In the other criminal justice opinion issued by SCOTUS today, a 6-3 court held in Graham v. Florida that life without parole for juveniles convicted of non-homicide crimes violates the Constitution’s ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishments.  The decision is a beautiful thing, for sure. Combined with Roper, the Supreme Court has now categorically banned the death penalty for juveniles and LWOP for those juveniles convicted of non-homicide crimes.

This, however, has left a gap in the juvenile jurisprudence, one that is sure to be addressed sooner rather than later. What of LWOP for those juveniles who have committed some sort of homicide?

I believe the issue is ripe for pickin’ and there may be enough votes on the Court to hold that such a sentence would violate the Eighth Amendment.

Consider the following quotes. First, the Court sets up the framework under which this claim is to be analyzed:

The present case involves an issue the Court has not considered previously: a categorical challenge to a term-of-years sentence. The approach in cases such as Harmelin and Ewing is suited for considering a gross proportionality challenge to a particular defendant’s sentence, but here a sentencing practice itself is in question. This case implicates a particular type of sentence as it applies to an entire class of offenders who have committed a range of crimes. As a result, a threshold comparison between the severity of the penalty and the gravity of the crime does not advance the analysis. Here, in addressing the question presented, the appropriate analysis is the one used in cases that involved the categorical approach, specifically Atkins, Roper, and Kennedy.

Shunning the case-by-case approach in favor of the “bright line” approach is a trend on the Court and certainly works in favor of those arguing that LWOP for all juveniles is cruel and unusual.

In accordance with the constitutional design, “the task of interpreting the Eighth Amendment remains our responsibility.” Roper, 543 U. S., at 575. The judicial exercise of independent judgment requires consideration of the culpability of the offenders at issue in light of their crimes and characteristics, along with the severity of the punishment in question. Id., at 568; Kennedy, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 27–28); cf. Solem, 463 U. S., at 292. In this inquiry the Court also considers whether the challenged sentencing practice serves legitimate penological goals. Kennedy, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 30–36); Roper, supra, at 571–572; Atkins, supra, at 318–320.

The Court then goes through all the research and data relied on in Roper on the mental development of juveniles to support its holding that LWOP serves no penological purpose for this category of defendants:

because juveniles have lessened culpability they are less deserving of the most severe punishments. 543 U. S., at 569. As compared to adults, juveniles have a “‘lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility’”; they “are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures,including peer pressure”; and their characters are “not as well formed.” Id., at 569–570. These salient characteristics mean that “[i]t is difficult even for expert psychologists to differentiate between the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.” Id., at 573. Accordingly, “juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst of-fenders.” Id., at 569. A juvenile is not absolved of responsibility for his actions, but his transgression “is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult.” Thompson, supra, at 835 (plurality opinion).

Then the court ties together two threads: 1) that offenders who do not kill are categorically less deserving of the most serious punishments and 2) that LWOP is the second most serious punishment permissible. Thus, it concludes, juveniles who do not kill and are sentenced to LWOP have a “twice diminished moral culpability”.

The Court recognizes the fact that for juveniles – who have a diminished moral culpability – a sentence of LWOP is a death sentence and is unfair as it categorically denies them the opportunity to be rehabilitated and to atone for their mistakes and to prove that they are worthy of being given an opportunity to reintegrate into and contribute to society:

A sentence of life imprisonment without parole, how-ever, cannot be justified by the goal of rehabilitation. The penalty forswears altogether the rehabilitative ideal. By denying the defendant the right to reenter the community,the State makes an irrevocable judgment about that per-son’s value and place in society. This judgment is not appropriate in light of a juvenile non homicide offender’s capacity for change and limited moral culpability.

Which, if any, of the foregoing quotes excerpting the Court’s reasoning would be inapplicable to juveniles who have committed homicides? Certainly, I don’t disagree that it would be a tougher sell, but given the various rehabilitative and psychological factors underpinning the basis for the Court’s decision, one can make a strong legitimate argument that LWOP for all juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments [and I'm not the only one to notice this potential]. The converse of that argument – that juveniles who kill are just incorrigible enough and irredeemable enough to warrant spending the rest of their natural lives in jail despite their particular characteristics and the development of their brains – doesn’t hold water, especially when viewed in light of the quote above.

Excited as I am by this historic decision, the potential for application of Graham to all juveniles has me doubly excited. Are you?

A Connecticut aside: the issue of whether LWOP for juveniles who commit a capital felony is cruel and unusual was considered and rejected by the Connecticut Supreme Court in post-Roper, pre-Graham 2008:

The defendant contends that the sociological and physiological evidence on which Roper relied, which demonstrates that persons under the age of eighteen differ from adults in terms of their culpability and moral responsibility,  necessarily dictates a similar result because a life sentence without the possibility of release excludes the possibility of rehabilitation, the main objective for juvenile offenders. We disagree.

Maybe then, but perhaps no longer? Quoth Justice Stevens:

Society changes. Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes. Punishments that did not seem cruel and unusual at one time may, in the light of reason and experience, be found cruel and unusual at a later time; unless we are to abandon the moral commitment embodied in the Eighth Amendment, proportionality review must never become effectively obsolete…Standards of decency have evolved since 1980. They will never stop doing so.

I’m going to miss him.

“Hello, how may I help you today?”

“One robbery, please.”

“For here or to go?”

“To go, please.”

“Okay, your total is one smack on the head, plus tax.”

Fine, so that’s not exactly how the conversation went when two would-be robbers called a local bank and informed the person on the phone that they would be stopping by in a few to pick up their order of cash.

“You can’t make this stuff up,” Sgt. James Perez, Fairfield police spokesman, told the Post. “They literally called the bank and said to have the bag of money ready on the floor because they’re coming to rob the place.”

Then, true to their word, they showed up – just as police were coming to greet them.

One is a 16-year old juvenile and the other, 27, is on probation for – wait for it – robbing a bank. Prison may not have cured him of his bank-robber-itis, but it sure did teach him some manners.

[This is just an extreme example of the dire mopiness of most of our clients. An overwhelming number of clients that we here at 'a public defender' represent are sad souls, lost in the quagmire of a dead end life. Most aren't very educated and very few are even street savvy. They're just fools, for the most part, who make bad mistakes without thinking of the consequences. Drugs, alcohol and poverty play a significant role in their motivations for committing crimes. Very few of them, however, have the common courtesy to call ahead.]

So it’s time to return to one of my favorite games: judge for a day (previous installments here, here, here and here). Imagine you’re the judge who is to affix a sentence to those two simpletons. You know what I know: one is a juvenile (assume that he his record is non-existent or minimal) and the other is somewhat older and on probation for robbing a bank. Also assume that the older guy owes about 5 years on probation.

Your options are: a nolle, some form of alternative to incarceration program (see 53a-39a to 39d and other diversionary programs start here), probation for a misdemeanor, conditional discharge for a misdemeanor, probation for a felony or a CD for a felony, or just straight up time in the slammer with or without probation.

The robbery statutes are from here on down and the larceny statutes start here. The terms of incarceration are here and terms of probation are here.

So, Judge Intrepid Reader, how would you dispense your justice?

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.

So, it’s probably unnatural and unhealthy to be so giddy upon learning that Gov. Rell has decided not to seek re-election, but as most of you know, I can’t stand the woman. And that’s putting it mildly. I let out an audible yell yesterday when Ann Nyberg tweeted that she wasn’t going to run. My colleagues looked at me, much like they always do, like I had three heads. So maybe my disdain of the American Idol Governor knows no bounds.

But there’s good reason. After all, she has singlehandedly done so much to create such a disregard for the law and the rule of law, that sometimes I wonder who is worse: the law-breaking “criminals” she sought to protect our white community from or the law-ignoring bureaucrat.

She was the most dangerous of the “tough on crime” pols: sweet, nurturing, grandmotherly. She would lull everyone into sleep with her gentle affect and then decree the most outrageous acts of lawlessness this State has seen this decade.

First, there was Cheshire. Oh boy was there Cheshire. The brutal crimes in a white suburban neighborhood served not only to rouse the Governor from her mid-term siesta, but also had the side-effect of completely blinding her to common sense, and well, the rule of law. So the first thing she decided to do (well, sort of) was ban parole. That lasted for 4 months and resulted in severe overcrowding and a tremendous burden on state resources. That’s when Colin McEnroe coined the moniker “The American Idol Governor“. I still can’t get enough of that. She then proposed some truly scary and not very well thought out “reforms” of the criminal justice system, some of which unfortunately made it into law. Then she wanted CT to have a three-strikes law, in the face of all scientific research on its uselessness. Then came the unhinging, aka, “The David Pollitt Project“. I’m not even going to touch that. And finally, the veto of the death penalty abolition bill.

I write all of this, not to disparage her, but to remind myself and you  – voters all – of the absolute effing nonsense we’ve had to put up with these past few years. Will any of the people who’ve announced they’re running for Governor be any better? They almost have to, don’t they, because it can’t get much worse than this.

So while I wish her well in her personal life and hope that her health remains strong, I will not be sad to see her become former Governor Rell. I’m not sure there was a person less equipped to take on that job.

And now, on to the big question. What needs to be done? The first response is obvious: abolish the death penalty. But there are so many more things that need to be changed about the criminal justice system in our State. In my mind, there’s only one candidate who is qualified to do that. So, you guys can be the first to hear it: I am hereby announcing my candidacy for the Governor of the State of Connecticut and I will be running on the Smart on Crime platform for the “It must be easy; she did it for so long” party.

More details about the, well, details of my platform will follow in subsequent posts. I’m now going to go and do a cartwheel.

I tried really hard to come up with a witty title, but this is all I could muster. After a long day stuck getting re-educated [Ed. Note: Gideon's just trying to be funny. Actually was one of the most educational CLEs ever], I’m not going to try harder. Deal.

Via Scott via Doug Berman comes word of Norm Pattis’ latest article in the Law Tribune (which I might have read if someone hadn’t snagged it right away), in which he essentially argues for sentencing guidelines. Heck, the first sentence is:

Connecticut would do well to adopt comprehensive, non-mandatory sentencing guidelines in the criminal courts.

If that’s all you take away from the article, then, yes, you should go bang your head on a table or wonder if Norm’s tried any Federal cases recently.

But there’s more. What Norm is suggesting is a solution to a state-wide problem, one that I’ve written about before and one that really needs to be rectified somehow.

Here’s what he’s really complaining about:

I stagger from the courtroom to tell my client that the court cannot force the prosecutor’s hand. I cannot offer a principled explanation to this man about why another client of mine facing the same charges in a different courthouse was made a far better offer.

That’s just it. Everything in Connecticut is so…isolated. What’s a good offer in Hartford is unheard of in Waterbury. What would get accelerated rehabilitation in New Haven gets you a trial in Manchester.

Each courthouse in Connecticut is a separate entity, it’s own fiefdom. Some are run with iron fists and some with sensibility and compassion. But the results will always be different. A case that’s worth 1 year in one courthouse shouldn’t automatically become worth 7 years in another.

A long time ago, I asked what the reasons for this might be. The most popular answer was volume. Smaller courthouses have more time and resources to devote to prosecutions. Hence, a greater emphasis on adversarial litigation and demanding the moon and less on resolving the case efficiently and moving on to the next.

But that’s not all of it. As some regular readers will attest, in a few jurisdictions, the standard offers for certain crimes start in the high 30s. That’s years, not months. The same cases can get resolved in other equally busy courts for numbers in the 10s. That, squarely, rests on the shoulders of prosecutors. There are some that know they can twist the arm of every defendant, with pliant lawyers, into pleading guilty.

Sentencing guidelines, in my opinion, are a terrible idea. What Norm sees as the virtues of sentencing guidelines, I see as its pitfalls: a rigid set of rules, determining what the sentence should be for someone in an arbitrarily defined category. Sentencing guidelines remove all judicial discretion – and in good courts – prosecutorial discretion.

What he really means is that prosecutors need to stop being so varied in their assessment of cases. That judges need to grow a backbone and stop toeing the prosecutor’s line.

Maybe the next time legislators and the general public wonder why we’re spending so much money on the criminal justice system, they’ll look at the inconsistencies in prosecutions.

It would help. Sentencing guidelines won’t.

And to make you ignore everything I’ve typed thus far, here’s Pink Floyd:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwTpZpwjtIE[/youtube]

Defendant is charged with two counts of second degree robbery and four counts of third degree burglary. He robbed two Subway stores, making off with $1062 total. He was a polite robber, however, each time apologizing for robbing the stores. After the first robbery he apologized to the store clerk and thanked him and after the second one he said “I’m sorry, I have to do this.”

He robbed to keep up his prescription meds addiction, which turned into a heroin addiction when he couldn’t get any more meds.

No criminal record whatsoever; a productive member of society with a job. There was no violence during either robbery.

Remember folks, this is Connecticut – the State with the strictest sentences in the country.

What’s your sentence, Judge Commenter? There are no minimums and the max for the robbery is 10 and for the burglary is 5. But since there are multiple counts, you can run them consecutive, if you’re so inclined.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The facts are as follows: Defendant is involved in a DUI accident. It is probably his fault. The other car is damaged and the occupants of that car suffer serious injuries, but none that are life threatening or that will result in permanent loss of limbs or functions. The defendant is a young adult with no prior record and good family structure and employment history.

What’s your sentence?

Since the first installment of “Judge for a day” was so successful, I’ve decided to bring it back for another round. This time, ripped right from the headlines. By now, most of you have heard of Susan M. LeFevre. LeFevre, also known as Marie Walsh, was arrested in her “hometown” of Del Mar, San Diego. Problem is, she was on the lam for 32 years. LeFevre, as she was known back in Michigan, was sentenced to a 10 to 20 year sentence back in 1974, for sale of heroin (although differing stories are emerging about her role).

One year later, she ran away from the prison, at the age of 21. Now 53, she is married with children, living a law-abiding, successful life. Now, she faces the remainder of her sentence and a corrections spokesperson said that it’s most likely that she’ll be required to serve 5 1/2 years of the time she owes.

Pretend, however, that you are the prosecutor/judge that has to decide what to do with her. She obviously escaped from prison and owes time. Since then, however, she has lived a law-abiding life and has raised a family. This was also 32 years ago. She is now 53. Important to note, also, is that her co-defendant was released on parole after serving two years of the same 10 to 20 year sentence. He was sentenced on the same day as her.

What do you do? Do you go after her hard for the escape? Or do you take into account her life and her family and the nature of the crime (drugs, after all) and her age at the time of the crime and offer to re-negotiate the deal and sentence her to something lesser, like probation and community service?

After all, one of the purposes of imprisonment is rehabilitation and prevention of future crime. She’s already shown that she’s no recidivist, so is there any point to incarceration now?

What would you do and what do you think is the just outcome in this case? I’ve already tipped my hand as to what I think should happen.

[poll id="22"]

Images from Michigan DOC and AP

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?