Daily Archives: September 21, 2007

Breaking News: Gov. Rell bans parole for all violent offenders

9 Replies

Wow. Well, so much for an event free weekend. Governor Rell announced a ban on parole for all violent offenders late Friday. How long will this ban remain in effect? Until lawmakers fix the state’s sentencing laws. Note that this will cover not only those that are convicted of violent offenses, but those that the parole board deems violent, despite not having a violent conviction in the last ten years.

So, basically, the Governor has superceded statute by this announcement. Might this not be a separation of powers problem?

The governor has also directed the Board of Pardons and Paroles to conduct an immediate review of all current parolees who were sentenced for a violent offense.

It may just be me, but the bit about the ban remaining in effect until lawmakers fix the state’s sentencing laws seems like a bit of a threat.

Judiciary Committee co-chair Mike Lawlor responded to this announcement via a press release in which he says:

“I understand why the Governor did what she did today and I support her decision.  In light of today’s revelations, it’s clear that the parole system has become overwhelmed by new obligations in the last few months and cases started falling through the cracks, including this one.

Sorry, Meriden. That new prison is coming up in your town.

More as it is available.

Note: Given the sensitive nature of this topic, I want to reiterate (for those who might not have read the disclaimer), that whatever I write is my opinion only and is not a reflection of the views of my employer. For all I know, the public defender’s office might officially be okay with this. Please do not misunderstand this to be an endorsement of my views. I am a public defender who happens to practice in CT. I am not writing on behalf of the CT Public Defender’s Office, nor have I ever, nor will I.

This should also not be construed as any lobbying effort or any attempt to influence the legislators. It is merely my opinion on topical issues.

Just wanted to make that clear. Thanks for reading.

I don’t hate you, I just like it when you’re not around

4 Replies

barfly.jpg

How essential is it to like your client? Is it important, even a consideration? Is it possible to like your clients? Mark Bennett wrote a few days ago about this topic. He noted the differences between civil practice and criminal practice:

Unlike Dan, most criminal lawyers are a) not representing companies; and b) not forming longterm attorney-client relationships. Our clients are people, and if all goes well they will never be in trouble again.

…

It’s nice to like our clients, but I don’t think it’s crucial. What do you think?

I’d like to point out a further distinction: public defender and private practitioner. The private practitioner can actually choose his clients. He gets to meet with them, listen to their story, decide if he wants to take the case. Involved in that decision is an evaluation of the client’s personality. However minimal the impact a client’s personality has on the decision to represent him, I suspect it plays some role.

We public defenders have no choice. If it’s my arraignment day, you’re my client. I get whatever comes to me in the rotation.

Having said all that, I agree with his conclusion. It would be nice to like the client, but it’s not necessary. Our responsibility is to the client, his liberty and his Constitutional rights. Nowhere does it say that we have to like them. I would be lying, however, if I didn’t say that having a good relationship with a client makes my job easier.

It’s not that I wouldn’t work as hard for a client that yelled at me, called me a “public pretender” or accused me of being in cahoots with the State, it just wouldn’t be as much fun as working with the client that is nice, understanding and appreciative. It is human nature and as much as some don’t want to believe it, we are human too.

Crime reform gets politicized

4 Replies

It had to happen. With the legislature convening for a special session yesterday, state Republicans attempted to introduce criminal justice reform bills in the wake of the Cheshire killings. Democrats steadfastly refused.

The Republican push for votes in both chambers is an early effort to brand the GOP as the force behind any Cheshire reforms and the Democrats as culpable if nothing happens.

“No question about it, we’re saying it is our issue,” said Sen. David Cappiello, R-Danbury.

As opposed to, you know, the citizens of the state. Continue reading →