Three-strikes bill killed in committee
By a 25-16 vote, the Judiciary Committee voted against one three-strikes proposal today. The bill called for mandatory life sentence for third time offenders.
Opponents said the revamped three-strikes-and-you’re-out proposal was deceiving because it would not automatically require a life sentence for a third violent offense. The bill still gave prosecutors the discretion to decide whether to charge someone under the law.
And committee co-chairman Rep. Michael Lawlor said prosecutors have told lawmakers they would rarely use such a law.
“The bottom line is, this is very misleading,” said Lawlor, D-East Haven.
Another reason legislators gave for the down vote was that they had just recently tinkered with the persistent offender statute and not enough time has passed to evaluate whether that works or not:
Connecticut already has a law on the books addressing repeat offenders. During a special session in January, where many Cheshire-related reforms were passed, lawmakers tinkered with the law. They passed a version that removed a requirement that a judge make certain findings before imposing up to a life sentence for third-time offenders. That law takes effect March 1.
Sen. Andrew McDonald, the other committee co-chairman, said lawmakers should wait and see if that works.
“We are trying to fix something that we don’t know as yet is broken,” said McDonald, D-Stamford.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Gideon on March 19, 2008 at 6:31 pm, and is filed under cheshire, ct legal news, ct state law, proposed legislation, sentencing. 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
We’ve got a “three strikes and you receive the maximum sentence” law in Georgia, but it’s rarely applied in my circuit. I saw it threatened once.