prison overcrowding
There are other reforms, too
Sep 30th
Forgotten in this Cheshire mess is the sentencing commission that started work in May, which was charged with looking at how to change the state’s sentencing laws for the better. Ah, back in May, when Komisarjevsky was still on GPS monitoring and the Petit women were alive.
Glad to hear that someone thought to ask them of their other business. Cheshire has overshadowed the fact that CT has draconian drug laws and there is a racial disparity in sentencing and even charging.
[New Haven Public Defender Tom] Ullmann and several other members suggested the task force may be missing a chance to make long-term changes in the justice system.
Others said the group will continue to discuss issues such as mandatory minimum drug sentences and racial disparity in sentencing even as it deals with parole system gaps exposed by the Cheshire case.
Some of the juicy things on their agenda:
The task force divided into four subcommittees that would discuss alternatives to incarceration, sentencing structure, the racial imbalance in prisons and how to classify some drug offenses and other crimes that carry a broad range of possible sentences.
These are all excellent areas of investigation and reform. Thankfully last year the legislature eliminated the disparity between crack and powder cocaine sentencing (I think…I may be imagining it).
Prison overcrowding is an immense problem and all of these avenues will help to reduce it and hopefully, get to the source of the problem for most drug offenders: addiction.
I wish there was some way to study racial disparities in charging, but it seems too daunting a task.
Of all the groups commenting on Cheshire, this task force has been oddly silent. Not all members agree:
Some members say the task force should lend its voice to the Cheshire debate so the state does not make any rash changes.
“I think it’s incumbent upon us to respond,” said Andrew Clark, a group member and the administrator of the Institute for the Study of Crime & Justice at Central Connecticut State University. “We have to ask tough questions and come up with real solutions.”
But there has been, at least for some members, a shift in focus.
The sentencing task force changed its focus at the same time. It studied tougher burglary laws and looked at the impact a tougher “three strikes and you’re out” law would have on prison overcrowding.
“It’s almost like members are bending over backward to join the throng of punitive measures,” said Jon Schoenhorn, a task force member and president of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. “It violates the entire purpose of why this task force was created.”
“Three strikes laws” + prison overcrowding: Not gettin’ better any time soon.
Emergency hearing on parole ban and unconstitutionality of overcrowding
Sep 25th
The Judiciary Committee will hold an emergency hearing on Gov. Rell’s parole ban on Monday. Since she refused to testify, they’ve asked DOC commissioner Theresa Lantz to testify instead. Here [pdf] is the letter inviting her. The crux:
In particular, the committee would like to know whether you anticipate there will be a surge in inmate population. We also want to know what the contingency plans the Governor has to protect corrections staff and host communities in the event there is a population surge beyond what can be safely accommodated in Connecticut’s correctional institutions.
The Governor has implied that her ban on parole of violent offenders is temporary. On Friday, she stated: “This policy, which follows the arrest Friday of a Connecticut parolee accused in Hartford carjacking, will remain in place until reforms of the parole process are complete.”
We also need to know what reforms of the parole process the Governor believes must be enacted by legislation and which reforms can be done by the administration through regulations. Once we have the administration’s definitive enumeration of legislative proposals, we can include them on the agenda for the Committee’s upcoming hearing on criminal justice reforms.
A bit too nice for my liking, but this is politics.
I’d like to point to yesterday’s decision by a Federal Judge in California, holding that jail officials violated the prisoners’ constitutional rights when they had them sleep on concrete floors because of chronic overcrowding. The LATimes piece is here. Connecticut’s prisons are already overflowing and if you don’t think that inmates here are sleeping on floors then you’re lying to yourself.
Another thing that irks me is the continued misreporting of the Cheshire accused. During Colin McEnroe’s afternoon show on WTIC, the news included this statement: “Both accused had extensive criminal records”. No, they did not. Hayes did, Komisarjevsky did not. I guess I’ll keep repeating it till people get it right.
Early morning criminal justice roundup
Sep 25th
The most interesting story is this one about lawmakers considering a proposal to limit probation to a 2-year term, down from the current 5-years.
The goal is to focus supervision on offenders during their first two years of probation, when most violations occur, said William Carbone, executive director of the state Court Support Services Division.
Nearly 90 percent of probation violations in the state occurred during the first two years, according to statistics presented yesterday during a hearing in Hartford.
The option would give offenders an incentive to turn their lives around and would reduce the number of people who go back to prison, Carbone said.
Now this is sensible legislation, which comes from the sentencing task force, which has studies these issues over time.
Judge Patrick Clifford, chief administrative judge for criminal matters, said judges should have the right to order probation terms longer than two years.
Longer terms might be warranted in cases in which larceny offenders need time to repay victims, Clifford said. But he agreed most people on probation don’t need more than three years.
“If the person hasn’t violated within two or three years, it’s kind of just waiting for them to make a mistake,” Clifford said.
Okay, enough of the good stuff. On to the depressing stuff.
More stories this morning on Gov. Rell’s parole ban, but this time with more substance. First up is the prison population shift. As noted yesterday, more than 1,200 non-violent inmates are being fast-tracked for parole to make room for the violent offenders who have been denied parole.
The next one says simply: Parole Review Affects Hundreds.
Nearly 40 percent of all parolees were serving sentences for drug offenses, which are not classified as violent, according to state records. But there are also hundreds of parolees completing sentences for killings, rapes, robberies and kidnapping. Murderers are no longer eligible for parole, but 60 inmates who committed murders before a 1981 change in the law are on parole.
In recent years, the number of parole violators back in prison at any one time has hovered between 400 and 500, state records show. But that may rise considerably with Rell’s crackdown.
“If we identify anyone in this review who has failed to follow the terms of their release – or if anyone currently on parole fails to do so in the future – we will revoke their parole and return them to prison to serve the balance of their sentence,” Rell said last weeek.
The impact of the parole ban
Sep 24th
With much being said of Governor Rell’s ban on parole in the last few days (and most of it favorable), it must be pointed out what the impact of such a ban shall be. Here’s a story on just that. The highlights:
The Board of Pardons and Paroles is reviewing the cases of 400 to 600 inmates who were scheduled for release on parole.
These are inmates who were already granted parole (and some, it is safe to say, in the last few months), so now they have to be housed again and perhaps there is a legal challenge here. While there is no liberty interest in parole, there is a liberty interest in parole revocation. Canceling parole after granting it would be akin to a revocation of parole.
The Department of Correction is reviewing the files of 1,200 level one inmates to identify non-violent offenders to release to halfway houses to open bed space for violent offenders.
So now you have a number of inmates who will be rushed through parole to make room for those who have been granted it, but will not be released. Good for the 1,200, but is it really good for safety?
Rell said that there are no current or expected plans to build new or expand the state’s current prisons.
Ah, of course. Because Connecticut’s prisons are underpopulated and there are plenty of empty beds.
Lawlor said if violent offenders can’t receive parole, the state’s prison population will only grow more.
There are more than 19,000 inmates in Connecticut’s prisons, originally designed to house 17,000. Lawlor said that the federal courts could order a mass release.
Oh wait, so you mean there is a prison overcrowding problem? The best way to solve that is to ban parole for all violent offenders. No, it isn’t? Hmm.
East Haven Rep. Michael Lawlor, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said the state’s prison population has grown by 280 inmates since the July 23 Cheshire home invasion, in which a mother and her two daughters were killed.
This number will only continue to grow. Estimates put the projected increase at 1,500 over the next year. I guess I can safely delete these posts.
Of course, there are the “in the trenches” consequences:
Judges are setting higher bond for burglars and other criminals; defendants are receiving longer sentences; and the Board of Pardons and Paroles is more conservative about who gets parole.
In case we’ve all forgotten, here’s a reminder from a previous post, quoting the Office of Policy and Management’s “Comprehensive Plan For the Connecticut Criminal Justice System 2007 [pdf]“:
- Not shockingly, inmates released from prison with no community supervision were most likely to be reconvicted and resentenced to prison for a new offense.
The Governor, not surprisingly, has declined to appear before the judiciary committee to discuss her “ban”.
While the calls for three-strikes laws and stricter sentences were questionably wrong, this ban on parole is unquestionably knee-jerk and almost certainly illegal.
Serenity now….serenity now.
Breaking News: Gov. Rell bans parole for all violent offenders
Sep 21st
Wow. Well, so much for an event free weekend. Governor Rell announced a ban on parole for all violent offenders late Friday. How long will this ban remain in effect? Until lawmakers fix the state’s sentencing laws. Note that this will cover not only those that are convicted of violent offenses, but those that the parole board deems violent, despite not having a violent conviction in the last ten years.
So, basically, the Governor has superceded statute by this announcement. Might this not be a separation of powers problem?
The governor has also directed the Board of Pardons and Paroles to conduct an immediate review of all current parolees who were sentenced for a violent offense.
It may just be me, but the bit about the ban remaining in effect until lawmakers fix the state’s sentencing laws seems like a bit of a threat.
Judiciary Committee co-chair Mike Lawlor responded to this announcement via a press release in which he says:
“I understand why the Governor did what she did today and I support her decision. In light of today’s revelations, it’s clear that the parole system has become overwhelmed by new obligations in the last few months and cases started falling through the cracks, including this one.
Sorry, Meriden. That new prison is coming up in your town.
More as it is available.
Note: Given the sensitive nature of this topic, I want to reiterate (for those who might not have read the disclaimer), that whatever I write is my opinion only and is not a reflection of the views of my employer. For all I know, the public defender’s office might officially be okay with this. Please do not misunderstand this to be an endorsement of my views. I am a public defender who happens to practice in CT. I am not writing on behalf of the CT Public Defender’s Office, nor have I ever, nor will I.
This should also not be construed as any lobbying effort or any attempt to influence the legislators. It is merely my opinion on topical issues.
Just wanted to make that clear. Thanks for reading.
Re-entry problems
Sep 6th
Grits writes today of the counterproductive nature of policies that bar felons from gaining employment upon release. He points to this press release by the CEO of a security camera surveillance company lamenting the foolishness of such policies. I agree with both of them, but I don’t think any shift in policy will happen any time soon. Rehabilitation and re-integration into society have long been abandoned as goals of the correctional institutions and the penal system in this country (and many others).
Think about it. What is the last thing you want a just released inmate to be doing? Nothing. That’s right. You don’t want him to be sitting around on street corners wondering where the next meal is going to come from or where he’s going to sleep. That is not a good formula for re-integration. More often than not, he will resort to the only thing he knows: How to make quick money. More often than not, that will not involve legitimate means. Crime will continue to occur.
If we are to make our streets safer and to reduce the burden on taxpayers, then we need to focus on re-entry programs and in assisting recently released inmates obtain lawful employment. The money we spend on these programs will be quickly offset by the savings from reduced incarceration costs, law enforcement costs and will only help local economies.
So what is standing in the way? Are we that invested in the idea that “criminals” are “monsters” and “evil” and cannot be salvaged? Are we that invested in our moral highground that we cannot see beyond our own nose?
No one is better off with these policies. Which is why I was extremely glad when Connecticut introduced a proposal to provide gate pay to inmates earlier this year. We need more steps like these to ensure that when inmates are released, they aren’t forced back into a life of crime.
Racial disparity, cont’d…
Jul 19th
More on yesterday’s report. Judiciary co-chair Mike Lawlor weighs in:
That shows the disparities may be more between the rich and the poor, said state Rep. Mike Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee.
Connecticut’s white population is unusually rich, meaning more white offenders can afford the best attorneys and avoid prison than minority defendants, Lawlor said.
Uh, what? Rep. Lawlor, in case you didn’t know, your state (my state, our state) has one of the best public defender systems in the country. I would rather be represented by a public defender in this state. Please, do not disparage the brilliant attorneys working for our division so. Them’s fightin’ words – and a little heartbreaking 
You want to know another reason why the racial disparity is such? Because we classify non-violent drug offenders are violent based on their past history and keep them in jail longer.
That’s not to say CT hasn’t taken steps:
The legislature in 2005 increased the amount of crack cocaine a person must carry to be charged with planning to sell drugs. A commission of legislators, officials and policy experts is studying sentencing reform, including possibly changing the state’s mandatory minimum drug laws.
Nearly two-thirds of defendants charged with mandatory minimum drug crimes are black or Hispanic, state statistics show.
“The overrepresentation of people of color in our correctional institutions has long been of great concern to me,” Correction Commissioner Theresa Lantz said. “While I can’t control who is placed in my custody, I strive to address literacy, employment skills, sobriety and housing during incarceration, so that these individuals are prepared for a productive re-entry to their communities.”
Sentencing disparities anyone?
Disturbing racial disparities in incarcerated population
Jul 18th
The Sentencing Project has issued [blurb] its latest report [pdf] on State rates of incarceration based on race and ethnicity has some disturbing news for Connecticut. Connecticut is one of five states where African-Americans are incarcerated at twelve times the rate of whites.
That’s not all. Connecticut’s Hispanic to white incarceration ratio is three times the national average and is the highest in the nation at more than six times.
Some explanation for this:
Other states – Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island – maintain black rates of incarceration that are near or below the national average, but have white rates of incarceration that are less than half the national average. Thus, an average black rate of incarceration and a low white rate of incarceration results in a high black-to-white ratio.
Obviously a big contributor to this is the drug policy – especially the sentence enhancements for sale within school zones [previous commentary here].
What is more important and more interesting is whether there are racial disparities in sentences imposed. I asked about this before, but didn’t generate much discussion. Perhaps this time will be different. Are there such disparities? Can they be proven? Is there a remedy besides sentencing guidelines? Obviously, the statistics indicate that there might be something there, but is it quantifiable?
What should one look to in determining whether racial disparities at sentencing exist?
Finally, sentencing disparities in capital punishment rates are also documented. Where there’s smoke….
On a related note, here’s another study [full study] released today [release] by the Justice Policy Institute that finds that anti-gang legislation that advocates locking up gang members and other initiatives aimed at reducing gang violence doesn’t work; rather it adds to the gang problem.
Gate pay for inmates a reality
Jul 10th
Finally, the Connecticut legislature has passed a bill that goes a long way toward giving inmates gate pay. Currently, inmates in Connecticut are released from prison without any money whatsoever and are dropped off in the center of either of the large cities (Hartford or New Haven). Then, they are left to their own devices. I have long maintained that this policy is counter-productive, so I am quite glad to see that there is something being done.
The provisions are that 10% of all inmate earnings will automatically be transferred to a “savings” account, the contents of which will be available to the inmate at the time of release.
Battling recidivism rates and grappling with preparing thousands of inmates for release, several states have set up similar “discharge accounts” for inmates. The hope is that such a reserve, along with other measures, will facilitate a quicker transition to a law-abiding life, and, in turn, stop the recycling of inmates through the court and prison systems.
Obviously, as with all state laws that deal with inmates, there is a catch. Once the account reaches $1000, it will stop accruing money and the 10% will instead be deducted to reimburse the state’s cost of incarcerating the inmate.
Department of Correction Commissioner Theresa Lantz, who tried four previous times to push the law through the legislature, hopes mandatory savings will impress upon the system’s roughly 18,800 inmates the importance of setting aside money for re-entry, instead of “spending money on honey buns” in the prison commissary.”At least it will get the offender some pocket change,” Lantz said. “Hopefully they’ll use it for the right reasons.”
But ofcourse, this is a meager step (albeit a good first step). Inmates rarely make any money in prison even if they want to. The maximum they can earn in CT prisons is $1.75 per hour.
“Ten percent?” said Janette Rodriguez, another former inmate, who for years bounced in and out of jail but is now drug-free. “I think that’s crazy. Some people in jail, they make $5.35 a week.” Pay in the facilities can range from 75 cents a day to $1.75 an hour or slightly more, depending on the position.
Without any outside help, inmates with shorter jail or prison terms, like Anthony [another inmate], would have trouble earning enough to make a significant difference in quality of life, some former inmates say. The savings accounts will not bear interest, said Brian Garnett, a Department of Correction spokesman.
“If you could come out for $1,000, it just sounds like you’d have to be in there for years,” Rodriguez said.
That you would, Ms. Rodriguez, that you would.
One other important provision is the DOC working with DMV to provide inmates with some sort of identification upon release. For without ID, how is the inmate to cash the cheque? Overall, I like the idea, but it has a long way to go to be effective and truly useful.
Some CT prison population fun facts
Jun 21st
Via the Office of Policy and Management‘s “Comprehensive Plan For the Connecticut Criminal Justice System 2007 [pdf]“:
- Connecticut’s Rate of Incarceration per 100,000 of population is the highest in the Northeast at 373.
- The average for the Northeast is 298 per 100K
- Connecticut’s Rate of Incarceration is 28th in the country, however.
- The top offense among the incarcerated population is Violation of Probation, accounting for 13.57% of all inmates
- Second on the list is Sale of a Narcotic substance, accounting for 11.12%.
- The rest are all under 5.32%
- 92% of the prison population is male.
- Parole is granted in 82% of cases that make it to a full panel or administrative review.
- There are 1663 crimes in the State of Connecticut for which incarceration is a possible sentence.
There is also a 2007 Recidivism Study, which reveals the following information:
- The overall reconviction rate was 39%.
- The overall resentenced to prison rate was 22%.
- Not shockingly, inmates released from prison with no community supervision were most likely to be reconvicted and resentenced to prison for a new offense.
- Inmates convicted of property offenses have the highest recidivism rates.
- Recidivism rates for sexual offenses was the lowest (22%), even lower than motor vehicle offenses (31%) [Full chart on page 6]
There is so much more in these reports. I will continue to sift through the information and present it.
Technorati Tags: connecticut, prison population, statistics, recidivism
A review of Connecticut’s prison overcrowding problem
Apr 17th
Slightly over two months ago, I reported a study by the Pew Charitable Trusts regarding the prison population outlook from 2007-2011. I noted that Connecticut was one of only three states expected to maintain its prison population over that time period.
Today I happened across the Case Study of Connecticut. The Pew Trusts’ report about Connecticut can be found here [pdf]. It is a very interesting report – it starts off with “The Challenge” facing Connecticut from 1995-2002, then leads us through several changes implemented by the legislature and the Governor from 2002-2006 and then makes some predictions about the outlook.
It makes mention of the Act Concerning Prison Overcrowding (PA 04-234), which as recent observations suggest, has done nothing to alleviate prison overcrowding. It ends with the observation that unless the pretrial population is given more focus, the numbers will start to increase again.
I am going to have to look at Connecticut’s declining inmate population from 2002-2006 as a fond memory.
Under current jurisprudence, there is no right to parole; there is no liberty interest in parole and apparently, there is no parole scheme. Parole can do what they want and do not have to review any inmate at any point in their sentence, despite the statute seemingly stating the contrary. I may disagree with it, but that’s the way it stands and that is the effect.
So, in the near future, I don’t see a continuing decline in the prison population.
Technorati Tags: prison overcrowding, connecticut
State prison population expected to level off
Feb 15th
According to a study released [.pdf file] by the Pew Charitable Trusts, Connecticut is one of three states in the country expected to maintain their prison levels through 2011. The national trend is expected to be an increase of 13 percent.
Connecticut, as previously reported, had hit its all-time high of prison population and this certainly is a good indicator of things to come. The obvious problem with such a high prison population is overcrowding.
The recent spike in the inmate population is exacerbated by the fact that there aren’t enough beds for inmates, who continue to sleep on mats on gym floors, with dozens sharing few toilets.
Brian Garnett, the corrections spokesman, concedes that overcrowding is an issue, but said the figures would be much higher if the department hadn’t collaborated with legislators and so aggressively worked to reduce recidivism among parolees and probationers. “The important perspective, while we are crowded, we’d still be more crowded if not for the steps we’ve taken,” Garnett said.
What is heartening about this study and the Courant article are the comments by legislators about what is being done to control the prison population. Primarily, there has been in an increase in probation staff and an emphasis on looking closely at technical violations and avoiding the trap of doing the easy thing: throw them back in jail.
The state’s $13 million parole and probation recidivism efforts focused on parolees and probationers locked up for non-criminal offenses, such as being late to a meeting with an officer or for losing a job, and thus, failing to meet a probation requirement. “It’s too easy to do it – ah, just send them to jail,” said [Co-Chair of the Judiciary Committee Mike] Lawlor. The theory was that by hiring more probation officers, and reducing caseloads, the probation officers had more time with clients to pinpoint programs that might keep them out of prison.
…
More than what the study could mean for overcrowding, though, Lawlor said the study highlights the fact that officials in Connecticut conservatives and liberals alike have agreed to a new approach dissecting the series of decisions that land a person behind bars. Some offenders deserve lengthy sentences, he said, while others only “need to be locked up for a short period of time,” he said.
According to figures cited in the article, Connecticut reduced the number of parolees and probationers sent back to jail on technical violations by 20%.
I was not aware of these changes (or even these figures), but I welcome this approach taken by the Department. It has long been evident that different rules apply in different jurisdictions and whether a parolee/probationer gets sent back to jail on a technical violation depends on what region he is from. Hopefully now, there will be a state-wide policy to take a second look at technical violations and seek out alternative remedies rather then sending them back to jail.
Technorati Tags: prison overcrowding, connecticut
Parole eligibility is not an integral part of the criminal sentence
Feb 5th
The Connecticut Supreme Court today released a much awaited opinion in Troy Baker v. Commissioner [.pdf] [see previous coverage here.] The basic issue is whether a Superior Court (in this case a Habeas Court) has the jurisdiction to hear challenges to parole eligibility designations. The Appellate Court held that the court did. The Supremes overruled.
The parole scheme in Connecticut classifies three types of inmates; those that are ineligible, those that are eligible after service of 85% of their sentence and those that “were” eligible after 50% of their sentence. [I used quotations around were, because, well, they were. Until this decision.] These three classes are laid out in the General Statutes. Today, the Supreme Court held that the only mandatory language in the statutes relates to those who are NOT eligible until 85%. As for the rest, the parole board can do whatever it wants.
The essential question, therefore, is whether the statutes create a liberty interest in parole eligibility. [Please note that there is a critical distinction between parole eligibility and parole suitability. Baker argues the former, not the latter. The Court writes:
We begin with the text of § 54-125a. Subsection (a), which the petitioner claims gives rise to his liberty interest in being considered eligible for parole after serving 50 percent of his sentence, provides in relevant part: ‘‘A person convicted of one or more crimes who is incarcerated on or after October 1, 1990, who received a definite sentence or aggregate sentence of more than two years, and who has been confined under such sentence or sentences for not less than one-half of the aggregate sentence or one-half of the most recent sentence imposed by the court, whichever is greater, may be allowed to go at large on parole in the discretion of the panel of the Board .
We see nothing in this text that affirmatively grants any inmate the right to parole eligibility after serving one half of his or her sentence. In contrast, subsection (b) of the statute instructs that an inmate deemed to be a violent offender by the board ‘‘shall be ineligible for parole under subsection (a) of this section until such person has served not less than eighty-five per cent of the definite sentence imposed.’’ . .
The Court then does something even more…interesting. It holds that parole eligibility is not part of a criminal sentence. This holding is extremely problematic, for both defense attorneys and prosecutors. Plea bargaining will take on a whole new facet. Based on my experience, the most common question asked by defendants to their attorneys is: “When will I be released?” Parole eligibility is probably the most significant factor in answering that question. It’s hard to reach the conclusion that it is not an integral part of the sentence, but the Court does just that.
Finally, the Court lets stand a prior decision, Johnson v. Commissioner, which challenged the same statute’s retroactive application. Johnson held that a retroactive application of this statute was unconstitutional.
What this also means is that if the legislature was worried about prison overcrowding before this decision, I wonder how they feel now.
Hmm. I must ponder this some more.
recent comments