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.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
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)
