Archive for September 24, 2007
Nutmeggers delinquent in jury duty
Sep 24th
We Nutmeggers are a proud lot (I guess), but it seems that one thing we don’t particularly care for is jury duty. To the tune of 77,800 people over the last three years. That’s mind-boggling. 77,800!
Court administrators say it is not known whether jury duty absences are deliberate, the result of somebody simply forgetting or cases where jury duty notices never make it to the person because they are not forwarded to a new address.
The penalty for a no-show is a fine of $121. If CT had collected from all no-shows, the State would have received $9.4 million. Instead, it has received exactly zero. That’s because it’s not really a priority.
Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane agrees that the office has not enforced the law against delinquent jurors.
“There have been other crimes that have taken precedence, such as the three strikes laws and mandatory sentences, Jessica’s Law and issues involving crime against children,” Kane said. “But delinquent jurors are certainly an issue worth pursuing.”
Kane says there was discussion among state’s attorneys several years ago about enforcing the law, but two obstacles remain.
Then there’s this asinine proposal:
Criminal defense attorney Gerald Klein said those who don’t show up for jury duty should have their driver’s licenses suspended.
Yeah, we really want jurors under the threat of license suspension. What’s the connection? What does this even mean? I just….nevermind.
The impact of the parole ban
Sep 24th
With much being said of Governor Rell’s ban on parole in the last few days (and most of it favorable), it must be pointed out what the impact of such a ban shall be. Here’s a story on just that. The highlights:
The Board of Pardons and Paroles is reviewing the cases of 400 to 600 inmates who were scheduled for release on parole.
These are inmates who were already granted parole (and some, it is safe to say, in the last few months), so now they have to be housed again and perhaps there is a legal challenge here. While there is no liberty interest in parole, there is a liberty interest in parole revocation. Canceling parole after granting it would be akin to a revocation of parole.
The Department of Correction is reviewing the files of 1,200 level one inmates to identify non-violent offenders to release to halfway houses to open bed space for violent offenders.
So now you have a number of inmates who will be rushed through parole to make room for those who have been granted it, but will not be released. Good for the 1,200, but is it really good for safety?
Rell said that there are no current or expected plans to build new or expand the state’s current prisons.
Ah, of course. Because Connecticut’s prisons are underpopulated and there are plenty of empty beds.
Lawlor said if violent offenders can’t receive parole, the state’s prison population will only grow more.
There are more than 19,000 inmates in Connecticut’s prisons, originally designed to house 17,000. Lawlor said that the federal courts could order a mass release.
Oh wait, so you mean there is a prison overcrowding problem? The best way to solve that is to ban parole for all violent offenders. No, it isn’t? Hmm.
East Haven Rep. Michael Lawlor, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the state’s prison population has grown by 280 inmates since the July 23 Cheshire home invasion, in which a mother and her two daughters were killed.
This number will only continue to grow. Estimates put the projected increase at 1,500 over the next year. I guess I can safely delete these posts.
Of course, there are the “in the trenches” consequences:
Judges are setting higher bond for burglars and other criminals; defendants are receiving longer sentences; and the Board of Pardons and Paroles is more conservative about who gets parole.
In case we’ve all forgotten, here’s a reminder from a previous post, quoting the Office of Policy and Management’s “Comprehensive Plan For the Connecticut Criminal Justice System 2007 [pdf]“:
- Not shockingly, inmates released from prison with no community supervision were most likely to be reconvicted and resentenced to prison for a new offense.
The Governor, not surprisingly, has declined to appear before the judiciary committee to discuss her “ban”.
While the calls for three-strikes laws and stricter sentences were questionably wrong, this ban on parole is unquestionably knee-jerk and almost certainly illegal.
Serenity now….serenity now.
Monday Morning Jumpstart
Sep 24th
Is it Monday already? Fear not, the jumpstart is here!
- Anne Reed’s Deliberations is hosting blawg review this week.
- This post at the blog “Friends of Justice” has the most detailed reporting of the trial of Mychal Bell. It is bad.
- Scott at Simple Justice looks on “Superlawyers” with disdain. Cheese, please!
- A closer look at the SanFran’s use of cameras in high-crime locations (via KrimLaw)
- Bennett discusses the delicate topic of how and when to quote fees. (I know, don’t! Become a PD
) - Here’s a piece in the Hamden Daily News saying what needs to be said about the capitol’s reaction to Cheshire.
- The Windypundit has the next installment in his series of Evil Lawmaking: Administrative Punishment.
As Bugs Bunny would say: “That’s all folks!”
recent comments