- It doesn’t matter to me whether there is a realistic allegation of impropriety or not, the exclusive control of voting machines before and after the election by the company of one of the candidates is a really bad idea for democracy (and, for the record, I disagree with this post’s author that the SoS took a wishy-washy interpretation of the law; I think her interpretation of the existing law is correct, but the existing law needs to be changed to reflect the reality that companies are more likely to be involved than individuals – don’t know what I’m talking about? Go read the post).
- This is hard to believe – the entire membership of a city council switching parties en mass? And 60% of the County Committee? “Lyndhurst has long been considered a swing town in general elections over the last twenty years.” – Mindblowing.
- Rick Green has a disturbing column today in the Courant: “So an adult teacher who has sex with a teenager goes free. … But we’ll send a boy to jail for having sex with his girlfriend – and keep him there with a jacked up bail.” Had the kid been born 16 days
earlierlater, he would not have been in violation of Connecticut law. - Just in case you though Bridgeport politics couldn’t get any odder, they can…
- Two Cheshire State Reps propose new law strengthening sanctions against home invasion: “‘The proposed legislation addresses two of the most important concerns expressed by our constituents. It adds home invasion to Class ‘A’ felonies and provides greater certainty of punishment and maintains some judicial discretion.’ Currently, state law classifies burglary of an occupied home as a ‘Class C’ felony. The legislation that the two lawmakers are proposing would create a new classification ‘occupied home invasion’ which would be punishable as a ‘Class A’ felony.”
- From lamontcranston in the comments: Chief O’Leary will apparently offer written testimony in the DeLuca probe, but is precluded from answering questions.
Tuesday Morning Political Open Thread (NOW WITH LINKS!!!)
by Gabe · October 23rd, 2007, 8:26 am · 12 Comments
Tags: Open Forum
12 responses so far ↓
Old news on the Cheshire stuff. Incidentally, these two Dems are proposing softer reforms than the GOP… really a stretch to call what they are asking for “tough.”
Why are they being so careful to say “occupied” home invasion? Why not make all home invasions categorized as a violent crime? The only way a burglar finds out for absolute certain if someone is home is when they get inside.
Had the kid been born 16 days earlier
I think you mean 16 days later… But it’s still somewhat ridiculous that a slightly more than 3 year age difference can end up with the kid in jail.
[quote post="1103"]I think you mean 16 days later… [/quote]
Thanks – I got turned around on it (you can see why I’m not in grad school for math)!
For Don Pesci –
Revisiting our torture argument from a week or so ago, check this out:
We talked about my moral and Constitutional issues with torture – here is an example of the practical issue – it doesn’t get accurate information.
OLeary is going to testify in the Deluca hearings. I don’t know if this has been mentioned any where else.
lc – do you have a link?
Good point HH.
To enforce it the State will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender knew or had reason to know the home was occupied. Sounds like a Defense Attorney relief act to me.
[quote comment="21383"]Good point HH.
To enforce it the State will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender knew or had reason to know the home was occupied. Sounds like a Defense Attorney relief act to me.[/quote]
Yes. And it sounds soft on crime to me.
Tell me, if these two Democrats are really in the mood to get “tough” on criminal justice reform, why didn’t they call for a special session to address things like three strikes, or parole reform?
Why wait until February to draft bills on it, and until May of ‘08 to have new laws?
JM–I haven’t read the text of the proposed legislation–is the crime based on the burglar knowing the house was occupied, or does the legislation just say burglary of an occupied home? If it’s the latter, there likely would be no need to prove the burglar knew, b/c it would be more like a strict liability kind of crime. You burglarize an occupied house, you committed a Class A felony, whether you knew it was occupied or not (assuming the elements of burglary have been proven).
Gabe, here you go. http://www.wfsb.com/news/14402533/detail.html
It is from WFSB3.com
Gems,
I haven’t read it either and maybe strict liability will fly but any defense attorney worth a dime will argue the contrary. In effect you establish two different crimes for the same act; i.e. burglary. Sort of tosses the concept of requisite criminal intent on its head.
And what if the burglar enters the house, finds it occupied, and runs.
And the burglar who enters an unoccupied house without regard to its occupancy gets a pass.
And finally it is dubious from a policy standpoint since a burglar suddenly finding what he thought was an unoccupied house is occupied may escalate the situation violently when he realizes he is facing a much stiffer penalty.
[quote comment="21377"]Had the kid been born 16 days earlier
I think you mean 16 days later… But it’s still somewhat ridiculous that a slightly more than 3 year age difference can end up with the kid in jail.[/quote]
Depends on which kid you’re talking about.
So when should it not be okay? 14 & 17? 13 & 16? 12 & 15? ….
And what’s the maximum age someone should be to have sex with a 15 year old and it not be statutory rape?
Interesting that Green rails about the 18 year old’s $60,000 bond but fails to note that Glasser’s bond was $150,000.
You must log in to post a comment.