« MA: Prison Guards to Find Illegal Immigrants | Main | Cornell To Reopen Federal Hector Garza Treatment Center for Youth »
August 21, 2007
CT: Calif. ‘3-strikes’ law could be state model
Calif. ‘3-strikes’ law could be state model
Phil Helsel, New Haven Register Staff
A district attorney from California who believes strongly in the effectiveness of the "three strikes and you’re out" law said if Connecticut were to adopt a similar measure the state should model at least part of it on California’s law.
"The court should have the discretion to rein in a prosecutor who may overreach; there has to be checks and balances," said San Mateo County District Attorney James P. Fox., who has been district attorney for 25 years.
At first the law gave judges no leeway in imposing a 25-years-to-life sentence, but the California Supreme Court ruled in 1996 judges should be able to waive a third strike in "the furtherance of justice," which means those defendants would be treated as second strikers.
Connecticut Senate Republicans began calling for minimum mandatory sentences for repeat offenders days after paroled burglars Joshua Komisarjevsky and Steven Hayes allegedly broke into the Sorghum Mill Drive home of Dr. William Petit Jr., and killed his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, and daughters, Michaela, 11, and Hayley, 17.
A California-style three-strikes law would not have applied to Komisarjevsky or Hayes. Komisarjevsky had no record when he was caught for a string of burglaries and Hayes committed mainly low-rent car break-ins.
Republican senators say they are considering writing a law in Connecticut that would have guaranteed both life sentences.
Fox said Monday that he "misunderstood" Komisarjevsky’s criminal past when he last week said the serial burglar would have likely been given 25 years to life under that state’s law.
Len Fasano, R-North Haven, who is state Senate minority leader pro tempore, said Monday the Senate Republicans remain committed to a "three-strikes" law here, though neither Komisarjevsky nor Hayes would have been eligible under the California system.
Fasano said the issue would require "brief discussion," but a law could be written so that suspects with no criminal history could rack up all three strikes at one time for a burglary spree, like Komisarjevsky.
"That’s something we’re going to have to look into," Fasano said. "It could lose the word ‘prior’ and say that if you plead to three crimes and are convicted, you could get 25-to-life. We could absolutely write a law that would have gotten Komisarjevsky."
Fox said of his state’s system, "Absolutely it works. When I was first elected, we had three full-time prosecutors devoted to career criminal prosecution. Two years ago I eliminated the last of those positions, because we just aren’t seeing repeat offenders."
While Fox said he’s noticed a difference and the law allows prosecutors to keep the most dangerous felons off the streets, a 2005 report by that state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office found the law appears to have had little effect on preventing violent crime.
There was no noticeable difference in the decrease of violent crime rates between counties that prosecute "third strikers" more vigorously, than others where the law is used far less, the report says.
As of December 2004, 7,574 people had been given 25-to-life sentences under California’s three-strikes law; the report says about 43 percent of those got a third strike for a violent offense, 31 percent for property crimes such as burglary, 17 percent for a drug-related offenses, and 9 percent for weapon possession.
But what has drawn some of the most outrage at California’s law is a provision a researcher said "no one was even thinking about when the law was passed": It allows those already convicted for theft to accrue a third strike on another theft charge, no matter how small.
"If you did a musical comedy about California at the time (the law was passed) it would have been called ‘Anything Goes,’" said University of California at Berkeley law professor Franklin E. Zimring, who studied crime rates before and after the law was passed. "The only general mantra was that punishments should go up; it’s nuts."
The way it works is that if someone were previously convicted of petty theft, a prosecutor could elevate what would ordinarily be a misdemeanor charge to a felony; any felony can qualify for a third strike. If someone were convicted only of violent crimes in the past and gets picked up for shoplifting, the charge stays a misdemeanor.
"That means if I had two murder (convictions) and I steal a pack of gum, that’s a misdemeanor," Zimring said. "If I had two burglaries, it would be a felony and I would qualify for a third strike — that’s utterly nuts."
Leonardo Andrade, already convicted of three counts of burglary, petty theft and transporting marijuana, was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison for stealing five videotapes in 1995 in Montclair, Calif. Gary Ewing, a repeat felon whose prior convictions include burglary and robbery, is serving 25-to-life for shoplifting three golf clubs from an El Segundo, Calif., pro shop in 2000.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld both sentences in 2003, in a 5-4 vote.
Connecticut passed what was dubbed a "three strikes and you may be out" law in 1994 that gives judges power to sentence persistent dangerous offenders to life in prison on a third offense, but it is rarely used. It allows double sentences for a felon on a second conviction.
According to state Department of Correction records, there are 28 people serving prison terms under Connecticut’s repeat offender laws; of those, 21 were convicted of violent crimes such as murder and armed robbery, or burglary. Three are serving sentences greater than 60 years.
But infrequent enforcement of the law is more a product of the pretrial system than unwillingness of prosecutors to pursue it, prosecutors say. Most often it is used as a threat to induce someone to plead guilty.
The majority of criminal cases are settled in a plea agreement, after closed-door meetings between defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges. During pretrial conferences, judges review criminal records and tell both sides how much time they think a defendant should serve.
"When a judge tells you, ‘I think it’s worth five years (in prison), suspended after three and five years probation,’ why would we then go and file for a persistent offender?" said State’s Attorney Kevin Lawlor, who prosecutes serious felony cases in the Milford Judicial District. "Ultimately, sentencing is up to the court."
More often, the state’s persistent felony offender law is used in case a career criminal is convicted of a lesser charge at trial.
Michael Armfield, now 40, was acquitted of first-degree sexual assault in 2004, but a jury convicted him of a second-degree charge.
But Armfield, who had been convicted of raping a college student and trying to rape a North Carolina woman in the past, was sentenced to 24 years in prison for a charge ordinarily punishable by up to 10, using the persistent offender law.
The legislature’s Judiciary Committee will begin holding hearings on justice system reforms Sept. 11; Democrats have refused calls for a special legislative session.
But already some Democratic leaders, such as state House Speaker James A. Amann of Milford, said some Republican requests, such as classifying burglaries into occupied homes as a violent crime that would require convicts to serve at least 85 percent of their time, is something both sides can agree on.
Senate Minority Leader John McKinney, R-Fairfield, said he believes a three-strikes law here is a matter of time, and he’s not troubled by stories of a man serving up to a life sentence in California for stealing golf clubs.
"I’d rather have that occur than another Cheshire," McKinney said. "I think at the end of the day, the legislature is pretty responsive to the demands of the people. This is something that the people of Connecticut are not going to let go."
http://www.nhregister.com/site/printerFriendly.cfm?brd=1281&dept_id=31007&newsid=18729647
©New Haven Register 2007
Posted by lois at August 21, 2007 05:35 PM