Crime reform gets politicized
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. Which, by the way, includes these “criminals”. I think the legislature has a responsibility to these “criminals” as well as to victims to make sure they do not pass faulty legislation which casts too wide a net.
House Republicans made it clear Thursday evening that they were ready to adopt a mandatory life sentence for three-time felons, without hearings or waiting on the governor’s task force.
They tried to amend the contracting-standards bill with a provision imposing the “three strikes” penalty, as well as tougher penalties for burglary.
The amendment was flawed, imposing a mandatory life sentence for a third conviction for armed robbery, but not murder.
Heh. I’ll let that speak for itself.
Sen. Andrew J. McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said lawmakers are working on changes. His panel recently held a public hearing where experts recommended that the legislature move “slowly, deliberately, but with purpose.”
I think it’s inevitable that the legislature will pass some form of a “three strikes law” and having resigned myself to that eventuality, I can only hope that it is very limited in its scope.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on September 21, 2007 at 7:22 am, and is filed under cheshire. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |


about 4 years ago
The teeth gnashing is getting loud. When will you folks learn. Locking up criminals, generally speaking, has a salutary effect on public safety.
Apparently, Komisarjevky’s absurdly light sentence for all those home invasions was ok with you. Three people are dead because of that decision. And there are likely scores of rape victims etc. if Komisarjevsky’s sentence was common for home invaders. 12 home invasions should have gotten him a mandatory sentence of at least 30 years. Personally, I would prefer life, but hey, I cannot get everything I want.
In any event, you guys may like the idea of rolling the dice with public safety–most of us do not.
about 4 years ago
You obviously know this, but I’m against painting people with a broad brush. You’ve made it clear that all “criminals” are the same. Pretty dim view to take of humanity, in my opinion.
about 4 years ago
No I do not think that all criminals are the same–I do think that the category of criminals who repeatedly break into occupied dwellings at night are dangerous as hell. The Cheshire case is not the only one. Hell, the guy they offed in Texas last night (triple murderer) had a record for burglary. Served 1 1/2 years of a six year burglary sentence. Within 6 mos. of release, three people were killed by the animal. One of the guys that was going to be killed (the wuss governor commuted the sentence) in Tennessee was a murderer who got released and, quelle surprise, killed again. The list goes on and on. Or how about Arthur Shawcross–murdered two kids, got out, and killed at least none women. It’s funny how completely insane criminal justice policies that lead to such outrages generate nary a peep out of the public defender side.
I may take a dim view of humanity, but I care a hell of a lot more about nameless victims than I do about criminals, especially dangerous ones. I think people with my view help keep us safer. The idiots who thought that Shawcross should have been paroled should rot in hell along with him.
about 4 years ago
On the other hand, I could name the hundreds of thousands of parolees that have not committed a crime.
So….the appropriate response is to lock them all up?