prison overcrowding
It’s time to wake up (updated)
Dec 27th
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
It’s a different world today than it was in the ’80s, ’90s and even the early whats. The economy may or may not be recovering, but one thing is for sure: budget deficits are spiraling out of control. Crime may be down, but the workload of the criminal justice system is up. In particular, the burden on public defender systems is one that has rarely been seen before.
Whether this is a product of reduced funding, of lengthy sentences coming home to roost, of a zero-tolerance “tough on crime” policy enacted years ago or of the sheer overcriminalization of our society is an open question (my guess: a mix of them all). When a small state like CT has 1663 crimes defined in its statutes (and that’s in 2006; several more have been added since) and when books are written warning us that we commit three felonies a day, it’s time for someone to sit up and take notice. And by someone I mean those with the power to change the direction we’ve gone in: legislators and voters. So you, all of you.
The repercussions of too many people in the justice system are beginning to reverberate throughout the country: Georgia is on its 4th lawsuit to force indigent defense spending; Michigan is being sued by three defendants who claim that the lack of funding forced their public defenders to pressure them into entering pleas of guilty; the Missouri Supreme Court recently allowed public defenders the nuclear option of shutting down their doors and refusing cases if caseloads got unmanageable; the costs in Ohio are rising quick; the Fresno public defender’s office got permission to lay off 6 attorneys before the end of the year to balance their budget; and contract attorneys in Nebraska have been receiving a $100 flat fee instead of $50 per hour for all misdemeanor cases.
Should I even go near the financial black hole that is the death penalty? How, in times where basic rights of defendants may be in jeopardy – ordinary run of the mill defendants, mind you – can we even consider sustaining the machinery of death?
This will not end anytime soon and even if there is an alleviation of the financial crisis, the impact on the criminal justice system will be temporary. More crimes will be committed, more knee-jerk reactions will be induced and harsher sentences will be given out. The burden continues to build until there is a fundamental change in the way we think about the numbers, the crimes and the system.
A report from 2000, that I’ve mentioned before, seems to have gotten it right. Too bad no one is listening. I’ll reprint the salient points:
Prison overcrowding has a cyclical pattern in Connecticut — reaching a crisis point about every 10 years. The committee report showed most of the causes of prison overcrowding occurred outside the administration and jurisdiction of the Department of Correction and these complex issues and problems cannot be addressed by a single state agency. Specifically, the program review committee identified five main causes of prison overcrowding. They are:
- Despite the decrease in arrest and crime rates, the number of offenders in prison or jail continued to increase due to the “war on drugs”, increased funding for police, increased role of victims and victim advocacy groups in the court process, added bed capacity in the correctional system, recidivism and technical violations of probation and parole, harsher penalties for certain types of crimes, and narrowed eligibility for community release and alternative sanction options.
- Convicted inmates were remaining incarcerated for a greater portion of their court-imposed prison sentences as a result of the shift from an indeterminate to a determinate sentencing structure, elimination of “good time”, creation of time-served standards for parole eligibility, and the enactment of several “truth in sentencing” initiatives.
- The aggressive “tough on crime” approach supported by the legislature and adopted by the executive and judicial branches allows the criminal justice system to narrow its use of discretion and take a more conservative and less controversial approach to punishment.
- A lack of prison beds, especially high security and pre-trial beds, forced DOC to operate at capacity.
- Poor planning and a lack of an accurate population projection and offender needs analysis contributed to the cycle of overcrowding and hampered DOC’s efforts to adequately plan for new or expanded facilities.
In reviewing options available to manage and control growth of the inmate population, the committee found Connecticut cannot build its way out of a prison overcrowding crisis. However, prison expansion is one model to address prison overcrowding. This strategy has been Connecticut’s primary response to prison overcrowding over the past 20 years. It is the simplest but least effective and most expensive approach. Services in this model are concentrated primarily on the small percent (25 percent) of the offender population in prison.
And yet here we are: more crimes, longer sentences and an almost unmanageable burden. We’re still fighting the absurd war on drugs and on parolees and probationers. While our prison population has seen somewhat of a slight decline from the record numbers of last year, it would be a tremendous mistake to consider that an improvement. The record numbers were the result of the Governor’s ban on parole. But don’t let that obscure the fact that even prior to the ban, the population numbers were already at the breaking point.
And it’s not going to get any better. Per the OPM‘s most recent projections, the population is expected to increase from its current numbers to around 18, 942. [Here are the Dec 2009 monthly indicators.] The most recent breakdown of inmates by crimes is this one from 2007. And here’s the most recent recidivism study [there's a wealth of information in there if you're interested].
So how is this to be done? Over the years, I’ve made many suggestions: legalize marijuana, get realistic about prison sentences, divert all non-violent offenders into treatment and community based rehab, address the problem at its root, etc.
[Update: This NYT editorial makes the case for smart reforms, pointing to a slew of legislation pending in NJ to make the prison system more rehabilitation centric. Among some of the proposals is one akin to the ban the box idea implemented in New Haven earlier this year.]
But it’s all a futile exercise. It’s never going to happen unless there’s a fundamental shift in the thinking. That shift may well be driven by the financial engine. So how about taking a different tact. How about we keep detailed statistics: how many people end up going to jail for a violation of probation for drug problems instead of to a treatment facility? Let’s keep a record of that for 3 years and calculate the cost of sending that person to jail. How about defendants sentenced to 7 years in jail where 5 years would have been just as good. Keep a track of the costs there. How many inmates were denied entry into programs for lack of beds and so instead were forced to take a prison sentence? Let’s keep track of that.
At the end of 3 years, let’s add it all up and look at the staggering cost of our penal system. Let’s put it into real numbers and compare it to the budget shortfall. Extrapolate that over the last 20 years and I bet we will see that these “tough on crime” policies have come at a significant, tangible cost to us.
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?
Shh…don’t look now…
Mar 24th
but the Judiciary Committee is in full swing again and is considering several important bills again. Here’s a listing of the bills up for public hearing today, with some links to submitted testimony. I’ll have more on specific bills as they progress.
S.B. No. 348 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING THE VIDEOTAPING OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS. (JUD)
S.B. No. 349 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING THE PENALTY FOR POSSESSION OF A SMALL AMOUNT OF MARIJUANA. (JUD)
S.B. No. 357 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION. (JUD)
S.B. No. 537 (COMM) AN ACT PROVIDING COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION SERVICES TO END-OF-SENTENCE INMATES. (JUD)
S.B. No. 543 (COMM) AN ACT CONCERNING SENTENCE REVIEW Modifications. (JUD)
Ban the box, save the ex-felon
Feb 12th
A question no more
I have long complained about the failure of governments to engage in any sort of meaningful re-entry for inmates. For a vast majority of released felons, prison is a revolving door. Without any training, education or skills, job prospects are dismal. With no job, there is no money and where there is no money, there is the lure of crime to make some quickly.
Which is why I was pleasantly surprised this morning, while listening to Where We Live on NPR. The guest was John DeStefano, mayor of New Haven, and he was discussing the policy he seeks to implement in the city: ban the box. No, this is not some traffic related policy, as I first thought, but a clever scheme aimed at integrating ex-felons back into the community.
Ban the box refers to banning employment applications from listing a “box” that asks applicants whether they are ex-felons. This allows ex-felons to be on the same footing as any other applicant, by preventing would-be employers from discarding them at the get-go. I’m embarrassed that this story has escaped my attention for three months now, but the wonderful New Haven Independent is all over it:
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.
Speedy trial: whose responsibility is it?
Oct 17th
How many defense attorneys does it take to screw up a case? Or better yet, how badly malfunctioning does a public defender system have to be to get a court to blame it for delays in the criminal justice system?
Back in March, the Vermont Supreme Court issued a very curious opinion reversing a conviction for failure to prosecute in a timely fashion. The Court held that the three-years spent by the defendant awaiting trial violated his right to a speedy trial. Which would be fine if that were all to the story.
The reason for the delay? The defendant’s various public defenders.
In arriving at this decision, we acknowledge that much of the delay in prosecuting defendant resulted from the inaction of several of the assigned counsel who represented defendant during the three years he awaited trial. As we discuss in detail below, however, the inaction of assigned counsel does not relieve the state of its duty, through implementation of the criminal justice system, to provide defendant with a constitutionally guaranteed speedy trial. Indeed, the defender general’s office is part of the criminal justice system and an arm of the state. When, as in this case, a defendant presses for, but is denied, a speedy trial because of the inaction of assigned counsel or a breakdown in the public defender system, the failure of the system to provide the defendant a constitutionally guaranteed speedy trial is attributable to the prosecution, and not defendant.
The Court finds that
irrespective of the reason for the delay, egregious delay in bringing an incarcerated defendant to trial must be factored against the state in a speedy-trial analysis because, as the Supreme Court emphasized in Barker, it is ultimately the government’s responsibility to bring a defendant to trial in a timely matter. See 407 U.S. at 529 (holding that “the primary burden [is] on the courts and the prosecutors to assure that cases are brought to trial”)
You can read the facts for yourself, but what is important to recognize here is that Vermont is not the only state facing such problems with its public defender system. Normally, a lawsuit would be the appropriate way to remedy the lack of funding, but this certainly may make some ears perk up.
I will reserve judgment on whether the VT Supreme Court was right or wrong, but I get the sense that what the VT Supreme Court tried to remedy was what happens to every client in almost every system (albeit not to this extent), and that everyone accepts as the price of doing business.
Well, everyone except the legislature and the voting public, who are generally outraged that things take so long to go to trial. Maybe they shouldn’t take so long? Or maybe we shouldn’t be creating so many new laws and calling for “hard on crime” policies that clog our systems and lead to overworked public defenders.
Must prisons be so confining?
Aug 19th
Stuck in the waiting area of a local Level 4 prison yesterday, awaiting the arrival of a client, my investigator and I got talking about prison cells. So we decided to map out the size of a standard prison cell in the waiting area where we were.
We used 80 square feet as an average size – and boy is that a small, small area. The waiting room was roughly three and a half times that size and I don’t think I could keep my sanity after spending one day locked in that room. I can’t imagine what it would be like to spend just one day in your average prison cell.
And it isn’t 80 square feet of open real estate, either. There’s a bed (or two), a sink and toilet and perhaps a shelf or two. Add to that boxes, files, books, a tv, a mirror and other things and you have almost no space but the bed itself.
So, I ask, why? Why must prisons be so confining? It seems to me that making cells that small and restrictive is adding a second layer of punishment. There’s the overall punishment of incarceration in a state-controlled facility: you can’t leave for a specified period of time, you eat and sleep and drink and take a shower when someone else tells you to, you have very limited contact with the real world, you have no access to fresh air or the outdoors – you have no freedom. Why compound that with an incredibly small room that further confines your ability to move around in the already limited environment?
Is it a wonder that people in prison are aggressive and angry – and sadly – many of them have mental health issues?
For those of you who say they deserve to be there, to be further punished, I ask if the taking away of liberty is not punishment enough? How long do you think you could stay sane if you were under house arrest? Imagine living in your house – however big it is – but without the ability to leave. You’re still in your house, but you can’t cook your own meals, you can’t access the internet, you can’t mow the lawn, you can’t go to the mailbox to get your mail, you can’t open a window.
At some point (pretty quickly, I imagine), it won’t matter that your house is 3000 sq. feet, as opposed to 80. The punishment is in the restriction on liberty, not in the confinement like a caged animal (or should be). So, even if you lived in Buckingham Palace, at some point you’d feel confined.
Could you? Could you live in your house with the conditions I impose above for ten days? Two months? Five months? Two years? Two years. Think about everything you’ve done over the last two years before you answer that.
So what’s the harm in making prison cells a little…bigger? Isn’t it enough that we have confined these individuals for long periods of time? Must we also treat them like unwanted pets at a kill shelter? Maybe it’ll improve their mood a little bit, and with that, a chance at rehabilitation. But if you treat people like animals, they become animals. Show them some compassion and something good may come of it.
Take a look at this picture. What do you think it is?
It’s the Leoben Prison in Australia. As has been noted by others on the web, it looks like an Ikea Store. But it’s still a prison. Do you think the prisoners there are happy to be incarcerated? I bet they still feel pretty restricted. Here’s a picture of a jail cell:
But perhaps they don’t feel like society doesn’t give a damn about them and perhaps they feel treated like human beings.
Further related reading: A list of the most interesting, overcrowded, smallest and biggest prisons in the world
Attorney-client confidentiality in prisons
Jun 23rd
One of the most important aspects of our job is maintaining attorney-client confidentiality and it is also an integral component of the adversarial system. We need confidentiality so clients can take us in their confidence without fear of repercussion. Clients need advice and we need the information without the filter of someone overhearing that information and using it against the client.
In the criminal justice system, where the burden of proof is squarely on the State, the confidentiality is even more important. Clients tell us all sorts of things, none of which the State needs to know.
In this era of Prison Nation, however, maintaining that confidentiality has some unique challenges. As the prison population grows, so will the challenges to maintaining confidentiality. For example, defense attorneys in San Diego were outraged when they recently discovered that their telephone conversations with clients were being recorded.
A lawyer for the Sheriff’s Department said the recordings, which defense lawyers say are privileged conversations protected by law, were made because of an inadvertent glitch in the telephone system.
But defense lawyers said the eavesdropping is a felony under state law and can carry penalties of up to $5,000 per call.
They are also concerned that prosecutors – who have access to the recording system from their desktop computers – could have been privy to conversations, too.
It’s bad enough that a “glitch” in the system led to recording highly sensitive and confidential conversations, but the thought that prosecutors had access to those conversations sitting at their desks should be enough to make anyone cringe and cross their legs. Then there’s this silly waiver argument:
However, all of the calls from the jail that were recorded have an automated message at the beginning warning that the conversation was being monitored or recorded.
“I don’t know if it’s privileged if both parties are warned they are being recorded,” Toyen, a lawyer and a special assistant to the sheriff said. “If a client in jail made a phone call to me and I heard that, I wouldn’t say anything that I wouldn’t want recorded.”
So some automated recording serves as an automatic waiver of attorney-client confidentiality? Why spew this nonsense instead of just admitting you messed up?
In Connecticut, there are two “types” of phones in prisons: counselor’s phones and pay phones. The pay phones are recorded and counselor’s phones are not (supposed to be). It is rare, but sometimes I do get clients calling from pay phones in the prison. That’s when I ask them to hang up and let them know I will call their counselor to set up a legal call. But even calls with counselors aren’t always “private”. The counselor’s office is in a cell block, with other inmates outside the door – and often counselors don’t even leave the office while the client is talking.
This problem with talking to incarcerated clients isn’t limited to the phone, though. In person visits with clients also have confidentiality problems. Holding cells in small courthouses are the least confidential of all locations and yet one has to talk to clients there. There are other inmates being held in those cells and there are marshalls milling about.
One of the largest correctional facilities in the State has the least sound-proof professional visiting rooms ever built. There might as well be no walls. Anything you say above a whisper can be heard by the people in the next room and quite probably by the correctional officers standing guard outside.
But such is the system and you learn to work with it. It’s an unwritten understanding that anything heard during these “confidential” meetings will not be used by the State against your client. It has to be – otherwise the State is looking at massive lawsuits. Imagine that they did use a statement or fact learned from such a conversation. The State could quite possibly be forced to build new courthouse facilities, new visiting rooms in prisons: it would be looking at a massive expenditure.
It’s easier to turn a deaf ear. But when the conversations are being recorded, the pretense of ignorance has been shattered.
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.
Tackling the real cause of recidivism
May 28th
It is no secret that one of the main causes of recidivism is a lack of opportunities for recently released offenders. As I’ve stated before, I’d like to see states take steps to ensure that, upon release, offenders have access to housing and jobs. If we provide them with a support system, then the need to turn to crime is greatly diminished.
So it makes me happy to see that one city is trying an innovative tactic. Philadelphia’s mayor announced today that employers would receive a $10,000 tax credit for hiring ex-cons.
Mayor Michael Nutter announced a program, being headed by an ex-offender, that gives $10,000 a year in municipal tax credits to companies that hire former prisoners and provide them tuition support or vocational training.
This is a fantastic program and one that should encourage more employers to hire ex-cons. Speak to any ex-con and you will hear stories of countless interviews, empty promises and, in the end, rejection, despair and frustration.
I can understand the point of view of employers, don’t get me wrong. People are hesitant to hire ex-convicts, because of the stigma. But that’s like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. If ex-cons, who are willing to make a change in their lives, who want to make that change, aren’t given any opportunities, then they will get lumped in with those that have no such aspirations. They won’t get jobs, they won’t have housing or insurance or any money earned legally. Something’s gotta give and what better way to entice businesses than with money.
The scope of the ex-offender problem in Philadelphia was detailed in a report last fall that showed about 40,000 former inmates return to the city annually from federal, state and local incarceration.
At any given time, according to the study by the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy and Practice, the city of 1.4 million is home to 200,000 to 400,000 ex-cons, many in need of not only jobs but also education, health care and addiction counseling.
The study cites federal statistics showing that nearly two out of every three inmates released from state or federal prison are expected to be rearrested within three years.
This volume cannot be sustained. There has to be a way to provide opportunites for these masses and to curb recidivism. The savings in prison costs also warrant a mention. Let’s hope this program succeeds and that other states follow suit.
No state needs such an innovative program more than CT. Almost half the inmates in CT prisons are incarcerated for a violation of probation. I wouldn’t be surprised if more than half of those inmates returned to a crime for lack of legal employment.
One can hope.
Gov. considering veto of crim justice bill
Apr 29th
Well, well. Now that the budget has tanked and we might not even have a surplus, the Governor announced that she is considering vetoing the recently passed criminal justice bill.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell said today that the state’s worsening financial condition may lead her to veto high-profile criminal-justice legislation passed in reaction to last year’s Cheshire home invasion.
Legislation on her desk would stiffen penalties for certain crimes and provide resources for new prosecutors and police and probation officers.
Rell said the tougher penalties could be salvaged by her vetoing only the monetary portions of the legislation.
It is remarkable when you remember that just a few years ago, the State had a surplus in the $700 million range (am I remembering that right?).
Can you imagine if they’d approved new prisons? Geez…
I can’t say that I’m surprised, to be honest. As prison populations rise, cost rises and the bloated budget of Corrections is, in my opinion, a direct consequence of the harsh tact taken toward drug offenses.
Take a look at that DOC budget – somewhere around $650 million last year. Then tell me there’s no harsh sentencing in CT. The truth is that CT hands out some of the harshest sentences in the country.
On top of that, there’s really no parole right now. Prisons are overflowing. Cost is up.
Her idea of a line-item veto may not be feasible. It very well might not be possible to keep the increased penalties without providing the funding for prosecutors and public defenders to man the system.
On the other hand, maybe there are enough votes in the legislature to override any such veto.
Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, a Democrat, strongly rejected Rell’s veto threat.
“I think it’s outrageous to suggest at this late date that we would not go forward with critical investments in our criminal justice system that pretty much everyone has agreed to,” Williams said. “I think it’s irresponsible at this point to say we’re going to ignore all that, and not find the resources to make this investment. … We will find the money for this critical investment in public safety.”
We’ll see. For now, I must confess that I chuckled a bit when I read the headline.
More at CTLP and CT NewsJunkie
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]
Three-strikes again: Prescience and a three-ring circus
Apr 2nd
The killing of a 62 year old woman last week turned into a political battle over three-strikes laws with a sideshow on plea bargains. Not too long after news broke that Leslie Williams, a probationer, was arrested for one murder and one attempted murder, Gov. Rell renewed her calls for a three-strikes law.
State lawmakers called her out on this, not so subtly suggesting that the was using this tragedy to push her political agenda. They also pointed out that Williams would have had only one “strike” against him and thus, there really was no reason to use this crime to reignite the three-strikes debate.
But they just couldn’t leave it at that.
The problem is not the lack of strong enough criminal penalties, but that prosecutors plea bargain down from offenses that would put offenders away for longer periods, [Judiciary Committee co-chair Mike] Lawlor said. If the suspect had been convicted of what he was originally charged with — first-degree sexual assault — he would have received a 10-year minimum sentence instead of the eight years he received on the plea bargain.
Prosecutors are part of the executive branch, which Rell heads, Lawlor said. She should have talked to Waterbury State’s Attorney John Connelly — never accused of being soft on defendants — to find out why his office agreed to the plea bargain, Lawlor said. Connelly needs to explain that, he said.
And explain it Connelly did. I don’t have to explain the reasons behind, or the importance of, plea bargaining to those of you in the field. Apparently, these basic truths are lost on our legislators, however – or maybe they’re simply ignoring reality in an attempt to win this public battle of perception in an election year. Questioning plea bargaining practices as a whole is a dangerous game to play.
The Courant, of course, has been lapping this up, publishing numerous stories every day. Maybe other news media organizations are doing the same.
Yet, while they discuss plea bargaining, whether sex offenders should have privacy in homeless shelters, whether Rell’s position on three-strikes is inconsistent with her other positions, I have seen little to no mention of the real big problem here: society’s aversion to the reintegration of sex-offenders and the numerous obstacles placed in their path.
One can argue that no matter the resources available to Williams, he would have re-offended. I have no way of arguing for or against that. We will never know. Yet, here is a man (one among thousands) who upon release lived in two homeless shelters. He was sleeping in the victim’s car prior to the incident.
The mass hysteria surrounding sex offenders in our communities in well documented. The utter lack of rehabilitation in our correctional system is well known to those in the field. We can go on increasing punishment for crime all we want, yet that only underscores our utter ignorance (or disregard) of the causes of crime. Probably the only sensible thing I’ve read in the past few days is Rell’s acknowledgment that we will never be able to stop crime (I’m not sure whether she actually believes that); yet we act as if that is a realistic goal.
If we are not willing to fund programs that rehabilitate and make it easier for the recently released to seamlessly reintegrate into society, then we are not really tackling the problem and enhancing public safety. We might as well start handing out life sentences for all crimes.
Previous, similar thoughts here.
recent comments