There is no love lost between this blog and thankfully-not-for-much-longer-Governor-Rell. This blog has expended precious bandwith to excoriate the obvious preferential treatment given by the Governor to her precious white suburban constituents, especially in the criminal justice arena.

This is a prime example of why:

“The murders of the Petit family horrified and disgusted us all, almost beyond the ability of words to convey. Today’s verdicts are a measure of justice – but they can never begin to restore the promise lost on that terrible day in July. That grief may ebb over time but it can never be fully expunged.

“I commend Dr. Petit and his extended family for the remarkable strength and dignity they have displayed throughout this agonizing ordeal – which, of course, will continue through the penalty phase, the trial of another suspect and the legal proceedings that are certain to follow. I know that the people of Connecticut will continue to keep the Petit and Hawke families in their thoughts and prayers in the months to come.”

Whether the facts of this case are that much more gruesome than any other case in the State of Connecticut, past and present, can be debated by us until we’re both blue in the face. What is unmistakable, however, is that the chief executive of an entire State has now, on two separate occasions, singled out one particular victim, one particular case to make a political point. I won’t even attempt to joke that if you go to the Governor’s website, you can read all the other press releases she’s issued in individual cases over the years. Because you know there aren’t any.

Does anyone believe that this was the only rape in Connecticut in the last 6 years? Does anyone believe that this was the only murder in Connecticut in the last 6 years? Does anyone believe that this was the only rape and murder in Connecticut in the last 6 years? Does anyone believe that this was the only capital case in Connecticut in the last 6 years? And yet, this is the only case that she’s chosen to insert herself into. (Well, this and the other fiasco in that equally white suburban town where she decided that the rule of law didn’t apply.) Where is the press release decrying the delay in the Bellamy case, in which a mistrial was declared before evidence began, thus ensuring that by the time the case goes to trial, 34 jurors will have been picked?

Whether or not race is an issue in the treatment of this case by the media, whether or not this case is that much different that any other, whether or not this victim is more deserving of praise and admiration and support than the hundreds and thousands others was always debatable. What Governor Rell’s insistence on singling this case out has done is confirm that there is something special about this one case, above all others, that this victim is more victimized than others.

It is disturbing enough that the nameless, faceless, abstract state makes value judgments about the worth of people’s lives through the imposition of the death penalty, but for the temporary face of that State to vocally confirm it, time and again is something that should make us all stop and think.

Ugh. I can’t even be bothered to snark properly. Is it November 2nd already?

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. To allay the fears of the few who rightly questioned the evisceration of such an important and time-honored Constitutional right, the state has inserted several “exceptions” into the bill that would apparently provide a mechanism whereby petitioners can get review of meritorious claims despite missing the statute of limitations and/or having filed prior habeas corpus petitions.

But the onus in all of those exceptions falls squarely on the shoulders of indigent, incarcerated inmates. When asked, for example, how the inmate could make a showing that there were facts that would lead a court to believe there was a chance that the petition was meritorious, the CSA replied that the petitioner could submit an affidavit of facts, that a court would then consider.

And just how is an inmate to do that? Counsel would not be appointed at that stage, so the petitioner would have no access to resources to effectuate such an affidavit. How is he to send people out into the community to investigate the merit to his claims? How is he to present them in a legally effective manner to a judge? Courts routinely insist that defendants and petitioners should not represent themselves and yet here we place this onerous burden, even in cases alleging actual innocence on an incarcerated inmate.

Not one legislator pointed out, much to my dismay, that the Courts would have the same amount of work, just clothed in a different garb. Instead of ruling on the merits of the petitioner’s claims, the court would rule on the merits to decide if there was merit. And then presumably rule again? The fact that this will only lead to more litigation should be obvious to everyone.

Also to my dismay, not one legislator challenged the sound-bite claim that victims are routinely dragged out to habeas corpus hearings, many years later and forced to face a retrial of sorts. In fact, at around 1:03:00 on the video, Judiciary Committee Co-Chair Mike Lawlor parrots the State’s position that “we can trot thousands of victims in here” who are notified that there is a habeas pending and they may be called to testify. Does it sound terrible? Yes. Does it happen? Almost rarely.

In fact, I can’t think of any case that I know of where the victim was called to testify at the habeas trial. There is maybe one scenario in which a victim may be called to testify. Perhaps this is something for which statistics cannot be kept. Still, someone should challenge this fearmongering argument, because it will quickly fall apart, instead of blindly accepting it as true. It simply is not true.

And as an aside, even if a victim is called to testify at a habeas trial, we should not use that as an excuse to curtail the basic Constitutional right to challenge the legality of one’s conviction. The slight inconvenience experienced by any such victim should necessarily take a back seat to the monumental interest in determining whether a person has been unlawfully and illegally deprived of his liberty.

The residency “you hate children or you love terrorists” restrictions bill

The testimony on this bill starts at around 03:14:10 on the video. The main testimony in support of the bill comes from State Rep. Rebimbas. Now, she does not represent my district, I hadn’t heard of her existence prior to Monday and I’ve never, ever spoken to the woman. I’m sure she does a fine job representing her district.

But.

Either she’s horribly assisted by aides who gave her incorrect information, or she misspoke or she intentionally fudged so many things to the committee that it made my head spin.

Two big points here as well: 1) The 2000 feet residency restriction zone is not overly restrictive; and 2) Sex offender recidivism is the highest.

Those who are regular readers of this blog know that residency restrictions are a pet peeve of mine (I even have a category dedicated to it). They are ineffective, useless and only tend to drive sex offenders underground.

At 3:41:00 (approx.) she says that 2000 feet is not overly restrictive “because it’s less than half a mile”. Putting aside the fact that 2000 feet is not less than half a mile, 2000 feet would put Connecticut into the group of most restrictive states. Per this 2007 OLR report, most states have residency restriction zones less than 2000 feet. The only states with a restriction of 2000 feet are Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa (whose County Attorneys issued this statement in 2006 against residency restrictions) and Oklahoma. So 2000 feet would be the most restrictive legislation in the country.

At approx 03:47:00, a legislator hits upon the biggest problem with the residency restrictions in urban cities. There’s a map of places covered by a 1500 feet restriction in the city of New Haven. The only place in the entire city of New Haven that is not within 1500 feet of a school or daycare is in the middle of the Yale golf course. Increase that radius to 2000 feet and there’s nowhere in any of CT’s large cities where sex offenders could reside. (See this post for another map and more on this.)

You should also listen to her evasive bullshit response to Rep. Holder-Winfield at approx 03:53:02 on the question of which, if any, states had restrictions greater than 2000 feet.

What’s the upshot of that? Sex offenders move into rural areas. Mike Lawlor joked at one point that he’s not sure how the rural legislators would feel about that. We all know how Southbury crapped the bed when one sex offender moved in. Imagine a whole busload of them.

In her long winded and vacuous answer to the question about where these sex offenders would go, the Rep. responded by repeating the easily refuted claim that sex offenders are very likely to reoffend and that “we’re protecting the children”. I’m not sure how many times I’m going to have to cite to the studies that show 1) that 95% of sex crimes are committed by people known to the victim and 2) that sex offenders have very low recidivism rates.

When pushed (at 03:55:03) about her numbers on recidivism, she didn’t have any handy, but “her numbers show that there are high recidivism rates”.

Look, I’m not sure if she knows all the answers or what. The point here is that this is dangerous legislation and should only be discussed, much less voted upon, with the full knowledge of the facts. Legislators needs to read all the studies in this area, arm themselves with accurate and reliable facts and then have a long and honest discussion about whether residency restrictions are needed in Connecticut.

The reality is that there already do exist residency restrictions and those are in the form of conditions of probation. When a defendant is on probation, they own him. They control what he wears, what he breathes and more importantly where he lives. Every client that I have, who is convicted of a sex offense, has some form of residency restriction built into his conditions.

Poorly thought out laws should have no place in our penal code, much less ones proposed based on knee-jerk fearmongering. Trotting out the children to pass terrible legislation is akin to the “if you’re against the war, you’re for the terrorists” mantra.

We must refuse to cower blindly to imaginary fears.

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.

Somehow, in the midst of all that fist thumping and righteous indignation, the legislature managed to make a provision for a residential treatment center for high risk offenders: 12 on parole and 12 on probation. They even secured a bid from contractors and identified a location.

Then came the budget crisis. And of that behemoth bill, the one thing that lost its funding was the one sensible proposition. Meanwhile, the state is still funding the prosecution and eventual housing of people charged with and convicted of the redundant crime of home invasion.

And so now, despite the best efforts of the judicial department to find Mr. Moody a roof over his head and much needed treatment, we’re all going to play a game of Russian roulette:

But last month, [Moody's lawyer, public defender Jay] McKay said “we’re quite a long distance from the hopes of Judge Holzberg.” McKay told Superior Court Judge Patrick J. Clifford the facility would have taken care of Moody’s housing and his therapeutic needs.

“But the problem is that there isn’t one,” Clifford said. “It is a hope. And that was the legislature’s hope also. But with the budget crisis, we don’t have it.”

In the meantime, probation and parole officials will struggle to find options for homeless sex offenders, addressing public safety but also helping offenders adjust to life outside prison walls.

Probation officials said if that shelter is full, Moody could look for a bed at two other New Haven shelters. And in what they called a rare case that all beds will be filled, Moody could end up on the streets.

When asked at last month’s hearing if Moody would be guaranteed a bed, Chief Probation Officer William Anselmo admitted it was not a sure thing.

“We can do our best,” Anselmo told Clifford. “We don’t have a safe house. We don’t drop them off at a motel and pay for the night. Unfortunately, we do have some sex offenders supervised by probation, registered offenders that do live under the bridge for a couple of nights. We’ve had guys sleeping on the green in New Haven. Unfortunately, we just do not have the resource to put somebody up for the night.”

So if you happen upon the New Haven green next week and see Mr. Moody sleeping on a park bench, be sure to go over and say hello. Tell him that while he may have spectacularly failed society, it too has failed him.

[By the way, I haven't heard anything from either the residents of New Haven nor the American Idol Governor on the release of Mr. Moody, have you? If she has tried to keep him in jail longer than his sentence because he's such a damn menace to society and I just missed it, please let me know.]

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.

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.

1. Stop publication of the Law Reports. In this day and age, there really is no reason for hundreds of thousands of copies of the Law Reports to be made every single week, year after year. No one really reads them, anyway. Just make one PDF file and upload it to the Judicial website. Anyone who wants a paper copy can download the damn thing and print it out on their own dime.
2. You know that the general statutes are available online, right? For free? Yet, agencies buy them for $335 a set. I can tell you that every single attorney I know has a full set for himself/herself. Let’s stop this spending.
3. Permit liquor sales on Sunday. More liquor sales = more tax revenue. Liquor sales on Sundays = happy people.
4. Decriminalize possession of marijuana, eliminate the excess penalties for sale w/in 1500 feet of any city object and remove mandatory-minimum sentences.
5. Eliminate the death penalty. A study concluded that NJ spent $253 million on the death penalty over 20 years. The NJ public defender’s office reported [pdf - page 31] that it would save $1.46 million per year if the death penalty were abolished. Who knows how much the State or corrections spends. I’m sure our numbers aren’t that different.

Madam Governor, these are but small measures that can save costs and help reduce the deficit. Don’t forget to read the comments, where my readers (who are generally much smarter than I) may make additional suggestions that would help reduce the deficit further.

Critically,

Gideon

It's okay, you can eat crow

It happened. I’m just surprised that it was this quick. After yesterday’s frantic call by the Governor for David Pollitt to be reincarcerated, it is fitting that today the prosecutor withdrew the warrant and dropped charges.

New London States Attorney Michael Regan told Judge Susan B. Handy that GPS records probation officials relied on when drafting the warrant for Pollitt’s arrest were incorrect.

“The GPS system was not functioning properly at the time the reading was taken,” Regan said. The disclosure left egg on the faces of judicial officials and government leaders, including Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who had demanded that Pollitt be returned to prison. On the way out of court, Pollitt, who had denied he left his sister’s yard, quipped to a probation official, “Kind of embarrassing, isn’t it?”

Heh. He’s funny. That’s exactly what the family said happened. A malfunctioning GPS. No case. Welcome back home, Mr. Pollitt.

This would have been the perfect opportunity for the Governor to atone for yesterday’s rush to judgment. But we in Connecticut have come to not expect anything. Instead of apologizing to Mr. Pollitt and the citizens of Connecticut for her embarassing rush to judgment, she focused on the problems with the GPS system:

“It is disappointing and frankly maddening to learn that the GPS technology used to monitor Mr. Pollitt was not working properly. We use GPS tracking for a reason,” Rell said. “In fact, we pay quite a bit of money for it ? but it’s not about the money, it’s about safety. There is no excuse for the failure to track an offender.

“This incident raises a number of troubling questions: Is the GPS system we are using reliable? Can we be sure this will not happen again?” Rell continued. “And what safeguards are in place to let us know when a problem arises? The reliability of this technology is absolutely essential. Both the Judicial Branch and the Board of Pardons and Paroles need to address these questions and ensure the accurate tracking of all offenders wearing monitoring systems.

“Frankly”, I find this “maddening”. Instead of ackowledging her mistake, she’s placing blame elsewhere and asking for others to be held accountable. When will you be held accountable, Mme Gov.? When will you apologize to the rest of the citizens of the State and show that you care about more than just the rich white folk that live in Southbury. I may not have voted for you, but you’re still the Governor of Connecticut, not white suburbia.

Oh, but there’s more. It’s not like she’s learned anything from this:

At the first violation of his probation conditions ? no matter how minor ? he should be remanded to prison.”

Yes, continue to show the citizens of this State that you care nothing about due process or the judicial system.

This was an opportunity to make amends. Unfortunately, I think she’s underestimating the anger this will foster in the non-suburbian communities in CT.

This was a time to eat crow, Governor, not dig your head further in the sand. Tsk, tsk.

So, now, the political football has been inflated again and the Governor speaks out, urging his incarceration.

I realize that this would be a violation of probation, but it really, really, really bothers me that there doesn’t seem to be any concern about the rule of law and the process.

Who needs a hearing, a determination by a judge, actual evidence, facts, witnesses. I know we have a phrase for that in the law. Due….do…due…something or the other.

No, this is the Constitution State. Let’s say that one more time. Lather, rinse, repeat. We’re good. Carry-over goodwill or something.

This is a man that the Governor sought to have illegally confined beyond the length of his prison sentence. She was unsuccessful. So now that this technical violation has been charged, it seems that she has felt it appropriate to assume the role of judge, jury and sentencer (Yeah, I made up that word).

It’s not like there’s another side to the story:

His family said he was in his back yard, and the whole issue comes from a faulty GPS reading.

Family members said they don’t understand why the governor is getting involved without knowing all of the facts. They said Rell should wait until all of the details come out.

Of course, in this rush-to-judgment and “tough on crime” State, who cares what these criminals have to say.

I’m sorry if this is a harsh rant, but. I feel rather disgusted. Disgusted that there is no regard for the process; for the justice system.

She wrote to the Chief State’s Attorney, urging his incarceration (putting aside the ethical problems for Atty. Kane with any such request):

In a letter to Kane dated today, Rell wrote: “As you know, I vigorously opposed Mr. Pollitt’s release into the community last year. However, the court freed him, causing widespread and justifiable concern among the residents of the Southbury neighborhood.

“Given Mr. Pollitt’s record of violence and his apparent inability — or unwillingness — to live within the terms of his release, the safety of the community demands nothing less than his return to prison,” Rell wrote.

No, Madam Governor, WADR, the Court did not free him. His sentence expired. You know, that part of any incarceration, where the time for which he has to be confined runs out. You know, that part of the rule of law that says you cannot hold him any longer. It is absolutely appalling that a Court had to waste its resources to intervene to remind some that we don’t incarcerate people when there is no legal basis to do so.

I guess she’s able to discern between an allegation and a conviction, because she uses the word “apparently”. So then why act as if it is a done deal? Is this what the leader of a State is supposed to do? To pass judgment on a citizen before the process has been completed? To make snap judgments without any evidence or facts or without all the information? She wields a position of power – I hope she doesn’t make all her decisions in this cursory manner.

Look – he very well may have violated his probation. I don’t know. But neither do you and neither does the Governor. Let’s withhold judgment until there’s a hearing.

Why do I get sucked in like this……sigh.

(I will note that the Governor sent no such letter to anyone after the shootings in Hartford or the resulting curfew. A tale of two cities indeed.)

(Also, who here is actually surprised that he was picked up for something. I’m surprised that it took this long.)

Anyone who has followed this blog for the past year will no doubt be aware of several high profile criminal justice stories in CT: the Cheshire incident, the David Pollitt incident and the more recent New Britain incident. Starting with Cheshire, reform of the criminal justice system has been on the minds of many residents of this State, mostly pushed forward by our esteemed legislature and Governor. We were once on the path to reducing our prison population and now we are growing and bursting at the seams with no relief in sight.

Prison sentences have been beefed up to unimaginable levels in the name of public safety, rehabilitation programs have been abandoned and common sense no longer prevails.

Yet there are people who do not feel this is enough. Read the comments to any Courant article on criminal justice and you will see that there are people who feel that any sentence short of life is inappropriate.

This State, fueled by the vote-seeking legislators, has become gripped in what might be the biggest “tough on crime” wave in the country.

The paradox, however, is something that I have long suspected. People are clueless about what sentences really are given in this state as compared to others. The truth, folks, is that Connecticut never handed out light sentences. Go sit in any Part A court in this State and you will see what sentences are routinely handed out. In most cases, discussions begin with numbers in the teens.

It is a rare case in which a defendant does not receive jail time. Sexual assault in a consent case with no record (like my first judge for a day hypo)? You’re looking at 12-15 years. DUI accident, but no serious injury? 3-6 years.

People seem to have forgotten that a year is a long, long time. These are just numbers now; the higher the better.

It seems that, out of fear or embarrassment or God knows what, a portion of judges have abandoned their discretion in sentencing. The point in permitting judges the power to evaluate each case on its merits and each defendant on his characteristics in making the determination of length of sentence was to allow for concessions for a general good character; to take in account the fact that a defendant may have lead a successful, law-abiding life prior to the incident in question.

Now, it seems that no matter how many letters of support a defendant receives, the victim culture has taken such a strong hold that you might as well not offer any. They will not make an impact.

There really is no difference anymore, in my opinion, between our sentencing scheme and sentencing guidelines. When judges fail to exercise their discretion, we might as well give them a rigid range of numbers from which to pick a sentence.

Yes, there are isolated judges who still use their discretion, but I can count on both hands who they are.

Why is this? Why this bloodlust? Why impose 80 years when 35 will do? Why impose 2 years when all the defendant needs is counseling? When will we take the blindfolds off our eyes and realize that ever increasing prison terms will not solve the problems. When will we learn that if we want to reduce crime, we must tackle the causes of crime. When will we stop sacrificing generations in the name of public safety?

I don’t know the answers and I’m pretty sure no individual is solely to blame, but at some point, we have to realize that what we’re doing is not working. It is our responsibility – those of us working in the system – to start the change.

Remember David Pollitt? [Previous posts here, here, here and here] Yeah, he’s the guy whose release from prison after maxing out from his sentence had his rich neighbors in an uproar. They didn’t want him living in their cul-de-sac, so they staged protests and feverishly dialed into “Idol Governor”, simultaneously pressing 0 for the operator (I guess 1 for complete abrogation of the rule of law and 2 for abandonment of common sense weren’t enough. They went straight for the operator Governor).

So the Governor, as any good Governor would do, stepped in and asked the chief prosecutor attorney general to intervene to see “if we could have this here guy locked up longer than his sentence”, because well, “I’m the Guv’nor dammit and I should be able to”^.

Thankfully, the only person who could actually make Mr. Pollitt go back to jail remembered that there’s something called the law, which is written in these things called books, to which we do something called follow.

Judge Susan Handy was rather skeptical of the legal basis for this “request” from the Governor and reached back into obscure legalese to pull out a rarely heard term called “Illegal”. Never heard of it.

Anyway, whatever this “illegal” action was, it was coupled with some other bizarre phrase known as “standing”. I guess if you aren’t standing, you can’t do something illegal. My head is spinning.

[insert deafening silence, followed by sound of crickets chirping]

So. The point of this nonsense post is that this past Thursday was the 50th Anniversary of Law Day. Judge Handy received an award from the New London County Bar Association. In keeping with the tradition that lawyers are the most uncreative people on Earth, who have an affinity for campy, cheesy names, the award was called the Liberty Bell Award. Because, I guess, someone rang Liberty’s bell.

“I am both humbled and, I have to say, completely overwhelmed, to receive an award for simply doing the job you entrusted me to do,” said Handy, who was appointed to the bench 15 years ago and serves as presiding judge for criminal matters in the New London judicial district.

Let’s be clear: this post is not about Judge Handy at all. She obviously did the right thing. What disturbs me is that doing the right thing now leads to awards and needs to be recognized. How skewed has our notion of justice become that a judge who follows the law and does the most obvious thing has be to feted.

“Let’s imagine if Judge Handy had not ruled as she did,” [Chief Court Administrator Judge Barbara] Quinn said. “A man who had completed his prison sentence would have been unjustly held. The neighbors and some politicians would have rejoiced, along with many members of the public. I would submit to you, however, that the damage to the constitutional rights of every member of the public would have been shaken to the core.”

Why must we imagine? It should be unthinkable that she would rule any other way. This should have passed silently in the night – yet now we have to beat it over people’s heads that she did the right thing.

Congratulations, Judge Handy and I hope this keeps giving you the courage to do the right thing. What worries is me is now I don’t know how many judges would have done the opposite.

^Obviously she did not say that. I don’t know what she said. That was an attempt at humor.