ct legal news
It’s 5 p.m. Do you know where your bills are?
Mar 29th
Today, at 5:00pm, the Judiciary Committee of the state legislature closed for business, just like any other day. But today is important for two reasons: 1) It was the last day on which the committee could vote on bills; 2) This marked the first year that the eyewitness identification reform bill passed and will now head to the legislature for a full vote.
There are several bills I’ve been tracking for a while now, of interest to me and the regular reader. We now know the fate of all those bills (here’s a list of all bills voted out of committee and here’s a list of those that were on the agenda).
Good news:
The biggest news, in my opinion, is that the eyewitness identification reform bill received enough votes to make it out of committee (it died in committee last year). This is a tremendous step forward in the quest for adoption of best practices in lineups and photo arrays.
In addition, the sex offender residency restriction bill was never called to vote, and so unless it’s added as an amendment to a bill that did pass, it has died. (My problems with this bill were documented in this post.)
Another year and another assault on the dignity of The Great Writ has been turned away. The habeas corpus “reform” bill also died in committee, never being called to a vote.
For the second year in a row, the Adam Walsh fearmongering and bleeding money Act also failed to make it out of committee.
The innocuously titled “Act Concerning Subpoenas for Property” also wasn’t called to a vote and went away quietly. Don’t get fooled by the title. This was a very, very dangerous investigative subpoena bill, essentially granting the state to subpoena whatever the hell they wanted from whomever they wanted, even in the absence of a pending criminal prosecution/investigation. It essentially spat in the face of the Fourth Amendment.
An act seeking to create a mandatory-minimum sentence for assault of a public safety officer made it out of committee, but if I recall correctly, without the mandatory minimum.
Three bills hell bent on pushing Connecticut closer to fulfilling Orwell’s prophecy, one to remove the statute of limitations on perjury in murder cases; one to remove the statute of limitations for hindering murder prosecutions and one making it a crime to fail to report a “serious crime” against a child.
The “sexting” bill made it out of committee. But that could be a good or bad thing depending on your point of view. Me, personally? I don’t care either way.
Bad news:
I’ve always viewed the eyewitness ID bill and the videotaping of interrogations bill as two peas in a pod. Fraternal twins, if you will. Where one goes, so should the other. Unfortunately that wasn’t the case today. I’m not even sure the videotaping of interrogations bill was called for a vote. One step at a time, I guess. There’s always next year (says he, sounding awfully like a Red Sox fan. I need a shower).
The big-ticket news item of the day is the passage of the bill eliminating the statute of limitations for civil suits in child sexual assault cases. It’s not criminal, per se, but a stupid idea nonetheless.
A statewide ban the box proposal was called for a vote, but derailed and then “held”, which is lege-speak for killed.
For the second year, a bill seeking to reduce the zone around schools within which drug offenses triggered an enhanced penalty from 1500 feet to 200 feet. In addition, the penalty would have been triggered only for sales made within school hours. This was a much needed bill and I’m sad that it died.
I’m sure there are others that I’ve missed. Which bill did you want to see make it out of committee and which bill are you glad/mad didn’t?
Judge for a day – IV
Mar 24th
“Tring tring”
“Hello, how may I help you today?”
“One robbery, please.”
“For here or to go?”
“To go, please.”
“Okay, your total is one smack on the head, plus tax.”
Fine, so that’s not exactly how the conversation went when two would-be robbers called a local bank and informed the person on the phone that they would be stopping by in a few to pick up their order of cash.
“You can’t make this stuff up,” Sgt. James Perez, Fairfield police spokesman, told the Post. “They literally called the bank and said to have the bag of money ready on the floor because they’re coming to rob the place.”
Then, true to their word, they showed up – just as police were coming to greet them.
One is a 16-year old juvenile and the other, 27, is on probation for – wait for it – robbing a bank. Prison may not have cured him of his bank-robber-itis, but it sure did teach him some manners.
[This is just an extreme example of the dire mopiness of most of our clients. An overwhelming number of clients that we here at 'a public defender' represent are sad souls, lost in the quagmire of a dead end life. Most aren't very educated and very few are even street savvy. They're just fools, for the most part, who make bad mistakes without thinking of the consequences. Drugs, alcohol and poverty play a significant role in their motivations for committing crimes. Very few of them, however, have the common courtesy to call ahead.]
So it’s time to return to one of my favorite games: judge for a day (previous installments here, here, here and here). Imagine you’re the judge who is to affix a sentence to those two simpletons. You know what I know: one is a juvenile (assume that he his record is non-existent or minimal) and the other is somewhat older and on probation for robbing a bank. Also assume that the older guy owes about 5 years on probation.
Your options are: a nolle, some form of alternative to incarceration program (see 53a-39a to 39d and other diversionary programs start here), probation for a misdemeanor, conditional discharge for a misdemeanor, probation for a felony or a CD for a felony, or just straight up time in the slammer with or without probation.
The robbery statutes are from here on down and the larceny statutes start here. The terms of incarceration are here and terms of probation are here.
So, Judge Intrepid Reader, how would you dispense your justice?
A few stray thoughts
Mar 23rd
the metaphor, stupid
Monday was a marathon day at the state legislature, with several criminal justice bills being considered. Two of the most important, in my view, were the bills to eviscerate The Great Writ (see prior post here) and Connecticut’s first attempt at residency restrictions (see previous post here). For those who want to brave through the public hearing, the entire video is here and written testimony submitted can be read here.
[A warning: this post is long, repeats some arguments I've already made and is extremely rude and vitriolic. But if you don't read it, you support terrorists.]
The habeas corpus effective suspension and evisceration bill
Chief State’s Attorney Kevin Kane testified at length (almost an hour, I think) on the habeas corpus “reform” bill. There were many, many problems with his testimony, but a few things really stuck in my craw. The entire basis for the State’s “suggestions” in the habeas reform bill seemed to be premised on two things: 1) that there is a glut of “frivolous” petitions and courts are overburdened; and 2) by moving the restrictions on the filing of habeas corpus petitions to the “front end”, rather than during the process itself, there will be a lot of weeding out and the load will be lightened.
Both are unfounded. CSA Kane went on for the better part of an hour, trumpeting the vast number of “successive petitions”, before someone on the committee had the good sense to ask him for some numbers. Just what constitutes a successive petition and what does he consider frivolous? Certainly not all petitions that are denied are not frivolous and eventually he had to admit that. Later on, during the testimony of the Deputy Chief Public Defender, we heard that a meager 4 1/2 % of all petitions were “successive”, in that petitioners had filed a prior habeas corpus petition.
But the State’s argument was premised on this straw man (if not outright lie) that the courts were dealing with a deluge of repetitive, frivolous and time consuming merit-less habeas petitions where petitioners were on their 9th or 10th bite at the apple. From what I’ve been told, there is maybe one inmate who is on his 7th or 8th petition, but that’s about it.
The second premise of the state’s position is all the more confusing and confounding.
Sex-y times at the state lege
Mar 18th
It’s the middle of the legislative season and just like all of us, the state legislature has sex on their minds. Sex related bills, I mean. No, wait, not dollars bills that you – nevermind. This is a family-friendly blog.
During public hearings to be conducted tomorrow and on Monday, the judiciary committee will consider a slew of bills focusing on sex and sex offenders. I’m here to give you the rundown on what they are and why they’re all bad (except one).
S.B. No. 33 An act concerning the registration of sexual offenders
This is, of course, the State equivalent of the awful, awful federal Adam Walsh Act. For 7 reasons why this bill is evil and must be defeated, see here.
S.B. No. 34 An act concerning computer crimes against children
This bill amends the “Enticing a Minor” statute by making it a crime to not exactly entice a minor to do anything:
or (2) display such person’s intimate parts through the use of a digital camera capable of downloading still or video images to a computer for transmission over the Internet or through the use of other available technology, or engage in a sexual act through the Internet or by telephone.
In fact, I’m not even sure that subsection (2) requires that the minor view any of these, um, intimate parts.
S.B. No. 479 (RAISED) AAC the attendance of registered sexual offenders at school functions involving their children.
Registered sex offenders are permitted to enter school property to attending school functions and/or meet with school personnel regarding their own children. That this bill is needed is the perfect example of just how stupid our sex offender laws are getting.
H.B. No. 5486 (RAISED) AAC residency restrictions for registered sexual offenders.
That this bill has been introduced comes as no surprise. The only surprise (to me) is that it took until 2010 for our state legislature to consider residency restrictions. My battle against residency restrictions is well documented. This bill has bad parts and “oh look we’re learning from other states” parts.
The bad: There’s a 2000 feet buffer zone. Which means that sex offenders will be banned from living anywhere in the state.
The “oh look we’re learning”: Grandfather clauses for those who already live somewhere within 2000 feet of any place a child may conceivably one day dream of going and for those whose houses may one day in the future fall within a 2000 feet zone.
The “good, I guess”: A violation is only a Class A misdemeanor.
H.B. No. 5533 (RAISED) AAC sexting.
Yes, sexting. That venerable institution of teens everywhere. What we used to call, back in the day, a good old-fashioned game of “doctor”.
Except this is the good bill I mentioned earlier. Thanks to Norm’s post, I see that the bill actually reduces the penalties for “sexting” from a D felony to an A misdemeanor.
The Limp Writ
Mar 18th
Since the time of the Magna Carta, prisoners have been able to challenge the legality of their incarceration by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus, long known as the Great Writ. We inherited “this powerful tool for . . . protect[ing] . . . individuals’ constitutional and statutory rights . . . from Great Britain,” which formalized it in the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679. In The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Constitution should provide for the writ “in the most ample manner” because it served as a bulwark against “arbitrary methods of prosecuting pretended offenses [and] arbitrary punishments upon arbitrary convictions.”
The drafters of the Constitution imbedded it in Article I before adopting the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has attested to the writ’s significance on many occasions. At different times, the Court has declared that habeas corpus is intended “to liberate an individual from unlawful imprisonment,” a procedure for “securing to the petitioners their constitutional rights,” and “the best and only sufficient defense of personal freedom,” which if withdrawn, “risk[s] injury to an important interest in human liberty.” Most recently, the Court described the writ of habeas corpus as a “vital instrument” to securing “freedom from unlawful restraint,” such freedom being “a fundamental precept of liberty”.
And all of that would mean absolutely nothing if a bill currently in the state legislature were to pass. A bill, that in my view, comes dangerously close to an actual suspension of the writ in certain circumstances.
That such a bill is being considered by lawmakers is a monumental slap in the face to the very principles upon which the justice system in this country was built. The bill is born of a misbegotten belief that the courts in Connecticut are “overwhelmed” with “needless” and “repetitive” habeas petitions, whereby inmates [read: criminals/scum of the earth/them, not us] “abuse” the system. Putting aside the fact that the current pending habeas petitions represent a mere 10% or so of the incarcerated population [and an even smaller percentage of total convictions in the state], the idea that a State would be willing to eviscerate so fundamental a protection without the slightest trepidation is repugnant.
Making this proposal even more jarring is the granting of The Great Writ yesterday in a case where the two petitioners were found by the court to be actually innocent after 16 years in jail [make sure you read the decision by Judge Fuger]. If this bill were to pass, it would convert the sharp scythe that the Great Writ is meant to be into a limp sword of cardboard used in middle school productions.
Let us count the ways in which this bill sticks a big middle finger right through The Great Writ and the ways in which this will only generate more litigation and require more expenditure:
The Adam Walsh fearmongering and bleeding money Act
Feb 10th
I have been in somewhat of a blog slumber. I haven’t posted in a while (and frankly, since Scott returned from his vacation, there’s no more opportunity for me to sneak in and steal his readers). But what better way to get the blood pumping and the vituperative juices returning than the news that our state Republicans and lame-duck Governor are once again introducing the Adam Walsh “burn them at the stake” Act.
I wouldn’t recommend clicking on that link. The Act is long and is sure to get your delicates in a delicate twist (unless you’re a terrorist, in which case, you win).
I’ve already written about one nonsensical aspect of this “Act” before: on the requirement that travelers through the State notify public safety of their impending passage.
There are several more that merit attention and derision, so I’ll list them first and then take them on one by one:
- The Act creates a new “tiered” system of SORN (sex offender registration and notification), dividing defendants not on their chances of re-offending, or on the particular circumstances of their offenses, but simply on the offense of conviction itself: Tier A: 15 years, Tier B: 25 years, Tier C: life. Currently, in CT, there are only two “tiers”: 10 years and life. Risk assessment is simply not a factor in either equation and that’s a huge mistake.
- The current risk of injury statute, the go-to statute for dubious allegations involving minors, would be revamped and broken up into three different statutes, each more onerous than the previous. Sexual contact with a minor under thirteen would become a Class A felony, thus lumping it together with the burglaries home invasions and murders and sexual contact with someone between thirteen and sixteen would become a Class B felony.
- The rules for exemption from registration are putrid and hollow.
- The registration requirements place a burden that is far greater than was approved by SCOTUS in Alaska and CT Dept. of Pub Safety (as distinguished by Maine’s Supreme Court): once a year for Tier 1, every 6 months for Tier 2 and every 3 months for Tier 3, all in person.
- The requirements for “transients” are incredibly laughable and courts are taking notice of the fact that it is problematic to require homeless people to register and punish them for essentially not having a home.
- The retroactive application of the registration requirements, which are already being successfully challenged.
- The cost. Oh, the cost. It shall be staggering. It shall be wasteful. It shall be just what States need in this time of financial surplus.
The seventh point is the focus of this post, which is one more step toward a Big Brother/nanny state:
Is Bysiewicz eyeing the Gov’s race again?
Jan 21st
The “does the AG have to be a lawyer” circus won’t end. SOTS Bysiewicz has followed through on her promise to seek a formal opinion from the current AG (and next Senator from CT) Blumenthal.
I don’t understand this. No one has challenged her qualifications – legally – yet. One candidate, George Jepsen, has said he isn’t going to ever.
The request for an opinion brings forth some very interesting facts regarding the AG statute:
Bysiewicz wants to know if that section adopted in 1897 is “constitutional,” since it wasn’t until 1970 that the constitution was amended to make the attorney general one of the state’s constitutional officers.
“The Constitution contains no requirement for the office of the Attorney General,” Bysiewicz writes.
Then in 1980 the constitution was amended again to say “Every elector who has attained the age of eighteen years shall be eligible to any office in the state.”
In light of the constitutional provisions Bysiewicz wondered if the statute that talks about active practice is still in effect “or is it superseded by the subsequent constitutional amendments?”
And when push comes to shove Bysiewicz wants to know who will make the determination of whether the requirement of 10 years of active practice has been satisfied.
So why do this now? Why create a problem when there isn’t one?
I think there’s only one answer. She wants to know now, so she can get out quickly if she has to. And so she can then jump back into the race for Governor.
What do you think?
Depends on what “active” means
Jan 13th
Is Susan Byse-Byzie-Bysiewicz legally qualified to be Attorney General? Maybe. It depends on what “active” means. (The other candidate, George Jepsen, seems to be qualified.)
Monday Morning Jumpstart
Jan 11th
photo credit: MercurySpace
I think the weather needs a jumpstart. Someone wake me when the thermometer goes north of 50 degrees Fahrenheit. In the meantime, maybe these stories will get those neurons firing and generate some heat in you.
- A powerful piece in the NYTimes about a different approach to violations of probation and parole and how it reduces crime by a lot.
- Another horrifying NYT piece on officials obscuring the truth about immigrant deaths in jails.
- An interesting new book on representing clients with mental illnesses. (hint: someone should buy one for the office.)
- A 50-state survey of sex offender registration laws
- A good judge has passed too soon.
- Orin Kerr analyzes whether the 4th Amendment permits execution of warrants in a different state.
- Also from Volokh, an interesting new case on computer searches, encryption and plain view.
- A forensic psychologist in TX is accused of altering IQ scores of defendants to permit execution, including the infamous “sorry we don’t stay here past 5 so you can’t file your appeal and the man will be executed” case.
- The state’s judiciary committee will hold a hearing on January 19th to evaluate how well those “criminal justice reforms” of two years ago have worked out (if they’ve even been implemented).
- Tweets of defendant and murder victim will become a key focus in the murder trial.
- Is there a Constitutional right to knowingly reject a plea offer?
- The 2009 Lowering The Bar Awards, a collection of the nuttiest lawsuits and legal arguments of the last year.
- SCOTUS will hear arguments in a follow up to Melendez-Diaz today.
- A lengthy look at Cook County, IL prosecutor’s battle against journalism students working for an innocence group.
- This week’s Blawg Review is up. Next week’s edition will be hosted here by yours truly.
Okay, that’s enough.
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.
Hazardous duty self defense
Dec 13th
There are some very interesting discussions being generated as a result of the Robert Lawlor acquittal in Hartford last week: what does this say about the community, what does it mean for the future of the city, will the mistrust between residents of the city and the police ever subside, is Hartford really one city or does everyone view the North End as a cesspool? [Even I arose from my slumber to post.]
Now, thanks to an “opinion piece” in today’s Courant, add one more conversation to the list: should there be a special “law enforcement self defense” provision in our law? The piece is authored by former prosecutor John Massameno (who, you might recall, was the prosecutor who oversaw the conviction of now exonerated Miguel Roman). Also, CT lawyers, stop the eye-rolling.
The piece is titled “Don’t charge police over errors”, so you would be right to believe that he is arguing for immunity from prosecution, not just a more expansive doctrine of self-defense. Indeed, most of his “opinion” piece reads like that:
Police officers need our help. They must make split-second but accurate decisions about using deadly force to protect themselves or others from harm. Occasionally, an officer makes a mistake. Absent some aggravating factor, such as an improper motive, the law should not criminalize officers’ good-faith mistakes in judgment. Otherwise, how can we expect them to take decisive action to protect lives when their own could be destroyed by doing so?
Yes, very good. But the crux of his “opinion” is an amendment to the self-defense statute, which would ask the jury to consider the dangers faced by police officers in their day-to-day business:
It gives an officer a defense to a homicide or assault charge when, in the line of duty, he “[makes] a mistake in judgment concerning the imminent use of force against him or a third person.” It requires the trial judge to tell jurors that “in assessing the reasonableness of the physical force used by [the] officer and … [his] belief that physical force would be used against him or a third person, [they must] consider the [officer's] unique status in the enforcement of the law, his background and training in the assessment of and response to the likelihood that physical force will be used against him, and the greater likelihood that physical force will be used against [an officer] than against a person not engaged in the enforcement of the law.”
The law wouldn’t require the jury to believe the defense, so when there’s evidence of some improper motive, such as racial hatred, a conviction for murder is still possible.
Waah, I cut my finger: mandatory-minimum for you!
Dec 1st
There was an odd confluence of events in Hartford Superior Court yesterday: an expert witness testified in the trial of police officer Robert Lawlor, who is accused of fatally shooting a suspect, while at the same time Dwayne Powell was in court for his second appearance in the shooting of a Hartford police officer.
And when the odd confluence combines with the full moon (did you look at the moon today? absolutely gorgeous), we get knee-jerk behavior. This time, the knee jerk behavior is calls for mandatory-minimum sentences for assault on an officer:
“We want the community to know that any comments and or actions that advocate the assaulting or the killing of a police officer should not and cannot be tolerated by the very society we serve,” [Officer Richard Rodriguez, president of the Hartford police union] said. An assault on a police officer is an attack on “the very fabric that holds society from falling into chaos,” Rodriguez said.
Robles and two other state legislators who attended Monday’s rally said they’d propose and work to pass legislation enhancing the penalties for those who assault police officers. The legislative session opens in February.
“Being assaulted is not, I repeat not, part of this job,” Rodriguez said, adding that police officers would like to see a minimum mandatory prison sentence for those who assault police officers.
Now, before you jump on my back and call me a commie sympathizer let me assure you that I do not condone violence, whether it be against a police officer or any other “normal” person. If I had my way, we’d all wear tie dye and listen to the Dead all day long. I think a majority of police officers are good, conscientious people trying their best to keep order in our hectic cities.
But let’s not get carried away either. [A look at an absurdity in the statute and more after the jump]
Rell wants to close minimum security prison
Dec 1st
As expected, lame-duck Governor Rell announced plans today to close the almost-out-the-door Webster Correctional Institution (hey, news sites, look! It’s possible to link to websites besides your own!) for a savings of a whopping $3.4 million a year.
Actually, I have to be honest. I’m pretty ambivalent about this whole thing. It’s a low-level prison and per the reports would require the relocation of 220 inmates. That’s not a whole lot. So by itself it’s not a bad idea to close Webster. The question really is whether there is room at other facilities to house these inmates. Less space + more inmates = overcrowding. Overcrowding = bad idea. Despite the Governor trumpeting the “drop” in prison population from the record high of February 2008 (which, let us not forget, was her own fault), the fact is that CT’s prisons are still woefully overcrowded. 18,000 plus inmates are packed like sardines into a system that was built for 15,000. They’re still sleeping in the gym, they’re still sleeping on floors and there are still far too many per cell.
I have another idea: if you want to close the prison, fine. But instead of shoving them into an already full elevator, why not release the low-risk offenders? CT now has a full-time parole board (which they claim is working efficiently, but let’s remember this is still a government organization), so why not release the one that have no probable risk factors. There always will be the crazy ones that commit crimes that are unforeseeable. There’s no way to account for that or to correct for it. Sometimes, shit happens.
What do you folks feel? Closing the prison a good idea? Bad? Just want to hate on Rell?
Non sum qualis eram
Nov 17th
From the NYTimes comes this heartwarming story of one of the nation’s elite universities privately funding an educational program in one of CT’s toughest prisons. Starting this year, Wesleyan brings its excellent curriculum and stringent admission requirements to prison, in an effort to educate and rehabilitate inmates, something the State of Connecticut and the DOC have long given up.
For 19 spots, there were 120 applications, and rightly so. This program presents an unique opportunity: to get a high-level education and to attempt to rebuild one’s life and prepare for an eventual release into a world that won’t acknowledge their existence (for some). There are several remarkable things about this program. One of them is that the crime of conviction is not a factor in who gets accepted into the program. So whether you’re a murderer or someone who was selling drugs, you have an equal shot at getting accepted. The second feature that struck me was that while there is no guarantee that graduates of this program will get a degree from Wesleyan, they will be entitled to access to career services upon release.
Imagine that! Inmates will have somewhere to go, armed with an education and the possibility of a degree and get assistance in finding a job. The State should be ashamed of itself.
Reading this article, I learned some things about Wesleyan and its tradition and history:
But the university has a long history of civic engagement that traces back to its Methodist roots. It is named after John Wesley, an 18th-century minister who championed prison reform and helping the downtrodden. Two students, Russell Perkins and Molly Birnbaum, who had volunteered in prisons as students, revived the idea last year when they were seniors and figured out a way to finance it.
What’s even more stunning is that this proposal was scheduled for a vote the very same day that a student at Wesleyan was gunned down in a bookstore. The school merely postponed the vote 2 weeks and during that subsequent vote, it was approved. Goes to show you that to recognize that not all “criminals” are the same, you merely have to have your head screwed on straight.
Of course, this brings the usual din of dissent and cries of “wah, you’re helping those scum criminals” from the usual suspects. I don’t have very many good things to say about the State’s victim’s advocate (none, really), so I’ll just quote her and let it speak for itself:
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.
recent comments