Gov’s task force gets 2 out of 3 right
After yesterday’s press release by the Guv, apparently outlining her own proposals for criminal justice reform, the task force she appointed to make recommendations released theirs.
Initial recommendations from Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s task force on changing the parole system did not include a “three strikes” law for automatic life sentences, but focused instead on programs for ex-offenders that would cost tens of millions of dollars annually.
Funny how none of the stories covering the Dems or the Guv’s proposals mentioned cost. At least the task force understands that rehab is a big portion of crime prevention.
The task force called for expanding counseling services, housing and drug treatment for offenders leaving prison.
The recommendations included special housing for sex offenders; mental health screenings for an increased number of offenders upon release; more job training for all former offenders; and a Center for Excellence in the Management of Problem Sexual behavior that would study sex offenders.
You’d be forgiven for thinking that someone finally has common sense and has suggested sensible proposals. But you’d be wrong:
The two sets of recommendations contain many of the same proposals — creating a full-time parole board, hiring more parole officers and creating a new crime of home invasion to cover burglaries of occupied dwellings.
I don’t know how else to say this: “Home invasion” is already a crime. It is known by it’s less ritzy name “burglary”.
Oh well. I guess the Guv couldn’t care that much about her own task force that she had to release her personal recommendations – or more appropriately, she doesn’t give a damn about rehabilitation.
Edit: CTLP has more.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on January 9, 2008 at 7:38 pm, and is filed under cheshire, ct legal news, ct state law, inmate issues, prison overcrowding, proposed legislation. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 2 years ago
I’m having trouble understanding your objection to a “home invasion” law. It’s not unreasonable to assume that someone who enters an occupied home is a threat to the occupants in a way that a burglar of an empty home is not. This is why it’s generally legal to shoot people who break into your home, but not to set booby traps for them.
So what am I missing? Overbroad definition of the crime? Egregious punishment? Too much prosecutorial discretion? 50-year sentences for junkies who steal televisions if the occupant was asleep in the bedroom?
about 2 years ago
As with Windypundit, I too wonder why this blog’s author is having such a difficult time distinguishing between burglary of a dwelling where no one is home, and burglary when a home’s occupants are present. The two situations seem massively different in every meaningful way.
about 2 years ago
Because that fact pattern is already covered by an existing statute.
As if there aren’t enough useless duplicate statutes on the books already.
about 2 years ago
Did you know that in Connecticut it’s illegal to dye a live rabbit or chicken?
I bet there’s no duplicate statute on that one.
about 2 years ago
I tend to agree with Gideon – burglary encompasses situations where people are home. It’s already illegal. If we want to increase the punishment, add a sentence to the already existing statute and add time for burglaries of homes when people are at home. I can’t speak for Gid, but I personally wouldn’t oppose increased punishment for those offenses – it’s just silly and redundant to make another whole offense for it, when it’s already covered.
Not to be a nerd (and maybe inaccurate because I don’t know the proposed text of the proposed statute), but it also might cause double jeopardy problems and/or unintended consequences. For example, if Defendant breaks into a home and occupants are asleep inside, he would be guilty of the new offense “home invasion.” May he be convicted of burglary in addition? Do we intend to create two separate offenses punishing the same conduct, or do we just want a stiffer penalty for one offense?
If it’s the latter, doesn’t burglary become a lesser included offense of home invasion? Are we now saying that when people are not home, it’s a burglary; when people are home, it’s a home invasion? This position may be superficially appealing, but I don’t think it’ll fly without changes to the burglary statute, as well. Right now, burglary covers home invasions when people are home.
Can’t we for once avoid bad law writing and making and just add a sentence to burglary increasing the punishment when people are home??
about 2 years ago
Here’s another: You can be convicted of both unlawfully entering and unlawfully remaining in a residence. Add in home invasion and now you have three offenses for the identical act.
about 2 years ago
Miranda: you have permission to speak for me. Anything to make me seem more intelligent.
about 2 years ago
Breaking and entering into an occupied residence should be considered a violent felony and that is not presently the case. Why should the statute be changed? Because people have the right to feel secure in their homes. Breaking into a detached garage or a business is not nearly as psychologiclly and physically threatning as breaking into a home where one resides with ones spouse and children. It is as much a violation of the occupants physical and psychological integrity as having a gun waved in ones face in the street during an armed robbery. Home invasion should recognized under tha law as a much graver crime than simple burglary.
about 2 years ago
Burglary in the first degree is currently defined as follows:
Sec. 53a-101. Burglary in the first degree: Class B felony. (a) A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree when he enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein and: (1) He is armed with explosives or a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or (2) in the course of committing the offense, he intentionally, knowingly or recklessly inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily injury on anyone.
Burglary in the second degree is currently defined as follows:
Sec. 53a-102. Burglary in the second degree: Class C felony. (a) A person is guilty of burglary in the second degree when such person (1) enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling at night with intent to commit a crime therein, or (2) enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling, while a person other than a participant in the crime is actually present in such dwelling, with intent to commit a crime therein.
A dwelling is defined as follows:
Sec. 53a-100. Definitions. (a) The following definitions are applicable to this part: (1) “Building” in addition to its ordinary meaning, includes any watercraft, aircraft, trailer, sleeping car, railroad car or other structure or vehicle or any building with a valid certificate of occupancy. Where a building consists of separate units, such as, but not limited to separate apartments, offices or rented rooms, any unit not occupied by the actor is, in addition to being a part of such building, a separate building; (2) “dwelling” means a building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night, whether or not a person is actually present…
You are correct, Phil, that prior to the Cheshire incident, the DOC and the Board of Pardons and Parole did not classify a Burglary 2 as a “violent offense” for purposes of parole eligibility – only Burglary 1 and Burglary 2 with a firearm.
Again, increasing the penalty and/or classification for Burglary 2 when someone is home (even if no one is injured, so no Burglary 1) might be a justified response to the public outcry and fear over Cheshire, but making a new statute to criminalize an act that is already criminal is not necessary to achieve that goal and may create other unintended problems.