Judiciary Passes Off Three Strikes

We interrupt your non-stop Fast Jack and chimp attack coverage for this story about three strikes:

Republican lawmakers were upset Wednesday by the Judiciary Committee Co-Chairmen’s change of heart regarding another public debate on the controversial three-strikes-and-you’re-out law. (Stuart)

Yes, despite years of making little headway on the idea, the three-strikes law is back. Sen. Kissel has been championing the idea (along with others), and wants the Judiciary Committee to debate it again.

At this point, I’m not sure what there is to be said about three strikes that hasn’t been said before. Republicans can’t imagine that a law which would likely result in the state needing to spend more money on prisons would pass in a climate like this.

The committee co-chairmen decided to pass the matter off to Appropriations Committee.

Stuart, Christine. “Judiciary Committee Passes On 3-Strikes Debate.” CT News Junkie 18 February, 2009.


One response to “Judiciary Passes Off Three Strikes

  1. The “build new prisons” argument is a canard. A violent felon who is sentenced for a thrid strike to life, would have been sentenced to a long prison term for that same offense – Legislative research estimated the average prison sentence of violent felons at about 8 years. So for the first eight years, at the very least, there would be no increase in the number of convicts. With the higher than average recidivism rates of repeat violent felons, once they are released after serving their eight years, most of them would likely be right back in prison after a release only long enough to commit yet another violent crime. These are people already doing life sentences – they are just doing them on an installment plan.

    This is a new legislature, with new membership on the committee that did not participate in last session’s hearing. To say that once a hearing has been held, there is no need for future hearings is a bald-faced lie. How many hearings did the Judiciary Committee have over the years for same sex marriage and civil unions? I think there were more than a few. And how many for gender confused discrimination? Again, quite a few. And when this issue is raised as an amendment on the floor, the very FIRST thing that will be used to try and defeat it is that three strikes “did not even have a public hearing”.

    Open letter to Dr. Petit – I hope you can travel to East haven and Stamford and have a rally to put some pressure on the chairmen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s