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. •