Mark Pazniokas, at his blog Capitol Watch, suggests that Chris Healy may have wounded fellow Republican Bob Farr, who is head of the parole board, more than the “liberal Democrats” who were the target of his piece.
Healy accuses the parole panel, which is run by former Rep. Robert Farr, R-West Hartford, of negligence or indifference.“Someone simply was either lazy, didn’t care or took their eye off the file,” Healy wrote. “Either way, those on the parole panel must have felt there was no price to pay for whisking these two back onto the streets without a warning and hoping for the best or simply believing no one would find out.”
[...]
Farr, the Republican named to run the parole board early this year before the two Cheshire suspects were paroled, has argued for years that a strong parole system was key to protecting society.
Gov. Rell has ordered a “top-to-bottom” review of the entire justice system–and I hope it goes forward. The parole board itself, which as Pazniokas points out is headed by a gubernatorial appointee, seems to be the likeliest target for blame.
Rep. Mike Lawlor released a statement correcting what he refers to as “incorrect reports” in the media claiming that Connecticut doesn’t electronically monitor prisoners and parolees.
�Connecticut parole and probation officials for many years have had the authority to require offenders to wear electronic monitoring equipment, which I have long supported and continue to support,� Rep. Lawlor stated. �This is a vital technology that should be used whenever our law enforcement officials believe it is necessary for public safety.�
If so, why wasn’t it done in this case? Another question.
12 responses so far ↓
Healy is off the wall on this, to be sure. Farr has said he was frustrated that the State’s Atty’s office wasn’t providing sufficient information for the board to make sound decisions on parole. And CSA, Kane, said he thought the board should have more info to make those deicions but he was concerned about the costs of phot copies – he never heard of pdf files and the Internet apparently, which would not be surprising!!!!
This is reminiscent of former DPS administrative chief and now ConnDOT chief, Ralph Carpenter, who didn’t install the on-board computers in state police cruisers because he didn’t have enough money in the budget and he never considered asking for it either. We pay top dollar in taxes for idiot bureaucrats who never get held accountable for jack shit.
And as I have tried to point out in the past the states attys really answer to nobody until they show in front of a judge or parole board, etc. and are challenged by criminal defense attys. It’s a very bad setup not to have them accountable to the people of CT who they are supposed to represent but they like it that way and keep it cozy, too.
Hey, Rell is not an idiot. She’s just under-educated.
And her salary of $150,000/yr isn’t “top dollar”, Schwarzenegger & Pataki get paid more. (Heck, Dan Malloy gets paid almost as much, and he’s just in charge of a city, not the whole state!)
CJC link, here;
http://www.ct.gov/cjc/cwp/view.asp?a=1361&Q=258220&cjcNav=|
Healy is beginnning to remind me of Barney from the Simpson’s.
parole board itself, which as Pazniokas points out is headed by a gubernatorial appointee, seems to be the likeliest target for blame.
I have been arguing here for the last week that the real problem isn’t with the parole board, but rather the criminal justice system that let these guys ever get a chance for a parole hearing or release. While the parole board didn’t have access to transcripts and a few other documents, there seems to be the general perception that those wouldn’t have really made a difference.
Even if the parole board had denied these guys release, they would have been out in just a few more years anyway. So the Petits would have been spared, but someone else would probably have been killed.
The issue I have is that each one of these guys had around 20 prior felonies, and were still eligible for release back into society. The Three Strikes law that Connecticut has is really not a three strikes law in the model of other states: it is really more a tool for prosecutors to use in plea-bargaining.
There may have been some mistakes made by the parole board, but I think there was a much bigger mistake in letting these guys near an exit door of prison so soon. Especially since Hayes had been disciplined in prison over 20 times.
No good will come of this “top to bottom” review other than “tough on crime” policies that other states enacted 20 years ago and have now found to be failing and/or harmful.
Farr said last week that even if they had the sentencing transcript, it probably wouldn’t have changed their decision to release him. All sorts of things are said at sentencings and if comments by a judge are now going to be used to deny parole, the proceedings will be a lot more contentious.
other than “tough on crime” policies that other states enacted 20 years ago and have now found to be failing and/or harmful.
So of the guys that were locked up for life, how many crimes have they committed? Seriously, how do you measure if these policies have been successful or not?
[quote comment="16632"]other than “tough on crime” policies that other states enacted 20 years ago and have now found to be failing and/or harmful.
So of the guys that were locked up for life, how many crimes have they committed? Seriously, how do you measure if these policies have been successful or not?[/quote]
Prison overcrowding, for one. Cases where three offenses for shoplifting land a guy in jail for life.
Reaction may be warranted, but it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the response is measured and logical.
I have yet to hear anything that would indicate that these two were anything but petty criminals and worthy of release ahead of known violent offenders.
I am not willing to blame the government without proof they should have known. Was there some indication of which I am not aware?
Instead let’s blame the two that really deserve the blame. But that might be to obvious for players of the Blame Game.
Personally I think the public should be demanding these two get the Death Penalty.
But in a move state officials now acknowledge was not made according to proper procedures, Mr. Komisarjevsky was paroled in April 2007.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/nyregion/31slay.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin
Gerry Pleasent, one of the Republican candidates running for Hartford City Council, urged the city’s mostly Democratic voters to remember to vote for the candidate and not their party when they go to the polls in November.
In a face-to-face interview at the State Capitol on Monday, he said if they vote for the candidate, they will be voting to give Hartford “a more promising and brighter future” in an election many have described as pivotal.
Pleasent, a former deputy police chief who retired in 2000, said he believes his police background makes him uniquely qualified for one of the nine council seats.
In order to move forward, he said, Hartford needs to get a handle on crime. It starts with enforcing traffic violations. “I don’t assume because the light is green it’s safe to go,” Pleasent said.
He said with increased traffic enforcement police will inevitably be able to catch more people for things other than traffic violations. He said you start pulling more people over and you start picking up people with weapons and outstanding warrants.
In addition to increasing traffic enforcement, he said the police also need to improve their response time.
He said last week Hartford’s response time to priority A calls, which are the most serious 911 calls, was 7.8-minutes. He said when he was there just seven years go they were doing about 6-minutes. He said the current response time for priority B calls was 32-minutes and priority C calls was 52-minutes.
He said increasing the police department to 500 strong would be a start and should be a priority for the next council and mayor.
Another priority should be attracting new business and giving ex-convicts a new start by helping them obtain employment, Pleasent said. He said for those that have a criminal record and can’t get a job the city could help by opening up a folder, with their permission, that gives employers more information about them than just the fact they may have committed a crime.
Pleasent said he couldn’t comment on how Mayor Eddie Perez is doing at attracting business downtown because he’s not there in the mayor’s office to see what’s happening.
While he was hesitant to criticize Perez and the Democrats, he did say he thinks there should be some facsimile of Republican representation on the council to help the city move forward. Pleasent is running on a slate with six other candidates including incumbent Councilwoman Veronica Airey-Wilson, Michael J. Lupo, a former school board member; Michael McGarry, a former city councilman; Kevin Carroll, a local lawyer; and John Lupo Jr., a former member of the Hartford Redevelopment Agency. Republican Councilman Robert Painter is not seeking re-election.
Voters will be able to vote for six of the nine council seats, which means the Democrats will not be able to win all nine of the council seats.
Based on the state’s minority representation rule, the six Republicans and three Working Family Party candidates will be left to duke it out for the three remaining seats.
But wait that’s not it. Let’s not forget about the six reform slate candidates left out of the Democratic primary because they circulated petitions for their own slate, in addition to Minnie Gonzales’ race for mayor. The reform slate is a group of candidates from across the city that aren’t beholden to any one mayoral candidate. The slate includes: Andrea Comer, Eric Crawford, Maria Diaz, David Morin, Paulo Mozzicato, and Beatriz Ramon.
*Story Courtesty of Christine Stuart, Editor and Chief of CT News Junkies
You must log in to post a comment.