For the fifth year in a row, the State legislature did not pass an open container law. Per CT News Junkie, the Black and Hispanic caucuses argued that the bill would just end up discriminating against minorities and give cops another excuse.

So, come to CT, where you can drink and drive (just not drunk and driving).

Cops really don’t like change, do they? One of the more noteworthy bills the legislature passed this past session was the one re-classifying 16 and 17 year olds as juveniles, as opposed to “youthful offenders”.

Why does this bother the cops? Because it means they won’t be able to talk to these teens without a parent or guardian present.

[West Hartford Police chief] Strillaci said that the law would cause juvenile courts to see a 60 percent increase in cases, and that police wouldn’t be about to question the teens without a parent or guardian, and that they wouldn’t be able to detain a 16-or 17-year-old.

He said it would prove costly for local police departments that would have to build special cells for the teens and hire more staff.

Note the contradiction there? “They wouldn’t be able to detain the teen”, but “they would have to build special cells and hire more staff”.

You can’t see it, but I’m rolling my eyes right now. Oh boy. Now they can’t get confessions from confused, immature teens. Tragedy.

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

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?

At the end of June, four police departments in CT will begin to videotape interrogations of suspects of violent felonies.

Supporters think such a policy should have been required in Connecticut years ago, especially in light of two high-profile cases in which police were accused of coercing confessions. Law enforcement officials have remained leery, voicing concerns that suspects will balk at being recorded and that defense lawyers will critique interrogation tactics.

In 2003, Illinois became the first state to enact legislation requiring electronic recording of interrogations. Maine and New Mexico soon followed suit. But even those states were a decade behind Alaska and Minnesota, whose supreme courts mandated taping in the mid-1980s. New Hampshire and New Jersey’s supreme courts have since made similar rulings. Additionally, 500 smaller jurisdictions have adopted recording policies.

Under State v. James, a 1996 CT Supreme Court decision, videotaping interrogations is not required. Despite that, many organizations have lobbied tirelessly for requiring such videotaping.

Rep. Michael Lawlor, the committee’s co-chairman, said the measure has been merged with another bill aimed at compensating those wrongfully convicted. He said a Commission on Wrongful Convictions would evaluate the pilot program and report back in January. “Then next year we’ll talk about expanding” the videotaping program said Lawlor.

Lawlor said he believes Connecticut will eventually require recording statewide.

Won’t be too soon.

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:

What is it in Connecticut’s water that makes some people batty? Whatever it is, it seems to have some staying power. After Cheshire and more recently the killing in New Britain, Connecticut Congressman Chris Murphy has announced plans to introduce legislation making “home invasion” a Federal crime. From his press release, a copy of which is posted at CTLP:

Today, Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5) announced a pair of legislative initiatives designed to make home invasion a federal crime and provide additional federal resources and technology to parole and probation officials. Connecticut residents have witnessed two heinous home invasions and murders in less than a year – one just this weekend in New Britain, and one in July in Cheshire.
Murphy’s proposal intends to:

• make home invasion a federal crime;
• improve the FBI’s tracking of home invasions across the country;
• improve federal resources for parole and probation activities, including federal funds for the use of GPS monitoring devices and the hiring of additional parole and probation officers;
• And create a national training center for parole and probation officials.

“Connecticut has been through enough this year. These senseless crimes have hurt so much more than our homes and families – they have shattered our sense of safety and security in our communities. It’s time for the federal government to provide more assistance to the states to keep us safe,” said Murphy.

Now, I’m no Constitutional scholar and I know less about Federalism, but this quote sums up the nutiness of his proposal (thanks to a post on a local listserve):

“The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local, and there is no better example of the police power, which the Founders undeniably left reposed in the States and denied the central government, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims. Congress therefore may not regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce.”

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000). So what’s the basis here for Federal legislation? I guess if there was a firearm that was used. But wouldn’t there have to be a showing that the firearm crossed state borders? So we would be talking about a very, very small subset of home invasions.

The real reason, I suspect, is to look good. Two of the districts he represents happen to be the scenes of horrific crimes.

However, is there no one advising him? It didn’t occur to him that this would not fall under Federal jurisdiction? Waste taxpayer money and others’ time to look good?

What’s that deficit at now?

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.

Just to show you how skewed the priorities of legislators are, let us compare two bills side by side.

On the left, we have the eyewitness id reform bill and on the right, the “collect DNA from the innocent” bill.

One is clearly needed, the other could be a significant violation of due process. (Yes, I do know that some states have held such DNA collection to not be a violation of the 4th. I disagree with them.)

As EyeID points out, the bill, while missing some legs, would have been a significant step in the right process. Alas, it was not to be. However, the esteemed legislators have deemed it worthy to collect DNA samples from people arrested of crimes. The argument behind this piece of legislation is that collection of DNA at the time of arrest would permit law enforcement to solve more crimes…because, you know, if you’re arrested, then you’ve probably committed a crime in the past.

Another rationale put forth by the State [pdf]- and I do love this - is that collection of DNA at the time of arrest would not only serve to solve unsolved crimes, but also prevent wrongful convictions.

The irony here, lest it be lost on you, is that the very same State opposed [pdf] the eyewitness ID reform bill, when DNA exonerations have shown that in 75% of wrongful conviction cases faulty IDs have been the culprit. Apparently, in eyewitness ID reform, there is a “pilot program” and the “jury is still out” on whether sequential or simultaneous lineups are better. Yes, you read that right. Apparently, no one knows how to use Google. There is some heavy citing of the Mecklenburg Report, which permits law enforcement to continually bury its head in the sand. The State’s testimony then quotes Gary Wells out of context (I’ve read about this being done in other states too) and ignores his response to this misquoting (I’m going on memory here - I’m sure the guys at EyeID know what I’m talking about - or if I’m imagining this whole thing, I’ll take it down).

The CT Public Defender’s response to the EyeID bill is here and to the DNA bill here. All the testimony submitted on these bills is available here.

On a positive note, the committee did pass the probation reform bill, which I discussed previously.

All the bills reported out of committee by last night’s deadline are here. For example, here’s a bill “encouraging” bar owners to install breath alcohol testing devices. Here’s a bill making it illegal to hang on a noose on public property, or private property without the consent of the owner.

By a 25-16 vote, the Judiciary Committee voted against one three-strikes proposal today. The bill called for mandatory life sentence for third time offenders.

Opponents said the revamped three-strikes-and-you’re-out proposal was deceiving because it would not automatically require a life sentence for a third violent offense. The bill still gave prosecutors the discretion to decide whether to charge someone under the law.

And committee co-chairman Rep. Michael Lawlor said prosecutors have told lawmakers they would rarely use such a law.

“The bottom line is, this is very misleading,” said Lawlor, D-East Haven.

Another reason legislators gave for the down vote was that they had just recently tinkered with the persistent offender statute and not enough time has passed to evaluate whether that works or not:

Connecticut already has a law on the books addressing repeat offenders. During a special session in January, where many Cheshire-related reforms were passed, lawmakers tinkered with the law. They passed a version that removed a requirement that a judge make certain findings before imposing up to a life sentence for third-time offenders. That law takes effect March 1.

Sen. Andrew McDonald, the other committee co-chairman, said lawmakers should wait and see if that works.

“We are trying to fix something that we don’t know as yet is broken,” said McDonald, D-Stamford.