Archive for February, 2006
I have con-viction and con-viction in me!
Feb 27th
Ambimb has a funny and insightful take on Dick Wolf’s new Law and Order incarnation: Conviction.
New group to work for immigrants
Feb 27th
The Greater Hartford Interfaith Coalition for Equity and Justice, an organization of about 40 churches across the state, came together on Sunday to start a grass-roots effort to improve the lives of immigrants in the state as well as fight against the "anti-immigrant" movement gaining momentum across the country.
The group hopes to hold an educational forum each month to raise
awareness about issues facing immigrants in Connecticut, including job
exploitation and access to health care.
Quite a few people spoke at this event, focusing on several issues related to immigrants:
"We need to work to diminish the anti-immigrant feeling that is around.
These people are not threatening anyone. They are not felons," Alstrum
said. "They are hardworking people who are not taking jobs from anyone,
but instead are taking the jobs no one wants."…
Margarita Ledesma, a social worker, said immigrants who have cancer or
AIDS are not receiving medical care because they are afraid they will
be arrested if they show up at a doctor’s office.
Many states across the country have passed legislation to deal with the influx of immigrants:
As illegal immigrants have spread throughout the country and Congress
has been unable to pass an immigration reform bill, some states have
passed their own legislation to address the issues. In the first six
months of last year, states considered nearly 300 immigration-related
bills and passed 36 of them, according to the National Conference of
State Legislatures.Florida allowed state law officers to
arrest illegal immigrants. Arizona barred day laborer centers from
receiving public funds, and Virginia denied some state benefits to
undocumented workers.This year, the proposals include cutting
off benefits to illegal immigrants, allowing local police to identify
those in the country illegally and, in Arizona, sending National Guard
troops to secure the Mexican border.
Mayor Eddie Perez had one of the smartest comments on this issue:
"Rather than being reactive, I hope to be proactive on these issues."
Legislation to classify 16 & 17yo as juveniles
Feb 22nd
This new legislative session is barely under way and already the hottest issue in the State Capitol is the classification of 16 and 17 year olds as "juveniles". Presently, CT is one of only three states in the country (NY & NC) that do not classify 16 & 17 y.o. as "juveniles". This results in 16 & 17 y.o. being housed in adult prison.
[Johnna] Paradis is one of a team of parents, advocates and state legislators
making a push this session to keep Connecticut’s teenagers under the
age of 18 out of the adult criminal justice system. Connecticut is one
of only three states – New York and North Carolina are the others -
that automatically try and incarcerate teenagers 16 and older as
adults, no matter how minor the offense. The majority of the country
considers 18 the age of adulthood, although children under 18 can be
sentenced to adult prison for certain crimes.Members of "Raise the Age CT" are staging a press conference,
rally and information session this morning in the Legislative Office
Building to get attention for their cause. Rep. Toni Walker, D-New
Haven, has already introduced legislation this session calling for a
change.
CT already has legislation that some might consider midway to classifying 16 & 17 y.o. as juveniles – The Youthful Offender statute. Kids in this age range are automatically classified as YOs. Under the YO statute, which is expected to affect about 900 teens a year, limits
the maximum incarceration for such defendants to four years, provides
for their court hearings to be closed to the public and increases their
chances for special probation, counseling and other alternatives to
incarceration.
More than 80 percent of the children and youths tried as adults in
Connecticut are arrested for nonviolent property offenses such as
larceny or minor crimes such as drug possession, fighting and
disorderly conduct, according to Connecticut Juvenile Justice Alliance statistics. Research shows that youths held in adult jails and prisons are five
times more likely to be sexually assaulted and eight times more likely
to commit suicide than youths held in juvenile facilities.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks is cost:
The primary obstacle has been the measure’s overwhelming cost. Judicial
officials last year estimated bringing 16- and 17-year-olds under the
auspices of the juvenile court system would create a 50 percent
increase in caseloads and cost the state up to $90 million to expand
staff, facilities and services appropriately.
Here are figures for juveniles held in adult prison on Oct 1, 2005:
Violent offender registries
Feb 11th
I saw this post on SL&P about a registry for meth offenders being proposed in Georgia and that reminded me of an OLR report I read a few days back, about states with registries for violent offenders.
We
found three states that require violent offenders to register: Kansas,
Montana, and Oklahoma. All three have websites to search for offender
information. All three require registration for offenders who commit
homicides but the states vary in the types of other crimes that are
included. All three require 10 year registration for first time
offenders and lifetime registration for repeat offenders. Some other
offenders must register for life. For example, in Montana, a person
convicted of a violent crime that requires registration who does not
register or keep his registration current must register for life.
Montana also allows an offender to petition the court to end his
registration: the court must grant the petition if the person’s required 10 year registration is over and the court may grant it to end lifetime registration in certain circumstances.
The report states that "A violent offender registry would appear to be similar to a sex offender registry…" So my question is: Does a sex offender registry lead to a violent offender registry and if we have one, why not the other? Why not require all offenders to register?
Prosecutors statement against sex offender restrictions
Feb 10th
Prof. Berman posted yesterday about this extraordinary (and powerful) statement [pdf] by the Iowa County Attorneys Association regarding sex offender residency restrictions in Iowa. Most of you will remember the buzz generated by several states and counties adopting severe housing restrictions in regards to sex offenders, increasing the “buffer zone”, within which they cannot live or work.
From Prof. Berman:
The ICAA’s potent statement (which everyone should read in full)
explains in great detail why Iowa’s broad sex offender residency
restriction is ineffectual and harmful to public safety. Of course,
persons impacted by residency restrictions have long argued their
unfairness and some researchers have highlighted concerns about their
efficacy. But the ICAA statement provides a thoughtful explanation from prosecutors as to why these laws are a bad idea and make our society less safe.
Please read the entire statement (It is 5 pages long) to get the full effect of the arguments being made. These are some of the same arguments that are debated in the blogosphere and generally raised in support of re-thinking these harsh restrictions.
The concluding paragraph is also telling:
The [ICAA] strongly urges the General Assembly and the Governor to act promptly to address the problems created by the 2,000 foot residency restriction by replacing the restriction with measures that more effectively protect children, that reduce the unintended unfairness to innocent persons and that make more prudent use of law enforcement resources. The ICAA stands ready to assist in any way with this effort.
recent comments