There’s a big article in the Courant today on the subject.
Also, if you want to sift through primary sources, you can go read the testimony given. The actual transcripts of the hearing won’t be available for a while, yet.
And now we’ll see what comes of all this. The next act happens in a January special session, which will decide the fate of the 15 proposals the hearing was about.
Updated by CGG
Senator Andrew McDonald and Rep. Tim O’Brien both blogged about the hearings.
18 responses so far ↓
Where was the DOC commissioner yesterday?
Her agency will feel the greatest impact!
Rell should have ordered her to testify!
[quote comment="23209"]Where was the DOC commissioner yesterday?
Her agency will feel the greatest impact!
Rell should have ordered her to testify![/quote]
The Gov. declined to participate.
Susan O. Storey, the state’s chief public defender, told legislators Connecticut would be better served by devoting more resources to community-based rehabilitation programs. Helping offenders get educated and find work and housing are the best ways to ensure they won’t commit more crimes, she said.
“A real indicator of recidivism is whether or not someone can get a job,” she said.
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19064511&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6
But Petit urged lawmakers Tuesday to keep a narrow focus.
“I know that the legislative process and the political process are closely intertwined,” he wrote. “I firmly believe that political considerations should have no place in this debate. From my perspective, the sole issue and the only legitimate focus should be public safety and the protection of the citizens of Connecticut from those who do not respect them or our laws.”
Petit added that the tragedy that struck his family “exposed some glaring defects in our laws and their ability to adequately ensure our public safety.”
——
Komisarjevsky and Hayes had more than 40 convictions between them, most involving burglary. Both men were on parole when they killed Petit’s wife and daughters, police said.
The atty for one of them said at his last the sentiencing hearing that he feared the perp would do it again if not put in the right program – but, alas, the state prosecutors didn’t think it important to provide transcripts to the parole board and the parole board never demanded them until Bob farr came on board too late.
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19064521&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6
But Connery said Thursday night, “What’s the case doing back in the grip of Dearington and company if he announced in August 2006 that it was being handed over to Kevin Kane’s office and the supposedly more experienced and objective cold case professionals?”
Connery said, “Apparently these ‘four horsemen’ have been functioning for seven months, and only now, for some reason, is it being announced.”
“I think this deception is appalling,” Connery added. “There’s no reason why the top legal officers of the state should be misleading serious, concerned citizens.”
who’s on first?
http://www.nhregister.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/BigDaily;jsessionid=2vXGHQbFnmj3npJSRL4H7yN2vG1GVxmwHGhJ3qz2YLkM3YyHFVCT!-664461728?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FNHR%2FHome&r21.content=%2FNHR%2FHome%2FTopStoryList_Story_1190018
Rell, whose next budget plan is due to the General Assembly when the 2008 regular session opens Feb. 6, did offer one hint Monday of her plans.
Of course not!
http://www.journalinquirer.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19060740&BRD=985&PAG=461&dept_id=161556&rfi=6
something else I don’t understand here. The GOP Senate wants to shift the funding for the parole board from DOC to DPS. DOC oversees the probation and parole process/employees – do they want to shift that to DPS too?
[quote comment="23302"]something else I don’t understand here. The GOP Senate wants to shift the funding for the parole board from DOC to DPS. DOC oversees the probation and parole process/employees – do they want to shift that to DPS too?[/quote]
It used to be in DPS. DOC has the potential to pressure Parole to release offenders because of an overcrowding issue.
In DPS Parole would be more independent.
That’s bullshit Roadrunner. The Parole Board is already independent. The whole problem with Cheshire goes back to the unaccountable shitheads at the state prosecutors office/criminal justice commission/ criminal justice division but because they are mostly Republicans nobody from the GOP wants to shine the spotlight on their bullshit.
And let’s not forget that DPS is thee most politically and otherwise corrupt agency in state governemtn as well.
PS: and don’t bother with the nonsnense that the new DPS Commish is a Democrat – he’s a hack for Rell and O’Connor.
http://www.ct.gov/cjc/cwp/view.asp?Q=399996&A=2075
http://www.ct.gov/csao/cwp/view.asp?Q=399922&A=1802
collectively they are bunch of idiots. individually they may be competent and hnoest but nobody is in chareg of this mob
Which brings me to why I think this could become a missed opportunity. While the legislature is considering the strengthening of punishment for a certain class of people, it is must also consider how to deal with overcrowding and how we came to it in the first place. It must deal with the Gov.’s promise of releasing non-violent offenders to make room and the wisdom in that. It must deal with ensuring that no one, not a single offender commits another offense upon release.
That is truly in the interests of public safety. Almost every inmate will at some point be released. In order to keep the public safe, the legislature must ensure that these people have no incentive to reoffend. Rehabilitation has long since been abandoned as a goal of corrections and the legislature should use this opportunity to rectify that. When an inmate is released after a prolonged period of incarceration, without an education, without any employable skills and definitely without any money, it is no surprise that a return to a life of crime is a foregone conclusion. This is not necessarily because they like crime, but mostly because they have no other choice. Left in the middle of one of CT’s large cities, with no hope for the future; no job to provide an income, no skills with which to obtain a job, it is very tempting for people to return to the quick and easy: selling drugs, robbing a bodega, etc. This only further puts public safety at risk. If we want to avoid that; if we want to give people a reason not to reoffend, them it is our responsibility to provide them with the tools to do so.
just in case some folks missed Gideon’s wrapup on the hearings. bold emphasi by me
http://apublicdefender.com/2007/11/28/thoughts-on-criminal-justice-reform/
I guess the only answer is providing state funded education after high school and free job training. A reward for breaking the law.
I struggled to go to college and worked full-time. There is no free lunch.
Isn’t the reason most resort to crime is they want a quick easy fix instead of working 40-60 hours a week like most of us do. Its only after spending years in prison they realize there is no easy way to prosparity.
Yes, I would love to make a quick $50,000 muling drugs over the border but some of us don’t, because we know the consequences of breaking the law. If it means that I was forced to bus tables for a couple of years so what.
BRIDGEPORT – State police are investigating whether one of their own threatened a sergeant at the Bridgeport barracks who found a bullet with his badge number engraved on it along with a menacing note tucked in his desk drawer.
—-
“There is some confusion about how we are approaching it. I have gotten some word from some individuals who believe it is a criminal investigation and it is not,” Danaher said Friday. “It is an inquiry.”
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called for a criminal investigation Friday, saying, “These reports are very deeply disturbing.”
“They should almost certainly be the subject of a criminal investigation as well as an internal affairs investigation,” Blumenthal said, adding there is also the possibility of a whistle-blower investigation by his office. “I have no information as to why [Danaher] may be proceeding in one direction or another. Clearly there is a very direct and imminent threat in this message.”
dysfunction junction at DPS once again.
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-cspthreat1201.artdec01,0,5564968.story
Rell said, “There is no excuse for that kind of lack of communication and the DOT is well aware that this is not to happen again.”
Maybe Rell could be engaged to wag her finger at all the convicts – the ones in or going to jail as opposed to those on the state payroll, roadrunner.
http://www.connpost.com/ci_7606604
[quote comment="23321"]I guess the only answer is providing state funded education after high school and free job training. A reward for breaking the law.
I struggled to go to college and worked full-time. There is no free lunch.
Isn’t the reason most resort to crime is they want a quick easy fix instead of working 40-60 hours a week like most of us do. Its only after spending years in prison they realize there is no easy way to prosparity.
Yes, I would love to make a quick $50,000 muling drugs over the border but some of us don’t, because we know the consequences of breaking the law. If it means that I was forced to bus tables for a couple of years so what.[/quote]
It runs much deeper than that. There are scores of people for whom there is no other option, no other outlook and no other way of life. No one is advocating abandoning any jail time, but it has to be used wisely and in conjunction with rehabilitative programs – both inside and out. Some people need more help than others. Good for you that you made it.
didn’t realize thsi was still going on this link probably belongs here then:
As testimony last week before the governor’s task force on criminal justice reform showed, there are gaping holes in the state’s convict re-entry program.
Carbone, a member of the task force, said ex-cons who pose the biggest threat “need to be housed on a 24/7 basis in a therapeutic community” with inpatient treatment.
http://www.nhregister.com/WebApp/appmanager/JRC/BigDaily?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=pg_article&r21.pgpath=%2FNHR%2FHome&r21.content=%2FNHR%2FHome%2FFeaturedArticle_Story_1197650
ok, I have a question. If the current persistent offender laws only allow a sentence of up to 40 (or 60) years, but have no minimum sentence; what is the prosecutor’s motivation for using them without a guarantee that the judge will give a higher sentence than what would have been given anyways?
Sorry for a second post, I have another question. If there is no mandatory minimum with persistent offender laws, why would there be a specification that for some crimes the judge must use the enhanced sentence whereas for others they may use the enhanced sentence.
You must log in to post a comment.