cheshire
Individual Skill-ing
Mar 1st
Just when I was on the precipice of not writing any further on the individual voir dire “debate“, I got sucked back in. So here is this half-baked post with some references to studies that you may consider the written equivalent of diarrhea and a few other thoughts that are slightly more well-formed.
First, having already disproven the notion that Connecticut is the only state in the country that conducts individual voir dire, I point you, discerning reader, to some studies that highlight the relative benefits of ISVD. In 1999, then Federal Judge Gregor Mize wrote a paper about an experiment he conducted wherein he questioned jurors individually, regardless of whether they’d self-identified any biases in the “introductory” phase of voir dire. Here is his conclusion:
In view of these results, one cannot help but get a strong sense of the essential and revealing juror data that can be obtained by interviewing citizens who do not initially respond to open-court voir dire questions. The sometimes shocking, and always noteworthy, quality of the statements given above, have caused me to require that I interview all silent venire members. I am convinced that even if individual questioning took up significant amounts of time (which it has not for me), it would be well worth expending the effort in order to avoid juror UFO’s and the consequent danger of mistrials caused by impaneling biased or disabled citizens.
In 2003, he followed it up with another paper: “Be cautious of the quiet ones.” Voir Dire, 10, pp. 1-4.
In Judge Mize’s research, in the criminal trials, 1 in 5 of the silent jurors offered a highly relevant comment in individual voir dire that was withheld during group voir dire; at least one, and up to four, silent jurors were then struck for cause in 27 of the 30 criminal trials. Silent jurors in criminal trials withheld being the defendant’s fiancé, being related to the police, being predisposed toward the police, being predisposed against the police, having self or someone close shot with a gun, having lied in group voir dire, and religious convictions conflicting with duties as a juror.
In the civil trials, 1 in 10 of the silent jurors disclosed a highly relevant comment in individual voir dire, which translates into one significant disclosure for every two civil jury trials. Silent jurors in civil trials withheld having been represented by an attorney in the case, being in an auto accident one month before being called in an auto accident case, overhearing others discussing frivolous lawsuits, predispositions against the plaintiff, and predispositions against the defendant.
In both civil and criminal trials, silent jurors withheld medical conditions/hardship, financial hardship, and limited English proficiency.
The most common excuses jurors gave for failing to answer questions in group voir dire were shyness, embarrassment, and a belief that their answers weren’t very important.
Judge Mize concluded that individual voir dire is an indispensable means of identifying juror bias.
In 2005, Dax Urbszat published another study entitled The challenge for cause: Does it reduce bias in the jury system? I am unable to locate a free copy of the paper on the interwebs, so you’ll have to make do with this excerpt and summary:
Urbszat (2005) recently conducted three studies examining the effectiveness of voir dire in identifying jurors with bias or prejudice in a case. The challenge for cause was found to be ineffective in identifying and rejecting biased jurors. In addition, when the jury pool remains inside the court during voir dire, jury pool members were less likely to admit being prejudiced, and less overall rejections occurred. Individual voir dire, conducted outside the presence of other jurors, increased admissions of prejudice.
In addition, since the original series of posts, I did informally ask several local attorneys who have experience both in the Federal system and in other States, and to a person they all affirmed that they would prefer individual voir dire over group. But that is neither here nor there since I am anonymous/pseudonymous and it is only anecdotal.
However, I may not even have written this post, were it not for oral argument today in Skilling v. United States (transcript) before SCOTUS. There are two issues before the Supreme Court, both interesting in very different ways. The first is of relevance here. Skilling claims that his “trial was unfair” (and I’m paraphrasing) because of the immense pre-trial publicity his case received that rendered it impossible to empanel an impartial jury, especially given the manner in which voir dire was conducted. For a case of this magnitude, an entire jury was selected in just 5 hours, with limited questioning by the judge and even more limited questioning by the attorneys. Their primary reliance was on a 14 page questionnaire that each potential juror had filled out well in advance of jury selection. It is especially important to note that in Skilling, the voir dire was individual voir dire (and this is the much vaunted Federal “quick pick” system).
In Skilling, 60 percent of the jury venire affirmatively acknowledged in the responses to questionnaires that they would be unable to set aside their deep-seated biases or doubted their ability to do so, or that they were angry about Enron’s collapse, an anger that was manifested in the vitriolic terms in which Skilling was referred to repeatedly both in the questionnaires and in the community more generally.
Here, in CT, a similar trial is underway in New Haven. I mentioned this in a previous post and it seems that this trial is the gunpowder that has ignited some calls for doing away with ISVD. Any such reliance on highly-publicized trials is misguided. As with the Skilling trial, there is an overwhelming percentage of people called to serve who immediately are disqualified due to the immense publicity in the press and the overwhelming emotions the case evokes. That, in of itself, takes up a lot of time. In the Hayes case in New Haven, it is my understanding that only 14 jurors have actually been questioned on their suitability, with 4 of them being selected to serve. The rest have either been excused for hardships or for cause.
And yet some would have us pick a jury in a capital case which evokes the strongest of emotions in a matter of hours. I wouldn’t do it if my life were on the line, would you?
And if you cannot answer the above question in the affirmative, then we must stop calling for a truncated process when the lives and freedom in question are of those who trust us with them.
In the vast amounts of time that I have to myself, dragging the wheel as an indentured servant of The Man, I have thought about ISVD. Perhaps it is my feeble mind that cannot escape the conclusion that ISVD is a tool to be cherished by the true believer in the fairness of the system. Perhaps it is the lack of dollar signs impeding my vision that does not let me see reason. Perhaps none has been given.
Cumbersome bloviating misrepresents
Feb 22nd
Consider my gears ground. I’ve been resisting jumping in to counter the incessant stream of anti-individual voir dire noise emanating from Norm Pattis over the past month or so. I first saw a post on his blog, which was then reproduced in his column in the Connecticut Law Tribune and finally copied and pasted into this opinion piece in the Courant yesterday.
Norm, for some reason, has been crusading against the “cumbersome” and “wasteful” process of individual voir dire that we employ here in CT. What happens, simply, is this: a jury panel is brought into a courtroom, is read some preliminary instructions by a judge and then members are asked to identify if they have any hardships or other reasons why they cannot serve on a jury. Those who do not identify any such impediments are temporarily asked to retire to a room, while those that raised their hands and quickly individually questioned to determine the reason for their inability to serve. A large percentage of these people are quickly dispensed with and then people are brought out individually from the “able to serve” pool to be questioned to determine their suitability for serving on the particular case.
The length of individual voir dire varies greatly: a simple misdemeanor or less-serious felony jury can picked within a day. Murder juries can take over a week or so. Capital juries naturally take longer.
I have long argued that individual voir dire is preferable to group voir dire. Human nature is such that we are more likely to be honest in our beliefs when we are not being compared to those “similarly situated” to us. Besides, really the only purpose for group voir dire is to indoctrinate jurors and educate the jury, a point which Norm claims is one of the abuses of individual voir dire.
But there are several other problems with his position. He starts with this paragraph:
In every other jurisdiction nationally, juries are selected in a group voir dire. Questions are put to potential panelists to see whether they can be fair and impartial in the case for which they may be selected. The group method permits folks to sit with their peers to answer questions about bias or prejudice. A jury can be picked by this method, even in a case of some complexity, in a matter of hours.
That’s just patently false.
High-risk sex offenders still have nowhere to go
Dec 22nd
Two years ago (and how time flies!) I wrote about the lack of any real residential inpatient options for high risk sex offenders in Connecticut. As of today, nothing has changed. The man whose case prompted the prior post is set to be released from custody on Christmas eve and – surprise, surprise! – he’s most likely going to end up in a shelter.
And even that’s not certain.
Instead, 52-year-old Ransome Lee Moody will be waiting in line for a bed at Immanuel Baptist Homeless Shelter in New Haven, a place where indigent offenders who have done their time often go for housing when there are no other options.
Now Moody is not a nice guy. Having spent 32 years of his 52 year life behind bars for various sexual and violent crimes, it’s clear that there’s a problem and he’s a danger either to himself or to society. So it would be appropriate if there were a place to house people like him, which would provide them the appropriate treatment and security and allow them to successfully integrate back into society, if possible.
Such a place was envisioned by the legislature – perhaps the only good thing to come out of the wholesale *cough*bullshit*cough* “reforms” to the criminal justice system in the wake of the Cheshire murders.
So long, farewell, don’t let the door hit you on your way out
Nov 10th
[Alternate post titles: So long and thanks for all the blog fodder; This just in: The Law now has a weak pulse]
So, it’s probably unnatural and unhealthy to be so giddy upon learning that Gov. Rell has decided not to seek re-election, but as most of you know, I can’t stand the woman. And that’s putting it mildly. I let out an audible yell yesterday when Ann Nyberg tweeted that she wasn’t going to run. My colleagues looked at me, much like they always do, like I had three heads. So maybe my disdain of the American Idol Governor knows no bounds.
But there’s good reason. After all, she has singlehandedly done so much to create such a disregard for the law and the rule of law, that sometimes I wonder who is worse: the law-breaking “criminals” she sought to protect our white community from or the law-ignoring bureaucrat.
She was the most dangerous of the “tough on crime” pols: sweet, nurturing, grandmotherly. She would lull everyone into sleep with her gentle affect and then decree the most outrageous acts of lawlessness this State has seen this decade.
First, there was Cheshire. Oh boy was there Cheshire. The brutal crimes in a white suburban neighborhood served not only to rouse the Governor from her mid-term siesta, but also had the side-effect of completely blinding her to common sense, and well, the rule of law. So the first thing she decided to do (well, sort of) was ban parole. That lasted for 4 months and resulted in severe overcrowding and a tremendous burden on state resources. That’s when Colin McEnroe coined the moniker “The American Idol Governor“. I still can’t get enough of that. She then proposed some truly scary and not very well thought out “reforms” of the criminal justice system, some of which unfortunately made it into law. Then she wanted CT to have a three-strikes law, in the face of all scientific research on its uselessness. Then came the unhinging, aka, “The David Pollitt Project“. I’m not even going to touch that. And finally, the veto of the death penalty abolition bill.
I write all of this, not to disparage her, but to remind myself and you – voters all – of the absolute effing nonsense we’ve had to put up with these past few years. Will any of the people who’ve announced they’re running for Governor be any better? They almost have to, don’t they, because it can’t get much worse than this.
So while I wish her well in her personal life and hope that her health remains strong, I will not be sad to see her become former Governor Rell. I’m not sure there was a person less equipped to take on that job.
And now, on to the big question. What needs to be done? The first response is obvious: abolish the death penalty. But there are so many more things that need to be changed about the criminal justice system in our State. In my mind, there’s only one candidate who is qualified to do that. So, you guys can be the first to hear it: I am hereby announcing my candidacy for the Governor of the State of Connecticut and I will be running on the Smart on Crime platform for the “It must be easy; she did it for so long” party.
More details about the, well, details of my platform will follow in subsequent posts. I’m now going to go and do a cartwheel.
Depends on what “actually present” means
Mar 15th
Last year, in the wake of the Cheshire murders, the legislature got it into their heads that our current Burglary statutes weren’t sufficient to prosecute the act of a home invasion1. While not true, they felt there had to be some response to the murders and as a result, passed the home invasion statute.
There isn’t much difference between the Burglary statute and the “home invasion” statute. But let’s take it one step at a time. Here are the elements of the home invasion statute:
- A person
- Enters or remains unlawfully
- In a dwelling
- While a person other than a participant
- Is “actually present” in that dwelling
- The “offender” has the intent to commit a crime
- AND
- In the course of committing “the offense”
- either commits or attempts to commit a felony
- against “the person” of 4 & 5 above
- OR
- the “offender” is armed with explosives or a DW or a DI
- “course of committing” is either an act or attempt
- or in flight thereafter.
More, including a poll, after the jump.
In which Gideon opposes the abolition of the death penalty
Mar 2nd
Now, now, rest your beating heart. I don’t really oppose abolition of the death penalty (don’t be silly). It is merely this abomination of a bill that I oppose. This bill was scheduled for a public hearing today, but given the gruesome weather we had, the hearing has been postponed to Wednesday.
The bill calls for prospective abolition of the death penalty. It is precisely this hackneyed idea that I cannot in good conscience support. Here is the pertinent new subsection of the bill:
Sec. 5. Subsection (a) of section 53a-46a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective from passage):
(a) A person shall be subjected to the penalty of death for a capital felony committed prior to the effective date of this section only if a hearing is held in accordance with the provisions of this section.
That’s one of the most absurd pieces of legislation that I have seen in a bit. There are currently 10 (11?) members of CT’s death row and there are many, many more “capital” prosecutions currently pending in the State of CT. None of those would fall under this new bill and all of those defendants would still be subject to the death penalty.
Gideon’s suggestions for reducing the budget deficit in CT
Feb 9th
I know no one asked, but I am nothing if not a bloviator, so these are my suggestions for reducing (even in small part) the current budget deficit that CT faces. In the style of a letter to our Governor.
Dear Governor Rell,
You and I haven’t always gotten along. In fact, it’s no secret that I don’t like your views on criminal justice and your disregard for the “rule of law”. But these are strange times and strange times make strange bedfellows – or in our case, strange letter writers and recipients.
So, in the spirit of bi-partisanship so convincingly advocated for by our C-in-C, I propose the following changes that could save the State some money, even if it isn’t much. Perhaps it can save a job or two.
New CT bill limits suicidal thoughts to 6 months max
Dec 17th
Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? That’s exactly the reaction I had when I read this article yesterday. Co-chair of the Judiciary Committee Mike Lawlor claims that the State has spent between $200,00 and $500,00o on “one on one” monitoring of Steven Hayes (one of the accused in the Cheshire murders) since last July. Hayes is on suicide watch and apparently the DOC has assigned a correctional officer to stand outside his cell to watch over him.
Lawlor made a FOIA request to Comm’r Lantz, seeking details of this expenditure.
Bailout where it’s needed: public defender systems
Nov 14th
The last few months have brought us a crashing economy and massive government bailouts to the tune of 34 trazillion dollars (it’s a real amount). As banks fail and the auto industry fails and the real estate market plumbs the depths of depression, an equally frightening scenario is unfolding in states throughout the country: the crumbling of indigent defense systems.
Just like the economy, however, this failure of the legal system should come as no surprise. Back in May, I wrote about the mess in Minnesota (and followed up with a June post about Florida) [full coverage here] and our sister blog PD Stuff has been covering money problems for years. Nevada will face some problems starting next year. Things don’t look all rosy in Connecticut, either, as legal aid is taking a hit.
The NYT piece is rightly drawing a lot of attention in the blawgosphere. Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams devoted their recent podcast to this problem by interviewing the Miami public defender Bennett Brummer and NLADA research director David Carroll. [The podcast is at the end of this post.]
This is a very serious problem. As funding for indigent defense declines with no corresponding declines in prosecutions, defendants will experience greater wait times for their trials, resources will be stretched thin and the criminal justice system will produce far more wrongful convictions. There will not be enough time to conduct proper investigations, to hire experts and, frankly, to go to trial.
If a public defender has an obscene number of clients, a number which grows every day, there will a lot of pressure to resolve cases without much advocacy. This is where the rest of the justice system needs to step up. Prosecutors need to take their duty to seek justice more seriously and drop the pursuit of “wins”. Judges need to take a more mediation-oriented approach and broker fair deals and not permit the State to demand the moon.
From the NYTimes piece:
Mr. Jones, in between hushed conversations with clients in the hallway or the holding pen, said he wished he had more time to investigate cases and could go to trial more often, rather than accepting the police version of events and then, after a short discussion, helping his clients make a life-altering deal.
“I’d love to have time to visit the crime scene and do more legal research,” Mr. Jones said.
No defendant should ever have to put up with this. No lawyer should ever be in a position where he is advising a client based on incomplete information. This is not only a money issue, but a Constitutional issue. Skimping on public defenders offices now will only postpone the problem, because there will be a greater number of successful habeas corpus petitions or appeals, which will result in new prosecutions.
Or worse: Federal courts will have to step in and force the state to pay for adequate funding, something no one really wants. So you know, might as well bail them out now, right Prez-elect Obama? Seriously, who better to give federal money to? The banks that set up their own downfall? The auto-industry that refused to innovate? Or the hardworking public defenders that protect your and my rights, day in and day out, doing a community service for little money?
But these are tough economic times. Money is drying up. Perhaps this is a very appropriate opportunity to look at truly reforming the criminal justice system. Let’s provide more alternatives to incarceration and true rehabilitation, let’s not keep non-violent offenders in jail any longer than we absolutely need to. As costs of the prison complex go down, there will be more money to fund the defense of the innocent man. We should start to look at the exorbitant sentences handed down by judges. Do we need a 40 year sentence when a 15 year sentence should do? Do we have to be punitive in our punishments? Must people be on probation for 35 years? A true reformation of the criminal justice system would go a long way towards alleviating these woes.
Then, of course, there’s the death penalty.
Maybe the people have spoken on three-strikes
Nov 9th
Last July, the triple homicides in Cheshire sparked a state-wide debate on three strikes laws, with several bills being proposed and politicians taking sides. A true three strikes bill was ultimately defeated, but backers of the constitutional convention wanted to use that avenue to pass another one.
Perhaps the voters have already spoken. Read this fascinating piece from CT News Junkie about the election results viewed through the lens of three strikes:
A majority of the 58 General Assembly candidates who signed a petition supporting a three-strikes law lost on Tuesday. Here’s how it broke down:
In the Senate, 8 of 15 lost their races, while 2 of the 7 winners were uncontested.
In the House, 29 of 43 candidates lost, while just 14 won.
So will the American Idol Governor see this as a sign? Or does she just not care?
The criminal justice paradox in Connecticut
Jun 8th
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.
Connecticut criminal justice system reformed?
Apr 24th
The question mark is because I can’t tell from this piece what the heck actually happened. Shoddy, shoddy writing.
Under pressure to respond after two deadly home invasions in the past nine months, the state Senate voted early this morning to strengthen the state’s criminal law and allocate $10 million for enhanced crime-fighting.
The bill passed by 32 to 3 at about 2:20 a.m. Thursday after the Senate Democrats withdrew a previous amendment that had prompted a sharply bitter debate with Republicans. The final version gained bipartisan support after lawmakers said the bill would authorize a judge to double the penalty following a second violent crime and triple the penalty after a third offense – up to a maximum of life in prison for a violent felon.
The debate on the three-strikes bill had the usual rhetoric from the Republicans that criminals are not being punished. The Dems responded with “bumper sticker politics”.
So what happened, exactly?
Earlier in the evening, the Republicans had verbally pummeled the original bill on the Senate floor, saying that it would actually weaken the state’s laws for violent crimes. Following that clash, Democrats — who hold the majority in the chamber — suddenly postponed the debate and called for a recess shortly before 11:30 p.m. The chamber reconvened later, and the “three strikes” debate pushed the vote past 2 a.m. Thursday.
“This is an extraordinary change in our public policy,” McDonald said, adding that criminals “will be punished in extraordinary ways.”
But Sen. John Kissel, an Enfield Republican, said the original bill was so badly written that it would not accomplish the legislature’s tough-on-crime goals and, in fact, would backfire.
“I guess I’m missing something,” Kissel said. “It actually is weaker addressing persistent dangerous felony offenders. … This amendment pushes us backward. How can this be tougher on criminals? It’s not.”
Out of 21 violent crimes mentioned in the original bill, the maximum prison sentence would actually be reduced for eight of them, Kissel said. That includes second-degree manslaughter with a firearm, among others.
Oh well, that’s interesting. Pray tell us, Courant, why these sentences would be reduced and what other crimes?
No? That’s not important to the narrative? Oh. Okay. Well, then tell us what the final version of the bill was.
Besides streamlining the law, the bill provides money for more prosecutors, public defenders and probation officers, along with expanding the state’s “cold case” unit and providing additional re-entry programs for criminals who are released from prison.
“So many people fail on probation,” said Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, a New Haven Democrat. “So many people fail on parole.”
But McKinney said he was stunned when he read the original five-page bill. Currently, a criminal could receive 40 years in prison for compelling someone to have sex at gunpoint. The bill, crafted by Democrats, would reduce that penalty to 20 years, he said.
Wait. I’m confused. Is this the original version, the amendment that was scrapped or the final version? Don’t know? I don’t either. Good job there, Chris Keating, Capitol Bureau Chief. Now I know less than I did when I started reading your story.
Can you condense all of this into bullet points for stupid old me?
# $5,492,000 to improve supervision of sex offenders who are on probation, including upgraded lie-detector and global-positioning-system (GPS) technologies. The money also would be used for truancy prevention and helping officials serve warrants on probation violators.
# $2,147,000 to hire more parole officers and prison guards, along plus expanding the use of GPS technology to track criminals who are on parole.
# $910,000 for the state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services to provide supportive housing and for improving the women’s jail-diversion program, among others.
# $681,000 to the Division of Criminal Justice for more prosecutors and better computers.
# $514,000 to hire more employees for the state police major crime squad.
# $252,000 to the Public Defender Service Commission for lawyers to handle more prosecutions and aide indigent criminals.
Yet nothing on penalties. Sigh.
Oh, by the way Chris Keating, Capitol Bureau Chief, the correct term would have been “indigent defendants“, not criminals. Unless, of course, this bill removed the presumption of innocence. Which I have no way of knowing whether it did or not, because I didn’t understand anything you wrote.
Anyone have a link to the actual bill that was passed?
Second Chance in Connecticut?
Apr 9th
I have long supported greater prisoner re-entry and rehabilitation programs (as you all may know), so I was happy to see that President Bush will sign the Second Chance Act today.
In a sharp change in attitudes about incarceration, many states and private groups have recently experimented with “re-entry” programs to help released prisoners fit back into their communities and avoid new crime.
The strategy will get a major boost this week. President Bush is to sign the Second Chance Act in a public ceremony on Wednesday, making rehabilitation a central goal of the federal justice system. In a sign of how far the pendulum has swung, the measure passed Congress with nearly unanimous bipartisan support.
With the new law, the federal government is to provide more money and leadership in a field where progress is likely to be difficult at best, experts agree.The law authorizes the spending of $165 million a year for grants to promote and experiment with support services and methods to assess which offenders are more like to commit more crimes.
So will the passage of this bill have any impact in Connecticut and will Connecticut take re-entry programs and rehabilitation more seriously? It seems that there may be a chance. Mike Lawlor, judiciary committee co-chair, was “active” in the Council of State Governments and he has been pushing for a similar focus on re-entry in Connecticut and will be in attendance at the bill signing ceremony today.
While much of the criminal justice debate in Connecticut has centered around mandatory-minimums and harsh three-strikes laws, there apparently is more going on that the press has not cared to report.
But state House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero, R-Norwalk, said that behind those disagreements are wide support for re-entry programs backed by Lawlor, co-chairman of the legislature’s judiciary committee.
“We have a ton in common,” he said.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s commissioner of correction, Theresa Lantz, has repeatedly testified in legislative hearings that supervised-release programs are highly effective. Like most governors, Rell has shown little interest in an expensive prison expansion program.
Michael Thompson, director of the Justice Center at the Council of State Governments, said the new push for re-entry programs grew from a realization in the states that a multi-billion-dollar expansion of prisons alone cannot check crime.
Let us hope that this is indeed true and that the legislature will take re-entry seriously. It is foolish to think that we can prevent crime and that the only solution is to lock people up for long periods of time. The sooner we turn our focus and resources to providing released inmates the tools with which to integrate into society, the sooner we start making our communities safer.
Focus starting to shift in crim justice “reform”
Apr 4th
Two news stories today that allow me to hope, just a little bit, that perhaps some sense is seeping into the Capitol. The first proclaims boldly that the suspect in the recent New Britain home invasion had “little rehab for sex offense”.
The ex-convict accused in this week’s fatal New Britain home invasion dropped out of a sex offender treatment program during a 10-year prison stint that involved seemingly little rehabilitation, according to prison and parole documents.
That’s actually inaccurate – he had to leave the program because he was transferred to another facility.
But Williams’ case is now raising questions about whether the state correctional system properly prepares an inmate for eventual release.
“Whenever we run into those situations that are so horrific, it raises the question if our correctional system is performing to the extent that it can,” said state Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, a member of the judiciary committee.
“I think we need to make a concerted effort to benchmark what that optimum program level should be in the Department of Correction, and then see how far away from that level we are,” Kissel said.
Very far, Senator, very far.
Yet there are some that still can’t tell front from down. DOC rep Brian Garnett’s statements remind me of the famed Iraqi minister of (dis)information:
In general, Garnett said, inmates, “can participate in as many programs as they want and refuse to participate in programs.”
“You can’t force an offender to take part in a program,” he said. “You can make them sit in the room, but if they’re not going to engage in participating in the program, all you’re doing is wasting a chair.”
“Can participate” here should be taken to mean “could participate if it weren’t for severe overcrowding and lack of room, facilities and spots in programs”.
Ooops. There’s no such thing as prison overcrowding. My bad.
State Rep. Michael Lawlor, D- East Haven, co-chairman of the judiciary committee, said the case points to the need for more rehabilitative services in prison, but also housing for sex offenders upon release from jail and prison because few want to take them.
“They did not let him out early,” Lawlor said. “Now he finishes his sentence and he’s on probation.”
“What should you do?” Lawlor said. “You should have a place you can force him to go while he’s on probation. No such place exists. That is the problem.”
And no one wants these places in their towns.
The second story is about Gov. Rell’s top secret meeting with law enforcement yesterday (from which Dem legislators – who control the legislature – were excluded). After that meeting, there were no calls for three-strikes laws, but rather a call to streamline the persistent offender statutes and more funding for GPS monitoring.
“The current persistent felony offender law is like the tax code,” said [Chief State's Attorney Kevin] Kane, a longtime prosecutor who stood next to Rell at the afternoon press conference. “You’ve got to be a Philadelphia lawyer to understand it. … If I have a hard time reading it — the number of times I’ve read it — imagine how a judge feels when he’s reading it pretrial.”
Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, the highest-ranking senator, said “there’s no reason why we can’t work with the governor” on her request to increase funding for global positioning system, or GPS, monitoring to track convicted sex offenders with bracelets that could monitor their movements.
Williams also favors more money for re-entry programs for those released from prison and for more beds for sex offenders after their release.
“I would like to think we’re moving beyond the finger-pointing stage,” Williams, of Brooklyn, said. “My goal and hope is to move beyond the political rhetoric.”
Me too, Senator, me too…
To inject some lightheartedness into a serious discussion, here’s Amy Winehouse:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD5sahXoj0U[/youtube]
There must be something in the water
Apr 3rd
What is it in Connecticut’s water that makes some people batty? Whatever it is, it seems to have some staying power. After Cheshire and more recently the killing in New Britain, Connecticut Congressman Chris Murphy has announced plans to introduce legislation making “home invasion” a Federal crime. From his press release, a copy of which is posted at CTLP:
Today, Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5) announced a pair of legislative initiatives designed to make home invasion a federal crime and provide additional federal resources and technology to parole and probation officials. Connecticut residents have witnessed two heinous home invasions and murders in less than a year – one just this weekend in New Britain, and one in July in Cheshire.
Murphy’s proposal intends to:
- make home invasion a federal crime;
- improve the FBI’s tracking of home invasions across the country;
- improve federal resources for parole and probation activities, including federal funds for the use of GPS monitoring devices and the hiring of additional parole and probation officers;
- And create a national training center for parole and probation officials.
“Connecticut has been through enough this year. These senseless crimes have hurt so much more than our homes and families – they have shattered our sense of safety and security in our communities. It’s time for the federal government to provide more assistance to the states to keep us safe,” said Murphy.
Now, I’m no Constitutional scholar and I know less about Federalism, but this quote sums up the nutiness of his proposal (thanks to a post on a local listserve):
“The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, and there is no better example of the police power, which the Founders undeniably left reposed in the States and denied the central government, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims. Congress therefore may not regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce.”
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). So what’s the basis here for Federal legislation? I guess if there was a firearm that was used. But wouldn’t there have to be a showing that the firearm crossed state borders? So we would be talking about a very, very small subset of home invasions.
The real reason, I suspect, is to look good. Two of the districts he represents happen to be the scenes of horrific crimes.
However, is there no one advising him? It didn’t occur to him that this would not fall under Federal jurisdiction? Waste taxpayer money and others’ time to look good?
What’s that deficit at now?
recent comments