prison overcrowding

Not satisfied with the harsh penalties enacted by the special session of the legislature in February, we once again embark on a discussion of “true” three-strikes laws. There are four separate proposals before the Judiciary Committee to create a three-strikes and you’re out law and there are several bills dealing with prison overcrowding, inmate services and re-entry programs.

Here is a list of all the bills being considered today and here is all the submitted testimony.

What intrigues me is that there seems to be a lot of talk about funding rehabilitation and programs for first time offenders and providing re-entry services.

Prison overcrowding was also a big issue, with Commissioner Lantz being questioned for several hours. What she was still unable to give, however, was a maximum number of inmates that the correctional facilities could hold. I don’t think that’s a difficult question.  Several legislators were pressing her on that. It turns out that the maximum number of permanent beds that our system can hold is 20,095. This, as she explained, does not include adding more permanent beds and temporary beds. Why she could not estimate from there how much space is remaining and how many inmates can be fit into that remaining space is a mystery. Rather, I suspect that she did not want to. Which isn’t particularly helpful because overcrowding is a serious problem and we don’t have a max capacity number then how do we know when the facilities are overcrowded?

My views on this are well known, so I won’t repeat them.

Here is one report on today’s hearing, focusing on the Chief State’s Attorney’s opposition to the 3-strikes bill. More as it becomes available.

The hearing is actually still going on, so you can watch either on your TV (CT-N) or on the web.

The legislature’s special session is set for tomorrow, when they will debate reforms to the “horribly broken” criminal justice system. Earlier in the week, reports stated that both parties had agreed on almost all the reforms. Not true, it seems. There are still some sticking points. The Republicans, taking the hard line stance, want a three-strikes law which would mandate life sentences for anyone convicted of a third violent felony. The Dems, showing some good sense for a change, are resisting that.

Republicans have been calling for an automatic sentence of life imprisonment for any criminal who is convicted of three violent felonies, but some Democrats have rejected that concept as an overly simplistic solution that would take sentencing discretion away from judges.

On top of that, they want to make home invasion a “per se” crime.

Cafero and Senate Republican leader John McKinney of Fairfield are both concerned about a loophole in a 34-page draft bill concerning the wording of the proposed home-invasion law. Currently, the invasion of an occupied home is not considered a violent crime, and lawmakers in both parties want to change that. The Republicans say a loophole in the draft bill would prevent prosecutors from pursuing a charge of home invasion if the criminal claimed that he did not know the house was occupied.

I have no problem with classifying burglary as a violent offense. The second part of this quote is just plain wrong. Prosecutors can charge defendants with whatever the hell they want (and often do). It’s the proving part that’s difficult (burden of proof and all that). Not only does it remove the intent requirement – that is, intentionally enter a house knowing some is in there – and makes all acts of entering a home the same.

Derek Slap, a spokesman for Senate President Pro Tem Donald Williams, D-Brooklyn, said Williams agrees with Republicans that wording in the draft bill should be changed. The Senate president feels strongly that if you break into somebody’s home, and they are home, it’s home invasion,” Slap said.

Or burglary. But whatever.

“In addition, he doesn’t have a problem with the governor’s proposal that if you break into somebody’s home at night — whether they are home or not — that’s home invasion.”

I still have a problem with this. This essentially removes incentive for burglars (let’s be honest: this is not going to stop burglaries) to ensure that no one’s home. This does not deter.

The Governor’s proposal is also meeting resistance from youth advocates. Part of her proposal called for opening up access to juvenile records, which are currently sealed and unavailable.

[S]ome youth advocates fear that opening the files undermines the basic principles of juvenile justice and is unfair to individuals who shouldn’t be punished for their reckless behavior when they were young. “This really eviscerates the purpose of juvenile court, which is to provide rehabilitation in a confidential setting,” said Martha Stone, executive director of the Center for Children’s Advocacy at the University of Connecticut School of Law.

Stone and other juvenile advocates point to recent scientific research showing that adolescents’ brains continue to develop through their early 20s and that teenagers are not able to fully appreciate the wrongfulness of their acts until their bodies have fully matured.

At the very least, they say, this proposal should be put off till the regular session, so there can be testimony and public debate.

Finally, the Governor’s office is still playing denial games in regards to prison overcrowding. DOC continues to maintain that the population is “manageable”, while DOC employees keep reminding us that it is not.

“We have over 800 inmates sleeping in unconventional areas — dorms, closets, bigger utility closets with three or four people sleeping on the floor,” said David Testa, president of Local 387 of the correction officers’ union. “We think 800 inmates sleeping on the floor is an emergency. … The system we have presently isn’t working.”

In the nomenclature of the Department of Correction, the inmates in “nontraditional housing” are considered as the “overflow” of prisoners who do not have traditional beds. To the union, that means criminals sleeping in plastic sleds on gymnasium floors and in converted closets.

DOC is still in full denial mode, however. Sorry Mr. Garnett. I’ll believe my clients over you, thanks.

Curiously, they have re-assigned a number of COs from “less essential” posts to “dormitories, cell blocks and other priority areas crowded with prisoners”. The result?

To staff those posts, the department leaves less essential ones vacant on a day-to-day basis, he said. Those might include posts in a laundry room or school classrooms. Those programs, including educational lessons, are shut down for the day if no is guard present, Garnett said.

Great. Not only are the sleeping on floors and sharing a sink with 50 other inmates, but the few classes and programs that are available to them are closed because of this overcrowding.

Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, an East Haven Democrat who is co-chairman of the legislature’s influential judiciary committee, tells another story. He says there is only one sink for a group of 55 prisoners at the Whalley Avenue jail in New Haven. Inmates in that group use it to wash their hands and their clothes, Lawlor says. The same 55 criminals, he says, regularly stand in line to use one toilet — in a jail that is sometimes hot and stifling with a powerful stench.

“Some are mentally ill,” Lawlor said. “Some are HIV positive. Some have tuberculosis. Everybody’s mad and angry. No privacy. No quiet.”

It’s pretty damn obvious to everyone that prisons are overflowing, that tensions are high and there’s absolutely no productive outlet for the inmates. The Gov. talks a good talk, but it’s becoming painfully obvious that she has no clue what she’s talking about or how to really handle a growing problem. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like many others in the lege do either.

A graphic from the Courant showing current population levels [it's in PDF format for some reason]. What’s really striking (and worrisome) about those numbers is that most facilities are overflowing and all medium to maximum facilities are above their capacity (bar Northern).

If it’s January, it must be time to get ready for the special session of the legislature. The only focus, as everyone probably knows, is how to fix the state’s criminal justice system which is so horribly broken. I mean, it’s in tatters. So much so that it’s almost a miracle that the wheels haven’t come off, inmates aren’t roaming the streets of our city in packs hunting little babies for Satanic rituals and the plague isn’t upon us.

So the Democrats released their proposals yesterday and the Governor followed up with her own today. I’ll mention the choice ones:

1. A new crime of home invasion, which would be a violent crime. It basically reads like this: “A home invasion occurs when an individual unlawfully enters or remains in a dwelling which is occupied and such dwelling is located in any of Connecticut’s affluent suburbs. For the rest of you, it’s still a burglary.”

2. Re-working the “three strikes law” to make it more…workable. The Governor goes further and provides for a mandatory life sentence for third time violent felony offenders, which cannot be reviewed until 30 years have passed. The Dems want to make it a 25 year minimum, putting it on par with murder. There goes incentive not to kill.

3. The Dems want to establish tougher and more secure re-entry procedures for offenders returning to the community as they complete their sentence. The Governor doesn’t think re-entry is important enough to be considered during the special session, so she leaves it for the regular session. Good job. If we don’t ever let ‘em out, we don’t have to worry about re-entry!

4. The Governor then goes overboard with some bizarre victim amendments, like victims have to be notified before a plea offer is made and family members of the victim are also now officially victims. Whatever.

By the way, I don’t see a single proposal for increasing funding for Corrections (not that it isn’t the biggest money hog ever) or Correctional officers or more training or… I know…prevention. No, no. That’s too damn liberal. Sorry.

So there you have it. A whole lot of nonsense that still leaves a horrible taste in my mouth because this “urgency” came about only because three white people from an affluent suburb were killed. Yeah, I said it.*

I’m considering turning comments off for this post, but I’ll leave them on for now. Be warned, though. I have an itchy trigger finger on this one. I will close comments if I feel like it, without warning. It’s my blog. Deal with it.

*Now before any of you go saying “Oh you don’t care about people you killerhugger” and “how can you say that. three people died! it’s horrible!”, let me re-iterate (meaning I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again) that I don’t condone violence or crime. Obviously. No one does. But that’s not what I’m talking about here. So please understand that.