Archive for March 26, 2007
An abomination – AL execution sans representation
Mar 26th
It’s true. Alabama does not provide indigent death row inmates with representation (that link is to a TimesSelect article, so it’s not free. You could just sign up for a trial membership). It is the only state in the country to (not) do so. In Alabama, there is no statutory right to counsel in petitions for writ of habeas corpus, which, as everyone knows, are the last avenue for a death row inmate seeking to challenge his/her conviction.
Alabama’s attitude? To disregard the landmark provisions of Gideon v. Wainwright and basically shrug. I cannot believe that in 2007, there is still a state that doesn’t think it needs to provide representation to indigent defendants.
Inmates filed a class action lawsuit, which was rejected by the 11th circuit in 2006 [Barbour v. Haley (.pdf)]. Now they are seeking cert. to SCOTUS. Hopefully SCOTUS accepts cert and stomps down hard on this bizarre practice.
Thankfully, in CT, there is a statutory right to counsel for habeas petitioners and death row inmates.
HT: Prof. Berman, who thinks this will (and should) create a blawgosphere storm and CapDefWeekly.
Technorati Tags: right to counsel, alabama, barbour v. haley
Violent offender registry proposed – the branding continues
Mar 26th
This is a great time of year. The legislature is in session and new bills are being proposed. Via the OLR, I see that one such curious bill is Senate Bill 708 – An Act Creating A Violent Offender Registry. Yes, this bill proposes a registry akin to the sex offender registry for violent offendes. The offenses are:
- murder (including felony murder and arson murder),
- first-degree manslaughter,
- 1st-degree manslaughter with a firearm,
- 1st–degree kidnapping of a minor,
- 1st–degree assault, or
- conspiracy or criminal intent to commit any of the above crimes.
First time offenders are required to register for 10 years and second offenders for life. Failure to register is a Class D felony.
Are residency restrictions for violent offenders far away? Will we have an ever growing class of citizens who will be forced to live in seclusion? Shades of Escape from L.A.
Seriously, what does this achieve. Look at the list of offenses. Murder – minimum sentence of 25 years. Most murders aren’t random crimes. What will you do? Cross the street when you see someone who was convicted of murder? 1st degree assault? Do people seriously believe that assault convictees walk around randomly assaulting people?
Between this and the sex offender registry, it leaves only the larcenies and related offenses and the drug crimes. I’d rather have a community notified of someone who was convicted of a robbery or burglary. The store owner has as much a right to know that a person convicted of hold-ups lives in the neighborhood.
Also, isn’t the central argument behind sex offender registries and residency restrictions that that class of people cannot be rehabilitated? Registry proponents frequently cite statistics that recidivism rates are the highest for that class of offenders. Is the tune changing? Are they all equally likely to re-offend? You can’t have it both ways.
Maybe the way to end this is to make records of all convictions (which are public information anyway) available on a website. I don’t know.
At some point, SCOTUS will have to address the Constitutionality of these registries and residency restrictions. We are heading toward a very fractured society.
Technorati Tags: connecticut, violent offenders, registry
Death penalty constitutionality hearings continue
Mar 26th
Missed in my migration this weekend was Friday’s testimony in the death penalty constitutionality hearing. Waterbury State’s Attorney Connelly testified about his hands-on approach in deciding whether to pursue the death penalty. Waterbury has prosecuted five of the seven current death row inmates.
While Connelly described, step-by-step, his decision-making process, other prosecutors said they simply followed the guidelines established in the Connecticut General Statutes.The question of a prosecutor’s discretion appeared pivotal.
Connelly said he does not have a choice not to pursue a capital case. “That’s a misuse of discretion. … If you have the evidence and you don’t seek it, I think a state’s attorney would be abusing that discretion.”
In describing his approach, Connelly said, “If I only felt I could find probable cause I would not charge. I’d have to be convinced of a conviction. If I felt I could sustain a conviction for a capital felony I would charge.”
The hearings resume on April 12.
Previous coverage:
- Death penalty constitutionality hearing under way.
- State prosecutors have to testify at death penalty hearing.
Technorati Tags: connecticut, death penalty
recent comments