cheshire
Judiciary Committee announces speakers for upcoming hearing
Sep 5th
The Judiciary Committee has announced speakers for its upcoming hearing on parole and sentencing laws in Connecticut in the aftermath of the Cheshire killings. I was sent the press release earlier today, which provides the following information:
“We will hear from state officials who will update the committee on recent administrative and procedural changes in our parole system that have been implemented in the aftermath of the Cheshire tragedy,” Sen. McDonald said. “Following that, the committee will be able to speak with a leading California prosecutor, who is also currently the head of the national prosecutors’ association, and two national corrections officials regarding corrections and parole reforms in other states.”
“It is important to stress that our committee is working in a bi-partisan manner as we proceed to evaluate and move forward with proposals,” Rep. Lawlor explained. “This forum will give everyone an opportunity to learn a lot about plea bargaining, sentencing, corrections and parole in Connecticut and around the country. We will seek fully-drafted legislative proposals from legislators and others after the hearing. Following this, fiscal notes and summaries for those proposals will be made available, and we will schedule a full public hearing on them as soon as possible.”
They have also set out “goals” for this hearing:
- Establish a new crime of “home invasion” and make it clear that it is a violent offense.
- Re-write the current “persistent offender” and “three strikes” laws to make them more useable and require mandatory sentences.
- Provide full funding for equipment and parole/probation officers that will allow for expanded use of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology and other mandatory supervision for non-violent offenders to make room in prisons for violent, serious repeat offenders.
- Provide full funding for equipment and parole/probation officers that will allow for GPS monitoring during probation or parole for persons convicted of a home invasion.
- Provide full public access to conviction information, including probation and parole information, for all serious offenders, including persons convicted of home invasion.
- Ensure interoperability of all criminal justice databases to allow police, prosecutors, probation, parole, corrections, and judicial officials to communicate with one another electronically regarding all offenders and cases.
The following speakers are confirmed:
Robert Farr, Chairman of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles.
Lisa Holden, Co-Chair of Governor Rell’s Sentencing and Parole Review Task Force and Executive Director of the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc.
Kevin Kane, Chief State’s Attorney.
Theresa Lantz, Commissioner of the Department of Correction.
Not surprisingly, no one from the defense bar or the public defender’s office.
National criminal justice officials confirmed to testify at the hearing:
James P. Fox is the District Attorney of California’s San Mateo County. He was first elected to this position in January 1983 and has been re-elected to every four years since. He also currently serves as the President of the National District Attorney’s Association. Prior to that, he was the President of the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA). Since 1991, he has been Chairman of the CDAA Legislative Committee.
Michael P. Jacobson is the current Director of the Vera Institute of Justice. Under former New York City Mayor Rudolf Giuliani, he served as Commissioner of New York City’s Department of Correction from 1995 to 1998, and as Commissioner of the City’s Department of Probation from 1992 to 1996. Jacobson was appointed last year by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to serve on a panel of national experts to evaluate California’s prison overcrowding and parolee recidivism problems.
George Keiser is Chief of the Community Corrections/Prisons Division of the National Institute of Corrections, which is part of the Federal Bureau of Prisons within the United States Department of Justice. He oversees NIC programs and services provided to 50 state departments of corrections and more than 1,400 state prisons in the U.S., commonwealths, and territories.
The insidious underbelly of three strikes laws and zero tolerance
Aug 19th
Today’s Courant has this powerful piece by Richard Rapaport about the zero tolerance and three-strike frenzy whipping through Connecticut.
Welcome to ZT Connecticut. “ZT,” if you don’t know, stands for zero tolerance. It is a philosophy and mindset invoked to justify actions ranging from the expulsion of students for bringing alcohol-based mouthwash to school, to campaigns to pass “three strikes” laws in response to last month’s heinous murders in Cheshire.
Culled from the engineering lexicon, the slogan “zero tolerance” was trotted out in 1973 as Watergate’s noose tightened and Nixon Justice Department officials needed a tough-sounding anti-crime slogan. In the ’80s, the Navy adopted ZT to add rhetorical muscle to a purge of seagoing potheads.
From there, ZT entered civilian drug enforcement and then locked its tentacles around the justice system in the guise of “zero tolerance for crime.”
This same ZT sub-species has been roused from slumber this summer in Connecticut to induce normally even-keeled citizens to jump on the “three strikes” bandwagon, and to create a platform for those who see no shame in advancing their own social agenda in the face of the tragedy in Cheshire.
So I did a simple search for three strikes laws on Google and found the following:
A tale of two cities: Hartford and Cheshire
Aug 13th
The Cheshire killings have gotten a lot of press and so today, activists in Hartford held a press conference. Undercurrents has the story and the statement:
We are here today because we are outraged, shocked and saddened by the recent deaths in our state. We grieve with the Hawke-Petit family in Cheshire as well as with the numerous families throughout the state of Connecticut who have had to deal with the senseless murders of their loved ones.
We are also here to question the disparity of value assigned to certain lives. It has been observed that murders in Hartford, where the median household income is $22,140, garner none of the fanfare that the tragedy in Cheshire, a town with a median household income of $85,664, has received.
We are sure that the horrific nature of the Cheshire home invasion contributed to the local as well as national media coverage of this tragedy. And we are sure that this tragedy hit home for many people who live in neighborhoods similar to the one that the Hawke-Petit family lived in. But we are unsure as to why murders that are just as random and senseless in our inner-cities don’t garner the same attention or outpouring of grief. Xion Davidson and Kent McLaurin were gunned down and killed less than a month ago, and their murders have been all but forgotten by the major news outlets, yet we are inundated daily with stories of how the murders in Cheshire are affecting the lives of the people of Connecticut.
Have we as a society become so far removed from each other that we can only identify and grieve over the lives of those who share our own background?
Burglary on par with murder
Aug 10th
Legislators are proposing “The Petit Home Invasion Protection Act” and one of the options they will consider is increasing the penalty for Burglary to 25 to life.
Connecticut has only one other felony with that kind of punishment: Murder.
This stiffer punishment being proposed can be easily accomplished by using some of the other statues already on the books and I’m not talking about persistent offender statutes.
Let’s take a look at burglary:
When I grow up
Aug 8th
I want to be him:
“I’m the head of the [public defenders']office for New Haven and I’m a vocal anti-death-penalty person in the community,” [Tom] Ullmann said. “It would be a terrible message if I didn’t take this case. There was never any hesitation in my mind about taking it. As a lawyer, I would always rather be on the side that’s advocating for someone’s life rather than planning, plotting, strategizing and intending to kill someone.”
“Frankly, I never thought I’d have to deal with another death-penalty case in New Haven,” Ullmann said Tuesday in a telephone interview from a conference in Oklahoma City. Culligan represented Hayes in court Tuesday.
“However, the responsibility is pretty clear,” said Ullmann, who participated in a protest march outside the prison where serial killer Michael Ross was executed in 2005. He also was among a group of defense lawyers who called for an end to the death penalty at the state Capitol that year.
“I don’t look at that responsibility as just providing adequate counsel but providing zealous and aggressive representation,” Ullmann said. “And that is what we intend to do. We ultimately will be expending an incredible number of resources to prepare whatever defense there is, including saving Mr. Hayes’ life.”
More here
Tough on crime: At what cost?
Aug 7th
As the two Cheshire suspects make their first appearance in Part A today and as calls for tougher penalties and stricter parole regulations make the rounds, it is important to remind ourselves of the cost that comes with being “tough on crime”. For those who have been around long enough, this smacks of the measures taken by the state in the 80s. The Waterbury Republican-American has this detailed story on the costs involved and the consequences on the state’s budget:
While people still mourn the dead and seethe over crime, there has been little discussion of the costs and consequences of getting tougher on crime and criminals.
Yet, the price tag and the implications are considerable.
“To be sure, every citizen must understand that major changes, whether in longer sentences or more monitoring, comes with a price tag. A big one. Potentially hundreds of millions of tax dollars,” House Speaker James A. Amann, D-Milford, said.
In the early 80′s, Connecticut eliminated parole and changed the state’s sentencing structure, going from indeterminate sentences to definite sentences. This led to significant overcrowding and a massive expansion of prisons in Connecticut.
Cheshire accused parole records released: Crack and crystal meth rear their ugly heads
Aug 3rd
Following Gov. Rell’s order yesterday, the parole board released almost 500 pages worth of parole records for Hayes and Komisarjevsky.
Their histories of chronic drug abuse are well documented in those records. The parole board did not release the two men’s mental health recordsor any records of arrest that did not result in convictions. The board also withheld 15 pages of parole records for Hayes and one page for Komisarjevsky, which prosecutors asked be withheld pending review.
Hayes had been released to a Hartford halfway house in June 2006, in preparation for his scheduled parole date of Feb. 1 of this year. But after a urine test on Nov. 21, 2006, showed he had used cocaine, he was sent back to prison.
Let’s hope these records clear up one misconception. Hayes had a criminal record; Komisarjevsky did not.
Komisarjevsky had no criminal record prior to his arrest in March 2002 on multiple burglary counts, including nighttime burglaries into occupied homes. He was sentenced to nine years in prison on 21 burglary and related counts.
More after the jump
Cheshire killings and parole fallout recap
Aug 2nd
A lot has happened in the last few days, so after one more new item, here’s a recap of all my posts on this topic.
According to this story in today’s Courant, the younger of the accused, Komisarjevsky was under GPS monitoring for 120 days after his release. The monitoring condition expired 4 days before the incident in Cheshire.
“It is not unusual for people who are leaving prison and are on parole to be monitored for a period of time,” [State Rep.] Lawlor said. “The normal period is 90 days. The officer has the option to shorten it or lengthen it. They opted in this case to lengthen it to 120 days.”
Komisarjevsky kept his curfews and met other conditions of parole, so the bracelet was removed July 19. Lawlor said he believes that Komisarjevsky either would not have been paroled or would have been subject to longer monitoring had parole officials known of his propensity for burglarizing occupied homes at night.
Oh, one more thing: His “prior record” didn’t exist. His sentencing in 2002 was his first brush with the system. His “history of home invasions” was limited to the 12 burglaries that led to his conviction in 2002. Nothing prior to that. So it is a bit misleading to say that parole didn’t have his record. They did. It comprised the offenses for which he was serving a sentence.
I will continue to disagree with the Representative in his assessment there, but this is another indication that parole was doing all it could.
Here is all my coverage on this:
More on Cheshire killings
Aug 1st
The transcript of the younger of the two accused in the Cheshire killings has been released. Read it for yourself [pdf] and decide if this would have made any difference to parole’s decision. While Republicans are calling for immediate action, State Democrats seem to be suggesting that any steps should wait for the next legislative session, so they can be thought out and measured.
Lawlor, a Democrat from East Haven who will help lead that inquiry as a judiciary co-chairman, said many of the legislative proposals raised in recent days would not necessarily have stopped the attack. But Lawlor agrees with Rell in reclassifying some burglaries as violent crimes.
House Speaker Jim Amann said that lawmakers are preparing for hearings on the system’s shortcomings, how to improve communication and possibly stiffening penalties for those who commit nighttime burglaries.
Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane had this to say:
Prosecutors now will make sure parole officials not only have sentencing transcripts, but presentence investigations and relevant police reports.
Kane said prosecutors had not routinely sent the transcripts for several reasons. A backlog in obtaining trial transcripts had delayed the appeals process, and sentencing transcripts rarely offered valuable insights to parole officials, he said.
Most sentencings resulting from plea agreements – the manner in which most criminal cases are resolved – are pro forma proceedings, he said.
“So getting a sentencing transcript in many cases would not be helpful,” Kane said.
Norm Pattis at C&F has re-emerged and is blogging up a storm about it. CTLP also has more.
Death charged
Jul 26th
Update: I don’t want to write a new post, so I’ll just add on here. Things are getting stranger. Bob Farr can’t get out of his own way:
Earlier this week, Robert Farr, chairman of the Connecticut Board of Pardons and Parole, said that the release of the two men was appropriate based on the available evidence.
Farr then said the board didn’t have all the facts on Komisarjevsky’s background when it chose to parole him. If it had, he said, the board’s decision might have been different. Farr has said that the board had no idea a Superior Court judge had called Komisarjevsky a “cold, calculating predator” during a 2002 sentencing because a transcript of the sentencing was not included in his parole file, even though state law required it to be there.
I’ve seen worse things said during sentencing. Nasty things get said during sentencing. I very much doubt that the parole board would have denied parole based on comments at sentencing. I do find funny the notion that they didn’t have the transcript and the implication that they couldn’t do anything about it. It wouldn’t have been the first time that they canceled or postponed a parole hearing for want of documentation.
Now Gov. Rell is jumping into the act:
Rell said she is forming a special panel to review not only how Komisarjevsky and Hayes were paroled, but also to take a look at the entire process of who gets released from state prisons.
“I want a top-to-bottom assessment of all the procedures and processes involved in charging, sentencing and releasing those convicted of crimes in Connecticut. I want the facts of the Cheshire case to be used as a touchstone during the course of this examination,” she said.
I’m not quite sure what that second paragraph means. She wants a review of the judicial system in CT? Okay…
And Rep. Caligiuri has another idea:
Word that the parole board released Hayes and Komisarjevsky based on incomplete case information and without a full hearing prompted one state senator to call for an immediate moratorium on further parole decisions until a full review is complete.
“I think the entire parole process seems to be in shambles,” said Sen. Sam Caligiuri, R-Waterbury. “We can’t afford to have another mistake made. We can’t afford to have another person go out on parole until the board of parole gets its act together.”
Sigh. Screw you Hayes and Komisarjevsky.
Original: As expected, New Haven State’s Attorney Michael Dearington has charged Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky with six capital felonies each in the triple homicides in Cheshire, CT [previous coverage here].
As a colleague pointed out today, the question now becomes: Can they get a fair trial an impartial jury anywhere in this State given the publicity this crime has received?
Technorati Tags: death penalty, connecticut, triple homicide, william petit
Triple homicide behind calls for review of parole system. Or “Ugh.”
Jul 25th
I resisted. I tried very hard. I clenched my fists. I got up and walked away from the computer. I let it be for a few days, thinking it would pass. Then I read this story.
Heinous, depraved, disgusting crimes no doubt. Do they warrant a review of the parole system? Absolutely not. [That's not to say that the parole system doesn't warrant reviewing, but my point is that this should not be the sole cause. There are plenty of things wrong with the parole system here.] Both men had lengthy criminal records, but the crimes were non-violent. In Connecticut, there are two eligibility classes: 50% (non-violent) and 85% (violent).
Here’s the thing, though: Even if you’re convicted of a non-violent offense, parole has the authority to (and frequently does) classify you as violent based on history, facts of the case, even nolled or dismissed charges. In some cases, the history stretches back 10 years. Their “unofficial” policy is that if an individual has two violent felony convictions in the last 10 years, then even if the current conviction is non-violent, they are automatically classified at 85%. I have previously written about CT’s parole system here.
One of these guys had served almost 4 years of a 5 year sentence and the other had served half of a nine year sentence. By all accounts, they were model inmates and not a hint of violence in their backgrounds.
Bob Farr, Chairman of the Board of Pardons and Paroles said:
“Both offenders were deemed to be appropriate candidates for supervised parole based on their criminal history, which involved the minimum level of violence.”
“The board took a look at the history. They took a look at crimes and whether they were violent offenses, and under most standards, the individuals had no history of violent crimes they have now been charged with.
A Department of Correction spokesperson had this to say:
“Both were on a weekly reporting schedule with their parole officers and had been in full compliance with the requirements of their release, including being employed on a full-time basis.”
Yet state lawmakers are calling for a “review of parole procedures”. I hate to say it and I feel awful doing so, given the tragedies, but sometimes, these things happen. You cannot control it. As much as I dislike parole policies in Connecticut, I cannot blame them here. They are not soothsayers; they cannot see into the future.
“How do we review candidates for parole? Even though violence is not in their past record, but it shows what they can do in the future. We have to ask that question,” [State Rep.] Caligiuri said.
Read that again. Tell me if that makes any sense. Violence is not in their past, but it (what is it?) shows what they can do in the future. What shows what?
He also said
“…these men seem to have conspired to commit even more heinous crimes, instead of being rehabilitated in the state system.”
Ah, there you have it. Although he doesn’t realize he’s saying it, the question is truly: Do prisons rehabilitate and do our prisons rehabilitate? What is being done in correctional facilities in Connecticut to ensure that inmates re-enter society as productive, responsible members? Frankly, given the state of overcrowding in facilities, how much can they do?
Which is what makes this State Rep’s suggestion mind boggling:
State Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield, said Wednesday that in light of the Cheshire home invasion, the state needs to reassess the penalties for those convicted of burglary.
Kissel, who serves as a member of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee as well as chairman of the Connecticut Sentencing Task Forece’s subcommittee on racial and ethnic disparity, said that the current law considers burglaries to be a non-violent crime. He suggested that the law be changed to require mandatory prison sentences.
Again, instead of focusing on the real problem, let’s give out harsher sentences across the board.
I’m not even going to touch the death penalty issue.
Having said all this, I would not want to be the guy who has a parole hearing scheduled in the near future.
recent comments