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."
Saturday, November 3, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
