PDA

View Full Version : Aug. 2, 2007: Tougher penalties for repeat offenders sought



Record-Journal
08-01-2007, 11:42 PM
Democratic lawmakers are not opposed to holding a special session to address stronger criminal sanctions for repeat offenders, but they want to make sure they have all the facts.

"We want to make sure we do it right," said House Majority Leader Christopher G. Donovan, D-Meriden.

Since the death of three in a Cheshire home invasion last week, discussion in Hartford has focused on the criminal justice system.

The two men who allegedly killed three members of the Petit family were out on parole when the Petit home went up in flames and the family members were killed.

State officials say some information about their criminal backgrounds was not given to the Board of Pardons and Parole when the board granted their paroles. (Please see related story on page 7.)

Lawmakers are seriously looking into the matter, Donovan said. But before the General Assembly looks to change laws, it needs to find out where there was a breakdown, he said.

"We need to make sure we enforce the laws we have now," Donovan said.

Republicans, however, are already calling for change.

In a July 31 letter to Senate President Pro Tem Donald E. Williams Jr., D-Brooklyn, and Speaker of the House James A. Amann, D-Milford, the Senate's minority leader requested that the Democratic leaders call for a special session to discuss the state's persistent offender laws, particularly the "three strikes" law.

Sen. John McKinney, R-Southport, said Senate Republicans want to consider strengthening the "three strikes" law, a proposal made by Sen. Sam S. Caligiuri, R-Waterbury.

"We don't have a true three-strikes-you're-out law," Caligiuri said Wednesday.

Caligiuri maintains that Connecticut's "three strikes" law gives courts discretion when there really should be mandatory sentencing.

Rep. Michael P. Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the General Assembly's Judiciary Committee, said the state's law applies to violent offenders and allows prosecutors to seek a full life sentence if a person has previously been convicted of two violent felonies and then is convicted of a third.

Connecticut also has a "persistent serious felony offender" law, which allows prosecutors to seek doubled sentences if someone has been convicted of, and incarcerated for, one previous violent or nonviolent felony.

While Caligiuri said it is important for lawmakers to be careful when tweaking the law, he said there is no reason to wait until next year to do so. Democratic and Republican leaders should be able to sit down with criminal justice experts and come up with what needs to be fixed, Caligiuri said. Having a tougher "three strikes" law by early September should be the goal, he said.

Senate Minority Leader Pro Tem Leonard A. Fasano, R-North Haven, agreed.

"I think it is responsible, required action," he said. <BR>
Fasano noted that when a dump truck slammed into a line of cars on Avon Mountain in 2005, the General Assembly was quick to act. He asked what the difference is now.

"Residents need to know they are safe," Fasano said.

A long-term investigation is not what Connecticut needs, but that is what Democrats are calling for, he said.

There are a lot of issues here, and lawmakers are taking the time to sort everything out, said Sen. Thomas P. Gaffey, D-Meriden. The Republicans' press releases and news appearances came too quickly, he added.

"I found it inappropriate and insensitive for any politician to be on camera the day after this occurred," he said of the Cheshire home invasion.

Donovan said Republicans are ignoring the real issue.

"They are glossing over the mistake that was made with the parole board," he said.

Caligiuri disagrees, saying that he was the first person to ask the state parole board for more information on the two men arrested.

"That's nonsense - at least as far as this Republican is concerned," he said.

David
08-07-2007, 04:55 PM
We obviously don't have provisions within the legal system to keep all would-be criminals (or ones with established track records) behind bars. At what point is enough "enough" when it comes to letting crooks who've committed crimes less than murders go free to soon?

tjohnl
08-07-2007, 09:11 PM
Just as your driving license has points, maybe your criminal life should also.
Yes, we have the three strike rule, but I believe that only applies to felonies. what if there was a point system in place that would make ALL offenses cumulative {spelling} and when you reach a certain number, regarless of felony counts or mistermeaners {spelling, again} you go directly to jail. period. this would stop career criminals who are smart enough to avoid the three strike rule and break the law under the radar, so to speak.

David
08-08-2007, 10:38 AM
Is it the common perception that the legal system is inadequate to protecting people effectively against crimes such as Cheshire's, or that it's too lenient?

collie
08-10-2007, 11:21 AM
God, you're advocating life imprisionment for three misdemeanors? Are you going to include parking tickets while you're at it? How about allowing your dog to roam? Breach of peace? How's about you get that parole board to do their job? What was their excuse? No funds for the copy machine! Unreal. We have a three strikes law in the state already; that's sufficient. Common sense would tell upper income people to lock their doors, alarm all windows and doors, get a dog, at least put a baseball bat under your bed. A big part of the problem here is Cheshire lived in some kind of fantsy land; their police response time is also being questioned and we're going to have people shoplifting a loaf of bread three times put in prison for umpteen years as response to murder in a wealthy community that left its doors unlocked like a bunch of idiots in 2007!

David
08-10-2007, 11:51 AM
Keep in mind that there a plenty of would-be criminals roaming about who, so far, have no record. No amount of legal action can prevent all heinous crimes. And we surely can't lock-up everyone who shows some degree of "potential" for committing unspeakable crimes, can we? Balance is needed, and that should be wedded to common sense.

tjohnl
08-10-2007, 08:11 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you read my post you would realize that I'm saying all offenses should accumulate and eventually be considered a felony and if you accumulate enough negative points to equal one felony, you go to jail for a specific amount of time. if you can't adjust your lifestlye to not include law breaking and you end up with three felonies then yes you go for life.
read my original post. why should career criminals get away with multiple crimes for years and years just because they aren't felony crimes?

are you saying that only upper income people should have sense to take precaution?

collie
08-11-2007, 03:54 PM
I'm far from high income but I have the sense, in a middle class neighborhood, to have a dog, a metal baseball bat under my bed, an alarm system and to lock all my doors and windows. My boyfriend would like a gun in the house but I don't want one yet. I wouldn't rule it out forever though. I did read your post and I still think three strikes for felonies is plenty sufficient. All the burden of analysis in these Cheshire murders cannot simply be placed in one area. It is just as valuable for future safety for people in Cheshire to protect themselves - especially since one of their own perpetrated the crime and was probably well aware it was a source of community pride for people to leave their doors open. And, considering CT has a three strikes law already, I wouldn't want to see that law extended to misdemeanors as a knee jerk response to what happened in Cheshire. I really think it would be more fruitful for everyone in the state if the Parole Board is made to do their job correctly. I just heard on the news today that the State Victims Advocate had launched an investigation into the Parole Board procedures a month or so before the Petit murders; I hope they get in a lot of trouble for not properly reviewing cases before them. And I hope exact times of police response time eventually come out, too.

David
08-13-2007, 12:15 PM
We're all pretty much saying the same thing. Still, with the huge prison population already in place (more than facilities can reasonably handle, at times, one wonders how many would-be criminals can be sufficiently detained/locked-up at one time in order to try to mitigate insurrections?

JohnH
08-13-2007, 02:37 PM
God, you're advocating life imprisionment for three misdemeanors? Are you going to include parking tickets while you're at it? How about allowing your dog to roam? Breach of peace? How's about you get that parole board to do their job? What was their excuse? No funds for the copy machine! Unreal. We have a three strikes law in the state already; that's sufficient. Common sense would tell upper income people to lock their doors, alarm all windows and doors, get a dog, at least put a baseball bat under your bed. A big part of the problem here is Cheshire lived in some kind of fantsy land; their police response time is also being questioned and we're going to have people shoplifting a loaf of bread three times put in prison for umpteen years as response to murder in a wealthy community that left its doors unlocked like a bunch of idiots in 2007!


If Connecticut had a three strikes law in place that was worth more than the paper it is written on then Dr. Pet**** wife and two daughters would still be alive. There is a big difference between a misdemeanor and a felony, both of these guys were convicted felons out on parole.

Would you have the same opinion if it was your husband/father/children etc that died?

collie
08-13-2007, 10:51 PM
I hope so - I have forgiven deaths in my own family which I am not going to discuss but I hope so. I do know I would be excused as a juror because I am opposed to the death penalty, period, no exceptions.

David
08-14-2007, 11:29 AM
Do most people actually feel "safe" when their homes are locked and a security system is in place and engaged?

David
08-14-2007, 11:32 AM
John makes some good points. When it's a family member, or close friend, the direct impact changes the way we can perceive the situation. How many readers have had a close friend or family member involved in a situation anything like that which happened in Cheshire?