This is a post that has been in the making for a long time. It is incomplete and at times will be incoherent. These are questions, however, that I think are worth exploring and attempting to answer. So bear with me on this Sunday as I ramble.
Anyone who has followed this blog for the past year will no doubt be aware of several high profile criminal justice stories in CT: the Cheshire incident, the David Pollitt incident and the more recent New Britain incident. Starting with Cheshire, reform of the criminal justice system has been on the minds of many residents of this State, mostly pushed forward by our esteemed legislature and Governor. We were once on the path to reducing our prison population and now we are growing and bursting at the seams with no relief in sight.
Prison sentences have been beefed up to unimaginable levels in the name of public safety, rehabilitation programs have been abandoned and common sense no longer prevails.
Yet there are people who do not feel this is enough. Read the comments to any Courant article on criminal justice and you will see that there are people who feel that any sentence short of life is inappropriate.
This State, fueled by the vote-seeking legislators, has become gripped in what might be the biggest “tough on crime” wave in the country.
The paradox, however, is something that I have long suspected.
People are clueless about what sentences really are given in this state as compared to others. The truth, folks, is that Connecticut never handed out light sentences. Go sit in any Part A court in this State and you will see what sentences are routinely handed out. In most cases, discussions begin with numbers in the teens.
It is a rare case in which a defendant does not receive jail time. Sexual assault in a consent case with no record (like my first judge for a day hypo)? You’re looking at 12-15 years. DUI accident, but no serious injury? 3-6 years.
People seem to have forgotten that a year is a long, long time. These are just numbers now; the higher the better.
It seems that, out of fear or embarrassment or God knows what, a portion of judges have abandoned their discretion in sentencing. The point in permitting judges the power to evaluate each case on its merits and each defendant on his characteristics in making the determination of length of sentence was to allow for concessions for a general good character; to take in account the fact that a defendant may have lead a successful, law-abiding life prior to the incident in question.
Now, it seems that no matter how many letters of support a defendant receives, the victim culture has taken such a strong hold that you might as well not offer any. They will not make an impact.
There really is no difference anymore, in my opinion, between our sentencing scheme and sentencing guidelines. When judges fail to exercise their discretion, we might as well give them a rigid range of numbers from which to pick a sentence.
Yes, there are isolated judges who still use their discretion, but I can count on both hands who they are.
Why is this? Why this bloodlust? Why impose 80 years when 35 will do? Why impose 2 years when all the defendant needs is counseling? When will we take the blindfolds off our eyes and realize that ever increasing prison terms will not solve the problems. When will we learn that if we want to reduce crime, we must tackle the causes of crime. When will we stop sacrificing generations in the name of public safety?
I don’t know the answers and I’m pretty sure no individual is solely to blame, but at some point, we have to realize that what we’re doing is not working. It is our responsibility – those of us working in the system – to start the change.
« Hide It
recent comments