A review of Connecticut’s prison overcrowding problem
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Slightly over two months ago, I reported a study by the Pew Charitable Trusts regarding the prison population outlook from 2007-2011. I noted that Connecticut was one of only three states expected to maintain its prison population over that time period.
Today I happened across the Case Study of Connecticut. The Pew Trusts’ report about Connecticut can be found here [pdf]. It is a very interesting report - it starts off with “The Challenge” facing Connecticut from 1995-2002, then leads us through several changes implemented by the legislature and the Governor from 2002-2006 and then makes some predictions about the outlook.
It makes mention of the Act Concerning Prison Overcrowding (PA 04-234), which as recent observations suggest, has done nothing to alleviate prison overcrowding. It ends with the observation that unless the pretrial population is given more focus, the numbers will start to increase again.
I am going to have to look at Connecticut’s declining inmate population from 2002-2006 as a fond memory.
Under current jurisprudence, there is no right to parole; there is no liberty interest in parole and apparently, there is no parole scheme. Parole can do what they want and do not have to review any inmate at any point in their sentence, despite the statute seemingly stating the contrary. I may disagree with it, but that’s the way it stands and that is the effect.
So, in the near future, I don’t see a continuing decline in the prison population.
Technorati Tags: prison overcrowding, connecticut
Sphere: Related Content
Loading ...
Agreed. Especially in light of the increased penalties for DUI that may not be suspended or reduced in any way. There’s already a significant number of inmates in for DUI (would be nice if I wasn’t lazy and found out how many, right?), and now they’ll all have to stay even longer.
As for parole (and DOC release programs, for that matter), any chance that overcrowding will result in more release due to the pressure to get people out?
I’m not sure if that number is readily available, but yes, you’re right.
At least “mandatory minimums” don’t really mean “mandatory minimums”. Although with parole’s unfettered discretion, who knows.
As for parole releasing scores of inmates to alleviate the prison population problem, it would seem to me to be a quick fix (and one that has been applied in the past). Honestly, and I know we agree on this, there has to be an system-wide change in the application of parole laws; the lengths of sentences of offenses and of course, a clearer demarcation between violent and non-violent.
What do you mean mandatory minimums don’t really mean mandatory minimums?
Mandatory-minimum sentences don’t prevent parole release, is what I meant.
Except in the case of DUI sentences. The inmate must serve the mandatory minimum portion day-for-day.
Isn’t that partly because parole isn’t available for those sentences?