The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

A review of records provided to The Associated Press under the state's Freedom of Information Act shows more than 1,000 offenders sentenced between 1981 and 1994, when there was no parole, will be released into the community over the next 10 to 30 years. They include murderers, sex offenders, thieves and drug dealers who've had their sentences reduced through good time credits.

While Pollitt had five years of probation attached to his sentence, the majority of offenders reviewed by AP do not, according to documents provided by the Department of Correction.

And even though many of those inmates will still be eligible for parole, those who were convicted of serious, so-called parole-ineligible crimes, such as felony murder and first-degree aggravated sexual assault, may not receive that intense supervision when they walk out the prison gates.

That fact has raised concerns with the Board of Pardons and Paroles, which worries that some serious criminals who have been incarcerated for decades could suddenly find themselves in the outside world without any oversight.

“The Pollitts of the world don't fall under those rules,” said Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee. “It's better to have a parole system than to not have a parole system. And these cases illustrate this point.”

In September, the board asked the attorney general whether it could commute a non-parole-eligible offense to parole-eligible. The board had received requests from 13 non-parole-eligible murderers, some teenagers at the time of their crimes. Of those, 11 have no probation or any other form of community supervision once their prison sentences end.

“These individuals will be discharging soon from prison with no supervision, and in the interest of public safety, it would be beneficial to commute certain applicants' sentences to parole-eligible sentences,” wrote Robert Farr, the board's chairman.

But Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said the board has no legal authority.

“No parole means no parole,” he wrote to Farr.

The corrections department, meanwhile, is trying to work with inmates who have been incarcerated for many years, helping them transition back into the community. For example, some inmates sentenced under the old rules spend the final 18 months of their sentences in halfway houses.

“Letting someone out the front door or the front gates on the very last day of incarceration is nowhere near as good as transitioning the person back into the community, which has a much higher success rate,” said DOC spokesman Brian Garnett.

Later this month, the legislature's Judiciary Committee and a task force created by Gov. M. Jodi Rell will hold public hearings to gauge public support for possible law changes in light of the July home invasion in Cheshire. Besides alterations to the parole system, each group is looking at other issues facing Connecticut's criminal justice system, such as crowded prisons, a need for more halfway house beds, and changes to criminal sentences.

Lawlor said he hopes the General Assembly will convene a special session in January to vote on a package of reforms recommended by both groups.

A Quinnipiac University Poll released last week showed 98 percent of voters had heard of the Cheshire murders, which attracted national media attention. The two parolees allegedly broke into the home of Dr. William Petit and his family and held them hostage for hours. Petit, who was beaten, managed to escape. His wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, was strangled and the couple's two daughters, 17-year-old Hayley and 11-year-old Michaela, died of smoke inhalation during a fire set by the intruders, authorities say.

The poll showed 72 percent of registered voters believe the current parole system lets offenders out on the streets too soon. Ten percent disagreed. Meanwhile, 60 percent of voters said they now have less confidence in the parole system since the Cheshire murders, while 33 percent said it has no effect.

Two law professors from Quinnipiac, Jeffrey A. Meyer and Linda Ross Meyer, want parole abolished, questioning the parole board's ability to predict future dangerousness of parolees. They are calling for a system used by the federal government that requires criminals to serve most of their sentences, followed by supervised home release.

But Lawlor said he hopes people will take a breath and consider the consequences before making wholesale changes to the parole system.

“In 1981, we abolished parole in the same kind of climate we have now,” Lawlor said. “You just kind of get caught up in this cycle. But often, the simple answers are not the best answers. This is one of those times.”

John Lahda, executive director of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, was a counselor in the late 1980s when Connecticut had no parole. Prisons became so crowded, he recalled, that officials waived certain criteria to free up beds.

“With parole, you never see that. You never see any waiving of the criteria. You have to stick by the standards,” he said. “I hope they don't abolish parole, but if they do, they're going to have to have something in place or they're going to have to build more prisons.”

http://www.theday.com/re_print.aspx?re=fff80d5f-e39a-416d-a18b-9e12df932a91