimates assumed that Connecticut would adopt a three-strike law similar to the one in California, where any third felony can trigger a life sentence. He said Republicans are considering requiring that a serious felony be the trigger, which could send fewer offenders to prison.Lawlor said the California law defines a life sentence as 25 years in prison, while Connecticut Republicans are talking about a three-strikes law with a penalty of life without possibility of parole.Lawlor said he hopes the legislature will focus on providing court and prison officials with the tools to "find the needle in the haystack" - identifying dangerous offenders such as Komisarjevsky before they are eligible for parole."You need to find the Komisarjevskys of the world," Lawlor said. "Some are a complete mystery. Some have some indicators."Lawlor said he believes that Komisarjevsky never would have been released had parole officials reviewed a transcript of his sentencing, which discussed the defendant's mental health and his dangerous predilection for breaking into occupied homes.But parole officials never saw the transcript before releasing Komisarjevsky, despite the passage of a law in 1997 requiring prosecutors to provide transcripts before parole hearings.Democrats and Republicans agree that no parole hearing should be conducted without the parole board having the transcript and other relevant information.One of the fiscal analyses recently provided to Lawlor says that the transcripts could be provided in all cases for $45,000 a year.Contact Mark Pazniokas at
mpazniokas@courant.com
Thursday, September 6, 2007
NY Times Opposes Three-Strikes Laws
By Jeralyn, Section Crime Policy Posted on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 01:28:00 AM EST Tags: (all tags)
Unwisely yet predictably, Connecticut legislators are considering enacting a three-strikes law in response to a gruesome multiple murder last month by two inmates with lengthy records.
The New York Times has an editorial today in opposition.
The appeal of a “three strikes and you’re out” law is understandable, but these laws have proven to be blunt instruments that cause more injustice than they prevent. In California, which has a particularly draconian law, a man who shoplifted $153.54 worth of videotapes was sent to jail for 50 years. These laws are not only overly harsh. They are enormously expensive, because of all of the prison cells that are needed to warehouse minor criminals who pose little threat to society, many of whom are elderly by the end of their sentence.
....adopting a one-size-fits-all sentencing system makes no more sense than releasing criminals without adequate information.
So many of our worst and most draconian laws stem from reaction to a single crime. As I've written repeatedly,
More...
Legislation should never be passed out of grief and passion or in response to a singular event, no matter how horrific. Cooler heads are needed when our fundamental liberties are at stake.
.... One size fits all justice doesn’t work, particularly when it involves non-flexible penalties for everyone, regardless of the individual circumstances of the offense and the character and history of the offender.
It's time to get smart on crime and the first step is leaving the failures of the "tough on crime" crowd behind us.
Unwisely yet predictably, Connecticut legislators are considering enacting a three-strikes law in response to a gruesome multiple murder last month by two inmates with lengthy records.
The New York Times has an editorial today in opposition.
The appeal of a “three strikes and you’re out” law is understandable, but these laws have proven to be blunt instruments that cause more injustice than they prevent. In California, which has a particularly draconian law, a man who shoplifted $153.54 worth of videotapes was sent to jail for 50 years. These laws are not only overly harsh. They are enormously expensive, because of all of the prison cells that are needed to warehouse minor criminals who pose little threat to society, many of whom are elderly by the end of their sentence.
....adopting a one-size-fits-all sentencing system makes no more sense than releasing criminals without adequate information.
So many of our worst and most draconian laws stem from reaction to a single crime. As I've written repeatedly,
More...
Legislation should never be passed out of grief and passion or in response to a singular event, no matter how horrific. Cooler heads are needed when our fundamental liberties are at stake.
.... One size fits all justice doesn’t work, particularly when it involves non-flexible penalties for everyone, regardless of the individual circumstances of the offense and the character and history of the offender.
It's time to get smart on crime and the first step is leaving the failures of the "tough on crime" crowd behind us.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Conn. lawmakers call for tougher penalties in wake of Cheshire tragedy
by News Channel 8's Annie RourkePosted July 31, 2007Updated 10:15 PM
(Hartford-WTNH) _ Governor Jodi Rell is among the state lawmakers calling for reforms following the deadly Cheshire home invasion.
The gruesome crime, allegedly by suspects already in the system, has sparked thousands of Connecticut residents to sign an online petition favoring the so-called 3-strikes law.
Connecticut lawmakers are responding to the tragedy, and to their constituents concerns, debating if harsher punishments are needed in our state since both suspects had long, criminal records.
"I know we give judges a lot of leeway into decide how long a sentence ought to be but maybe we need to look at more standards," said Governor Rell.
Forty-four year old Stephen Hayes and 26-year-old Joshua Komisarjevsky were out on parole, but their prior convictions were for burglary and other non-violent offenses, so they didn't qualify for Connecticut's three strikes you're out law. Rell is now asking lawmakers to change that by classifying home invasions and night-time burglaries as violent crimes so offenders would serve 85-percent of their sentences.
Republican Senators are taking it farther, saying they want a tougher three strikes law, one that carries a mandatory 25 to life prison sentence. Their opponents tell News Channel 8 that adding more laws won't fix what's broken with the system.
"He could've been charged under our repeat offender laws and he wasn't and why that happened, we have to figure out," said State Representative Mike Lawlor.
Lawlor says there were red flags for both Hayes and Komisarjevsky, but information was lost between the police, prosecutors and the parole board. And he says, mandatory sentencing causes other problems. There are currently 19,000 convicts in Connecticut and our capacity is for just 17,000.
"Trust me when I tell you a lack of bed space in prison should not be a reason for letting a hardened criminal out," said Rell.
That seems to be a popular sentiment. About 5,000 people have signed an on-line petition for a tougher three-strikes law in just a few days. Lawlor says, he wants to work with the governor to find the loopholes, but look at all the options, including what we can afford.
"At the end of the day, we need to find a system that will actually work, not one that just sounds good in a press conference," said Lawlor.
Lawmakers are hoping to vote on a tougher 3-strikes law by the end of the summer.
(Hartford-WTNH) _ Governor Jodi Rell is among the state lawmakers calling for reforms following the deadly Cheshire home invasion.
The gruesome crime, allegedly by suspects already in the system, has sparked thousands of Connecticut residents to sign an online petition favoring the so-called 3-strikes law.
Connecticut lawmakers are responding to the tragedy, and to their constituents concerns, debating if harsher punishments are needed in our state since both suspects had long, criminal records.
"I know we give judges a lot of leeway into decide how long a sentence ought to be but maybe we need to look at more standards," said Governor Rell.
Forty-four year old Stephen Hayes and 26-year-old Joshua Komisarjevsky were out on parole, but their prior convictions were for burglary and other non-violent offenses, so they didn't qualify for Connecticut's three strikes you're out law. Rell is now asking lawmakers to change that by classifying home invasions and night-time burglaries as violent crimes so offenders would serve 85-percent of their sentences.
Republican Senators are taking it farther, saying they want a tougher three strikes law, one that carries a mandatory 25 to life prison sentence. Their opponents tell News Channel 8 that adding more laws won't fix what's broken with the system.
"He could've been charged under our repeat offender laws and he wasn't and why that happened, we have to figure out," said State Representative Mike Lawlor.
Lawlor says there were red flags for both Hayes and Komisarjevsky, but information was lost between the police, prosecutors and the parole board. And he says, mandatory sentencing causes other problems. There are currently 19,000 convicts in Connecticut and our capacity is for just 17,000.
"Trust me when I tell you a lack of bed space in prison should not be a reason for letting a hardened criminal out," said Rell.
That seems to be a popular sentiment. About 5,000 people have signed an on-line petition for a tougher three-strikes law in just a few days. Lawlor says, he wants to work with the governor to find the loopholes, but look at all the options, including what we can afford.
"At the end of the day, we need to find a system that will actually work, not one that just sounds good in a press conference," said Lawlor.
Lawmakers are hoping to vote on a tougher 3-strikes law by the end of the summer.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Most Important Informantion For Our Legislatures
The exact application of the three-strikes laws varies considerably from state to state. Some states require all three felony convictions to be for violent crimes in order for the mandatory sentence to be pronounced, while others — most notably California — mandate the enhanced sentence for any third felony conviction so long as the first two felonies were deemed to be either "violent" or "serious," or both.
This is what i think that we are grappling with in this subject and until we can make it hands down a fair assumption that it doesnt affect one class or it doesnt impose a bias in the way the laws statutes are used then we can modify this law correctly if it is to even be considered in the state of Connecticut.
This is what i think that we are grappling with in this subject and until we can make it hands down a fair assumption that it doesnt affect one class or it doesnt impose a bias in the way the laws statutes are used then we can modify this law correctly if it is to even be considered in the state of Connecticut.
Criticism In California Beware Connecticut.
Some critics have argued that three-strikes laws violate the double jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution, although the Supreme Court of the United States has already upheld the constitutionality, in general, of using the fact of prior convictions as an aggravating factor in determining the severity of a sentence. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998).
Another criticism is that many felonies involve only a minimal threat to society. In some states, possession of a small amount of crack cocaine or even marijuana may be treated as a felony, so three such convictions would carry permanent imprisonment. There are many other felonies which call into question the advisability of strict three-strikes laws, such as some minor white-collar crimes which only marginally qualify as felonies.
A burglary, a crime which could result in the theft of something having little or no value, is perceived as being unjustly included as one of the three "strikes." However, burglary often involves breaking into others' houses, and burglars often resort to violence when they encounter the family members unexpectedly. For instance, on July 22, 2007, two convicted burglars out on parole (Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes) were accused of killing three family members during a home invasion, sexual assault, and arson in Cheshire, Connecticut. As a result of the massacre of the Petit family, Governor M. Jodi Rell has asked the Connecticut legislature to redefine burglary as a violent crime.
Some have also argued that these laws can provide criminals with a perverse incentive to commit murder. This is based on the added penalties that arise under these laws, penalties that equal or exceed common sentences for many homicides, and which would presumably render moot the legal disincentive from committing a homicide if facing those penalties. If a person already has two felony convictions, then a conviction for any third felony (such as grand theft) may carry a penalty comparable to or greater than that for a murder conviction. Thus these laws could encourage homicides committed either incident or related to the commission of a third-strike felony or committed in an effort to avoid apprehension and prosecution, such as killing a witness to a crime or killing police officers while attempting to escape, potentially lessening the risk of being apprehended and sentenced under these laws (though the death penalty might apply to such cases as an added disincentive). The refutation to this claim is that most brutal crimes are committed in impulse (when the emotion overpowers the rationality), and very few criminals have the chance to think through all the consequences when they commit crimes. Therefore the so called “perverse incentive” has never been proved to exist. It could very well be the product of pure imaginations.
Less dramatic, though by no means insignificant perverse incentives may arise from these laws. As guilty pleas may and have resulted in multiple strikes being added, these laws may decrease the incentive to plea bargain, increasing the cost and time spent by courts. Defendants facing third strikes lose incentives to plead to lesser offenses that may result in strike, and also lose incentives to cooperate with investigations, forcing prosecutors to take to court potentially weak cases. Life sentences rule out the possibility of rehabilitation, and likewise often remove incentives on prisoners to participate meaningfully in prison programs or to control their behavior, producing a larger population of violent and disruptive prisoners. The refutation to this claim is that the victims' lives are too precious to be compared to the cost and time spent by courts.
Holding many more inmates for longer sentences increases the overall strain on prison systems, many of which (particularly in California) are already perilously overcrowded. Three-strikes laws place a particular strain on high- and maximum-security facilities. Prisoners serving long sentences are commonly held in maximum-security, regardless of the nature of their specific offenses or other factors affecting their profile as inmates, on the principle that inmates with longer sentences have more reason to escape or become disruptive than inmates with shorter sentences. Thus, third-strike life prisoners held on non-violent offenses occupy space that might otherwise be used to confine more dangerous and violent inmates, and they are also exposed to those inmates in maximum-security, placing them at higher risk of assault, rape, murder and prison gang activity.
The refutation to some of the criticisms of three-strikes laws is that some of the critics may have committed the perfect solution fallacy, and that the critics themselves have not presented a perfect solution. It is possible that with the improvements on its questionable parts, three-strikes laws as a whole may be able to serve as an acceptable solution to the violent crimes of our society.
Another criticism is that many felonies involve only a minimal threat to society. In some states, possession of a small amount of crack cocaine or even marijuana may be treated as a felony, so three such convictions would carry permanent imprisonment. There are many other felonies which call into question the advisability of strict three-strikes laws, such as some minor white-collar crimes which only marginally qualify as felonies.
A burglary, a crime which could result in the theft of something having little or no value, is perceived as being unjustly included as one of the three "strikes." However, burglary often involves breaking into others' houses, and burglars often resort to violence when they encounter the family members unexpectedly. For instance, on July 22, 2007, two convicted burglars out on parole (Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes) were accused of killing three family members during a home invasion, sexual assault, and arson in Cheshire, Connecticut. As a result of the massacre of the Petit family, Governor M. Jodi Rell has asked the Connecticut legislature to redefine burglary as a violent crime.
Some have also argued that these laws can provide criminals with a perverse incentive to commit murder. This is based on the added penalties that arise under these laws, penalties that equal or exceed common sentences for many homicides, and which would presumably render moot the legal disincentive from committing a homicide if facing those penalties. If a person already has two felony convictions, then a conviction for any third felony (such as grand theft) may carry a penalty comparable to or greater than that for a murder conviction. Thus these laws could encourage homicides committed either incident or related to the commission of a third-strike felony or committed in an effort to avoid apprehension and prosecution, such as killing a witness to a crime or killing police officers while attempting to escape, potentially lessening the risk of being apprehended and sentenced under these laws (though the death penalty might apply to such cases as an added disincentive). The refutation to this claim is that most brutal crimes are committed in impulse (when the emotion overpowers the rationality), and very few criminals have the chance to think through all the consequences when they commit crimes. Therefore the so called “perverse incentive” has never been proved to exist. It could very well be the product of pure imaginations.
Less dramatic, though by no means insignificant perverse incentives may arise from these laws. As guilty pleas may and have resulted in multiple strikes being added, these laws may decrease the incentive to plea bargain, increasing the cost and time spent by courts. Defendants facing third strikes lose incentives to plead to lesser offenses that may result in strike, and also lose incentives to cooperate with investigations, forcing prosecutors to take to court potentially weak cases. Life sentences rule out the possibility of rehabilitation, and likewise often remove incentives on prisoners to participate meaningfully in prison programs or to control their behavior, producing a larger population of violent and disruptive prisoners. The refutation to this claim is that the victims' lives are too precious to be compared to the cost and time spent by courts.
Holding many more inmates for longer sentences increases the overall strain on prison systems, many of which (particularly in California) are already perilously overcrowded. Three-strikes laws place a particular strain on high- and maximum-security facilities. Prisoners serving long sentences are commonly held in maximum-security, regardless of the nature of their specific offenses or other factors affecting their profile as inmates, on the principle that inmates with longer sentences have more reason to escape or become disruptive than inmates with shorter sentences. Thus, third-strike life prisoners held on non-violent offenses occupy space that might otherwise be used to confine more dangerous and violent inmates, and they are also exposed to those inmates in maximum-security, placing them at higher risk of assault, rape, murder and prison gang activity.
The refutation to some of the criticisms of three-strikes laws is that some of the critics may have committed the perfect solution fallacy, and that the critics themselves have not presented a perfect solution. It is possible that with the improvements on its questionable parts, three-strikes laws as a whole may be able to serve as an acceptable solution to the violent crimes of our society.
Controversial Results in California
Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, previous strikes for home burglary), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children (Jerry Dewayne Williams, four previous non-violent felonies, sentence later reduced to six years). In one particularly notorious case, Kevin Weber was sentenced to 26 years to life for the crime of stealing four chocolate chip cookies (previous strikes of burglary and assault with a deadly weapon).
In California, first and second strikes are counted by individual charges, rather than individual cases, so a defendant may have been charged and convicted of "first and second strikes", potentially many more than two such strikes, arising from a single case, even one that was disposed of prior to the passage of the law. Convictions from all 50 states and the federal courts at any point in the defendant's past, as well as juvenile offenses that would otherwise be sealed, regardless of the date of offense or conviction or whether the conviction was the result of a plea bargain, can be counted. The law also mandates that so called "wobbler" offenses that may be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony be charged as a felony if the charge would be a third strike. Thus, defendants already convicted of two or more "strike" charges arising from one single case potentially years in the past, even if the defendant was a juvenile at the time, can be and have been charged and convicted with a third strike for any felony or any offense that could be charged as a felony (including "felony petty theft" or possession of a controlled substance prior to Proposition 36 (see below)) and given 25 years to life. (e.g.: A defendant who accepted a plea bargain to 2 counts of residential burglary in one juvenile case 20 years before the passage of the law would have both counts regarded as first and second strikes, and would face a third strike if charged with any offense potentially chargeable as a felony, such as possession of a controlled substance or "felony petty theft"). It is possible for a defendant to be charged and convicted with two "third strikes" (technically third and fourth strikes) in a single case. It is also possible for multiple "third" strikes to arise from a single criminal act (or omission). As a result, a defendant may then be given two separate sentences that run consecutively. which can make for a sentence of 50 (or 75, or 100) years to life. 50 years to life was the actual sentence given to Leandro Andrade.
As of 2007, California's state prison system holds over 170,000 prisoners in custody in a system designed for 83,000, and most California prisons currently hold populations more than double their design capacity. The state has progressively been forced to manage this overcrowded system year by year through various workarounds, including referring nonviolent drug offenses to special "drug courts" that mandate treatment rather than incarceration (see Proposition 36 below), early releases of prisoners, raising funds to build more prisons, and transfers of prisoners to the federal system or out-of-state privately run institutions with whom the state has contracted. The system's healthcare system and several of its institutions have been found inadequate or inhumane by federal courts in successive cases, which have resulted in their being placed under special oversight. The three strikes law has further contributed to the strain on the system.
In turn, such sentences have prompted harsh criticism not only within the United States but from outside the country as well.
In California, first and second strikes are counted by individual charges, rather than individual cases, so a defendant may have been charged and convicted of "first and second strikes", potentially many more than two such strikes, arising from a single case, even one that was disposed of prior to the passage of the law. Convictions from all 50 states and the federal courts at any point in the defendant's past, as well as juvenile offenses that would otherwise be sealed, regardless of the date of offense or conviction or whether the conviction was the result of a plea bargain, can be counted. The law also mandates that so called "wobbler" offenses that may be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony be charged as a felony if the charge would be a third strike. Thus, defendants already convicted of two or more "strike" charges arising from one single case potentially years in the past, even if the defendant was a juvenile at the time, can be and have been charged and convicted with a third strike for any felony or any offense that could be charged as a felony (including "felony petty theft" or possession of a controlled substance prior to Proposition 36 (see below)) and given 25 years to life. (e.g.: A defendant who accepted a plea bargain to 2 counts of residential burglary in one juvenile case 20 years before the passage of the law would have both counts regarded as first and second strikes, and would face a third strike if charged with any offense potentially chargeable as a felony, such as possession of a controlled substance or "felony petty theft"). It is possible for a defendant to be charged and convicted with two "third strikes" (technically third and fourth strikes) in a single case. It is also possible for multiple "third" strikes to arise from a single criminal act (or omission). As a result, a defendant may then be given two separate sentences that run consecutively. which can make for a sentence of 50 (or 75, or 100) years to life. 50 years to life was the actual sentence given to Leandro Andrade.
As of 2007, California's state prison system holds over 170,000 prisoners in custody in a system designed for 83,000, and most California prisons currently hold populations more than double their design capacity. The state has progressively been forced to manage this overcrowded system year by year through various workarounds, including referring nonviolent drug offenses to special "drug courts" that mandate treatment rather than incarceration (see Proposition 36 below), early releases of prisoners, raising funds to build more prisons, and transfers of prisoners to the federal system or out-of-state privately run institutions with whom the state has contracted. The system's healthcare system and several of its institutions have been found inadequate or inhumane by federal courts in successive cases, which have resulted in their being placed under special oversight. The three strikes law has further contributed to the strain on the system.
In turn, such sentences have prompted harsh criticism not only within the United States but from outside the country as well.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
The Real Reason Behind The Petition
A burglary, a crime which could result in the theft of something having little or no value, is perceived as being unjustly included as one of the three "strikes." However, burglary often involves breaking into others' houses, and burglars often resort to violence when they encounter the family members unexpectedly. On July 23, 2007, two convicted burglars out on parole (Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes) were accused of killing three family members during a home invasion and arson in Cheshire, Connecticut. They each had more than 20 prior burglaries on their records. If Connecticut had adopted an effective three-strikes law, this kind of brutal crime committed by burglars could have been prevented.After the violent troubling events that took place in our hometown of Cheshire, Ct, the people of this state need to take a stand and voice their opinions to politicians who can do something about it.Pass this along and sign below if you agree with our state adopting a 3 strikes law to keep these criminals from harming our families and terrorizing our neighborhoods. This will be forwarded to those in office and hopefully we will be heard..."Politicians, we urge you to stand up for residents and secure our neighbourhoods and streets from crime. A 3 strikes and you're out law will do more to stop revolving door justice than any other measure currently in place in the state of CT or Federal law. The law requires a defendant convicted of a felony to serve an indeterminant life sentence when it is proved that he has committed 2 or more previous felonies defined as violent or serious. If you have 2 prior felonies and you go out and commit a third, the 3 strikes kicks in and you're looking at 25 years to life. No discretion of the judge, no hard luck story - that's it! You're gone for a minimum of 25 years. 3 strikes is a model of strict and even handed justice. It demands accountability, reflects commonsense, presents a clear and certain penalty and uncompromisingly invests in public safety. There is no greater deterrent of swift and certain consequences: swift arrest, prompt trial, certain penalty. Existing criminals with multiple serious or violent convictions would be forced to make an easy decision. Either stop committing crimes and live the remainder of their life in freedom or spend 25 years to life in prison the next time they are caught and convicted. This is the only way career criminals can be held personally accountable for their decisions. Face the truth...A criminal in prison cannot commit crimes against the general public. The price of allowing offenders to return to a lifestyle of victimising citizens is too high. 3 strikes incapacitates active criminals who can no longer commit crimes against the public, it also sends a message that criminal activity will not be tolerated in any way. It is an unquestionable deterrent to criminal behavior."
Write your Legislatures
This is a Forum that was devised when the issue started and in a fair argument all sides must be presented. Here is what the petition introduction holds not very fancy but what is in a debate like this one.
A Special Hearing of the Legislative Judiciary Committee is scheduled for September 11th to initiate the adoption of a three strikes law. At the rally held in Cheshire on August 15th, the speakers present urged us to write to our State Reps in support of the Three Strikes Law. IF WE AS CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DON’T VOICE OUR CONCERNS, THIS LAW WILL NOT BE ADOPTED AND CAREER CRIMINALS WITH MORE THAN 3 HOME INVASION AND BURGLARY CONVICTIONS LIKE THE ANIMALS WHO TOOK THE LIVES OF THE PETIT FAMILY WILL CONTINUE TO BE PAROLED. Below is the list of all the e-mail addresses of Connecticut Senators and the Judiciary Committee that need to hear from you. Below that is a sample letter that has already been sent. THIS MAKES IT EASY TO LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD:1. Create your new e-mail2. Copy and paste the e-mail addresses shown below into the “To….”3. Put whatever you want in the subject (Three Strikes Law, Sept. 11th Special Hearing, Petit Three Strikes Law, etc.)4. Then copy and paste the letter below into the body of your e-mail, modify it, create your own, etc. It doesn’t matter what you write or how you write it, JUST SEND THEM THE MESSAGE THAT YOU WANT THIS LAW IMPLEMENTED IN OUR STATE!THEN TAKE THIS E-MAIL AND FORWARD IT TO EVERYONE IN YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS BOOK WHO LIVES IN CONNECTICUT TO DO THE SAME.IF YOU WERE AS APPAULED AND DISGUSTED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PETIT FAMILY ON JULY 23RD YOU WILL TAKE ACTION SO THIS CAN NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN IN OUR STATE
A Special Hearing of the Legislative Judiciary Committee is scheduled for September 11th to initiate the adoption of a three strikes law. At the rally held in Cheshire on August 15th, the speakers present urged us to write to our State Reps in support of the Three Strikes Law. IF WE AS CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT DON’T VOICE OUR CONCERNS, THIS LAW WILL NOT BE ADOPTED AND CAREER CRIMINALS WITH MORE THAN 3 HOME INVASION AND BURGLARY CONVICTIONS LIKE THE ANIMALS WHO TOOK THE LIVES OF THE PETIT FAMILY WILL CONTINUE TO BE PAROLED. Below is the list of all the e-mail addresses of Connecticut Senators and the Judiciary Committee that need to hear from you. Below that is a sample letter that has already been sent. THIS MAKES IT EASY TO LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD:1. Create your new e-mail2. Copy and paste the e-mail addresses shown below into the “To….”3. Put whatever you want in the subject (Three Strikes Law, Sept. 11th Special Hearing, Petit Three Strikes Law, etc.)4. Then copy and paste the letter below into the body of your e-mail, modify it, create your own, etc. It doesn’t matter what you write or how you write it, JUST SEND THEM THE MESSAGE THAT YOU WANT THIS LAW IMPLEMENTED IN OUR STATE!THEN TAKE THIS E-MAIL AND FORWARD IT TO EVERYONE IN YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS BOOK WHO LIVES IN CONNECTICUT TO DO THE SAME.IF YOU WERE AS APPAULED AND DISGUSTED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PETIT FAMILY ON JULY 23RD YOU WILL TAKE ACTION SO THIS CAN NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN IN OUR STATE
Defense Lawyers Forum In Connecticut
A Three Strikes Law is really not necessary. There are persistent larceny and felony offender laws which involve significant enhancements for these types of crimes and offenders. We cannot keep creating laws based on one unforeseeable, and unpredictable events. People plead guilty to crimes they never committed every day to avoid trial, lost time from work and some just because they are STUPID. These Cheshire guys had been convicted of enough violent felonies to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives. Home invasions and robberies are some of the most egregious and dangerous crimes and are usually punished as such. But no one could have ever foreseen that these two men would graduate from cat burglary to rape, child rape, kidnapping, and multiple murders.Please THINK before you ask the government to create new laws. Research before you create petitions. The last thing we need is more laws.Petition the government NOT to create a Three Strikes Law in Connecticut.
This was issued by the opposing side of this debate and contact could be made to
http://tinasypekdamato.com/
This was issued by the opposing side of this debate and contact could be made to
http://tinasypekdamato.com/
The Aftermath of The Three Strikes Law
In the aftermath of the unfortunate deaths in Chesire Connecticut by two known ex-felons, much of the plees for swift justice for future offenders have died down. This is in result of the uproar by many at the contraversial "Three Strikes and your Out Law", which would put someone who has three felony arrest in jail for 25 years to life. We have seen how many have argued that the parole boards should be reviewed and how their standards may not be up to date. Other have argued that the laws in place are not in place for judges to use discretion and others have argued the opposite defending the judges right to use discretion on the courts in order to judge everyone equally without bias and force. I have see many take this strive for swift justice to the desk of our governor and even completed a petition of over thirty thousand some odd person in the Chesire community to proactively impliment this law into the books.
In the end we see that lawmakers and political officials have noticed the consequences of a three strikes law in Connecticut by understanding the tax burden it would leave and the new problems it would create for our current correctional infrastructure. Prisons as we know are already over-populated and looking at the ways in which the California system has had to deal with the problem only made for a deadlock in the issue being presented.
Like i have stated in my previous blog its happened in the past why all of a sudden do we need to pull to an extreme to satisfy so few. It is the best interest of my state not just a community to look at the bigger picture and endorse new laws that are created equal to those who may not be part of this one sided storm.
I will continue to keep an eye on this issue and many others that may devestate not only the economy of our state but the core of our judicial criminal system in implimenting these types of gung ho laws.
In the end we see that lawmakers and political officials have noticed the consequences of a three strikes law in Connecticut by understanding the tax burden it would leave and the new problems it would create for our current correctional infrastructure. Prisons as we know are already over-populated and looking at the ways in which the California system has had to deal with the problem only made for a deadlock in the issue being presented.
Like i have stated in my previous blog its happened in the past why all of a sudden do we need to pull to an extreme to satisfy so few. It is the best interest of my state not just a community to look at the bigger picture and endorse new laws that are created equal to those who may not be part of this one sided storm.
I will continue to keep an eye on this issue and many others that may devestate not only the economy of our state but the core of our judicial criminal system in implimenting these types of gung ho laws.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
It is courageous that the people of Connecticut are petitioning for the Three Strikes Law in Connecticut and is a great poster add for swift justice., but I don’t think that you have announced the negatives of implementing this law. I understand that you are on a crusade because of what happened in Cheshire but what I don’t understand is its not the first time it has happened in our state and why now ? In addition your argument doesn’t protect those who are going to be victimized by this law. Some might argue that some of these individuals have a drug problem and in its course are going to be victims of this law for a felony arrest which is anything stolen beyond $100.00 dollars. It is not entirely the fault of this one individual that the country has not solved our drug problem. People get addicted and fall into a state of dispare because society is unable to protect them from the number one problem in America drugs and addiction. For example a person who is poor and who becomes addicted will commit 3-4-5 felonies trying to support their habit ? are we to blame the individual ? lock him or her up for life because of an addiction caused by a bigger problem. which would have been solved with $300.00 restitution now how much for us to imprison this person for life. Lets see three strikes = $300.00 of stolen goods from a home for three attempts. now it cost the state how much to imprison this person for 25 years ? or even life? lets do the math on this its abit much because of someonelse's crime. Will law enforcement be able to negotiate like in the past in order to arrest and punish those in the higher levels of the drug problem in America. In the past drug addicts could plea bargain for information which would lead to an arrest of a cartel leader or someone in the higher crime level. This law would put a strangle hold on our ability to pursue higher profiled criminals. Justice may be swift but implementing it would leave many holes un-answered and allot of other issues blanketed by this law. As you can see its not hard to argue your argument when its one sided. My opinion is that a judge has discretion for a reason and we as the people need to allow that discretion in order for justice to be represented equally for all individuals in our society. This law has been in twist and turns in the state of California for the problems I just mentioned. Lets create our own law here in our state and allow for a more creative approach for our legislators to implement. One last note.. California has many dollars invested in this law since it has to shelter these inmates in their high max prisons which millions are pored into each year. Who is going to pick up the bill ? im sure nobody in this state wants more taxes nor more to pay at the pump.. the fact of the matter is that it is a good idea but not thought out properly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
