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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
