New Haven Independent

Posted by: on whalley | November 28, 2007 8:50 AM

What does being a criminal have to do with race?

Are we supposed to round up some white people and throw them in prison so we can have equal populations? Are we supposed to just open the doors and let any non-white criminals free until we have equal populations?

Last I knew a person was a criminal because they had committed a crime. But apparently what Storey is saying is that these criminals are committing crimes because they are black and because she thinks their crimes have some pigment rooted cause they should not be jailed?

Once again the people crying "racism" are the only racists in the room.

Posted by: Ned | November 28, 2007 8:51 AM

Ms. Tuhus, would you please tell me who is "calling for locking up more people of color"? CT = South Africa, circa 1980? Very dishonest reporting on your part. Also, the gun canard is getting tired too. As far as I know, there were no guns involved in the Petit family murders; I think the father was beaten, and nearly killed, with baseball bats, while his daughters were being raped, at knife point and then burned alive. A gun, in the hands of a Petit family member might have created and entirely different outcome - most likely a Petit family member going to jail for defending him or herself, their family and their property. Maybe Ms. Storey and Ms. Walker have extra room in there homes for some non-violent prisoners who need a place to stay?

Posted by: on whalley | November 28, 2007 10:02 AM

@ NED re: guns

I got into an argument with somebody claiming the two involved in the Petit case simply walked into WalMart and bought a firearm just before doing what they did.

I knew that couldn't be the case because the media would be blowing up with gun this and gun that and a chance to bash the evil WalMart is never missed.

I had to search and search and search and after reading 30 something of the 200 something articles that Lexis Nexis pulled up I discovered I was wrong and he was right. There was a gun involved. One that these felons just walked into WalMart and purchased.

It was a BB gun. :)

A Crossman pump BB gun that any 7 year old kid would have.

Few moments in life are so satisfying as that one was.

Posted by: darnell | November 28, 2007 10:44 AM

I would like to make two comments:
1. to On Whalley. What Ms. Storey is infereing is that blacks are more prone to get arrested and convicted for several reasons, one being economic status, another being the location of law enforcement personne. In other words, the young African American male is more prone to being put into the "system" for committing a crime (i.e. having a bag of "weed" on him while walking in his neighborhood in New Haven) as opposed to a young white male walking in his neighborhood in Oxford.

That being said, I absolutely agree with the Governor's position on freezing paroles until the kinks are worked out of the system. Perhaps those two guys who committed the murders in Cheshire may still have gotten out under any proposed parole system, but I still feel much more comfortable at night knowing that these folks will get much more scrutiny. Isn't that what I pay my tax dollars for?

2. Gun control does not stop criminals from owning and using guns, it only stops law abiding citizens from defending themselves. My owning, or advocating owning a gun does not make me some right wing zealot.

Posted by: J. Hart | November 28, 2007 11:08 AM

My initial reaction was similar to that of ON WHALLEY. If a disproportionate number of individuals who share racial traits are committing crimes, it is not racism. It's a social issue that needs to be addressed, but you lock up those who commit crimes. If crimes are disproportionately committed by black and Hispanic residents, then it's only logical that they will make up the majority of the prison population. It is not racism, but simple math. Selling it as such is dishonest. But is this the case?

I recall reading a comment somewhere in the Independent that the proportion of blacks and Hispanics being incarcerated after being convicted is higher than that of whites convicted of the same crimes. That is to say when you look at the proportion of whites versus minorities who have committed the same crimes with similar records, minorities are more likely to be incarcerated than their white counterparts.

Is there any truth to this? If so, it's very disturbing. If not, we should look at the root causes of why we have such racial disparity in our criminal population.

Storey said "three strikes" data from other states indicates that such laws ... disproportionately affect people of color.

OK, but are "people of color" disproportionately committing crimes? My point is this; quoting anecdotal statistics is useless. Quoting selected statistics while ignoring others is tantamount to a lie. This could be a very serious issue indicating rampant racism in sentencing. It could also say the exact opposite but say quite a bit about economic/educational/social disparities in our city and nation.

But I don't know, because the author hasn't addressed these questions. If Ms. Walker or Ms. Storey did, it wasn't reported in this article. Ultimately my point is this; the media has a duty not only to report, but to inform and educate as well. Rather than asking the interesting questions that would lead to an electorate that understands the issues and can help shape better public policy, the Independent took the lazy route and just reprinted what they heard. If this is the extent of your reporting, why not just offer the link to the minutes and save yourselves the time? This is not journalism. It's narrative stenography.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | November 28, 2007 3:29 PM

On Whally
Pigment Does Have Somthing To Do With Crime. How Come The Mayor Of Stamford Dan Malloy Who Is White
Son Was Arrested By Greenwich Police For selling
Coke And Pot.He Is Now In Drug Rehab.But If He Was A Person Of Color He Would Be At Whally Ave
Jail Sleeping On The Floor.Rember Ex Governor Rowland son bust with weed,How About Governor Rell
son That stole a Jet Ski And We Can Not Forget Good Old Billy White And Gang.Would You Call This Racism Or White Prvilege I Call It Both.

Posted by: Paul Bass | November 28, 2007 5:12 PM

Ned -- Thanks for pointing out the lazy language in the lede. It wasn't Melinda's; it was mine in the editing. It's been fixed. Paul

Posted by: Esbe | November 28, 2007 5:28 PM

We need to find a better way of distinguishing violent from non-violent crimes. In the name of the "war on drugs" a lot of young (often black, mostly male) people are sent to prison for a long time for relatively minor crimes. On the other hand, some really violent crimes bring sentences of maybe 5-10 years. We should increase sentences for violent crime and decrease them for non-violent crime.

And Paul -- a very nice response. If the "traditional" press was as good at owning up to errors, we wouldn't need to get all of our useful news online.

Posted by: Steve | November 28, 2007 7:07 PM

Anybody who studys crime and imprisonment will tell you that people of color who commit crimes are much more likely to end up in prison that are white people who commit the same crime. Part of the reason involves economic resources and having the ability to afford bail and a competent lawyer who can work on your case. Another problem is that neighborhoods where people of color live are policed at much heavier rates than are neighborhoods that white folks live in. This will utlimately lead to more people of color entering the cj system. Some may argue that more police in neighborhoods dominated by people of color is justified since that's where more violent crime occurs yet they ignore that such crime is a result of sustained marginalization and the continued lack of community resouces, like decent paying jobs, transportation, health and child care, credit, (many of the things wealthier and white folks usually benefit from). Then these folks suggest tougher laws will fix the problem, assuming that the threat of penalties will deter such crime. This strategy is only marginally effective because it does nothing to actually address the underlying problem. Instead, it just makes people who are really unfamiliar with crime and the people they see as criminals, perceive more safety. It's really just a facade, though to say so after such a horrendous crime as that which happened in Cheshire is too emotionally volatile an environment to have a serious discussion.

Posted by: charlie | November 29, 2007 2:20 AM

Sentences for violent crime should be quintupled. Stop thinking about the criminals. If they hit or rob someone, even in a very minor way, they should get 15-20 years without parole. If a gun is involved, bump it up to 30. If they seriously injure someone, I think we need a 40-50+ year minimum sentence, with no chance of parole, even if the criminal is 12 years old. Similarly, if you're driving drunk and injure someone, you should get 30-50 years.

You have to consider the cost to society involved. If someone commits a violent crime, it has a huge cost: psychological, on people's businesses nearby, property owners, not to mention the victim.

If you did this, violent crime would basically come to an end. I don't care how many high-security, no-escape prisons have to be built to house the number violent criminals. The damage they cause in an overall sense far outweighs any cost to society from locking them up for good.

Someone carrying drugs around, or stealing cars, simply doesn't exact the same cost from society. If you have drugs, you should get off with a heavy fine and/or light jail sentence, and be sent for counseling and rehab. If you steal a car from a used car lot or take some copper piping from a construction yard, you should get a few years in prison max. The only way to solve those problems is through better education, better job programs and drug treatment. The only way to solve violent crime, however, is to lock up the criminals forever. I don't see how anyone can defend violent people. They are the refuse of our society. If they caused harm, I don't ever want to hear from them again. Also, the amount of fear they cause creates massive waste throughout society -- if the fear went away, we would collectively have much more resources to spend on education and other priorities.

Posted by: robn | November 29, 2007 1:00 PM

Charlie is right...lets make it "One Strike You're Out.." and make the penalty life imprisonment. Then we can wall off the city of New York and make it the nastiest maximum security prison ever. No one will escape!

Posted by: on whalley | November 29, 2007 3:06 PM

@ROBN

"Then we can wall off the city of New York and make it the nastiest maximum security prison ever. No one will escape!"

Except Kurt Russell (Snake). But I'm okay with that.

Rather than wall it off we could just sink the island. I know whenever a meeting drags me to that cesspool I jump up and down as hard as I can to do my part in drowning them all. :)

Posted by: cedarhillresident | November 30, 2007 8:46 AM

charlie
Every so often I am suprised...I agree with alot of what you said in your above statement.

I to think that Violent crime should be a long term sentence. Even a small one. If you hurt the physical being of a person. JAIL!! not a month or two. but long terms!. Charlie is right that is how we stop it!! It may cost us in the beginning but in the long run I can guarantee that the jail will slowly empty and less people will be committing this kind of crime.
And with less violent crime...well I am not sure about just a fine. Maybe a free pass, I think this is were the 3 strikes law would work. Get them help. 1 time,2 times but after that jail. We spend so much money on trying to rehab people...but if a person does not want it...it will not help. But when given the choose of jail or rehad of course they will choose rehab. What is more costly..Rehab. Just because we want to save everyone does not mean we can...no matter how many programs are out there.

Posted by: Steve | November 30, 2007 4:28 PM

Again, toughening sentences doesnt' do much to stop crime, and saying so doesn't mean anyone has a bleeding heart for the "criminals." It's just a simple empirical reality. Mine as well recognize it and try to figure out other ways to stop crime. Just think about how we raise our children or take care of our pets. It's a no brainer that if we want them to be raised properly, we do so by caring for them over beating or punishing them. As any parent will tell you, that only goes so far, and of course we don't excommunicate them from our lives when they mess up early on in life. In fact, if we do it's almost a guarentee that they will be trouble later on. For some reason though, we can't make this connection to others.

Posted by: Chris Gray | December 1, 2007 2:05 AM

Well, I know Steve is correct about the issues of race and the criminal justice system and root causes of that imbalance but, Robn, I think you are being a bit too harsh on Charlie (as are his views on periods of incarceration for violent crimes).

At least he understands that non-violent offenders are being unreasonably sentenced.

There is a place for judicial discretion but, frankly, a big part of the problem is in their use of discretion and the plea bargaining system. Still, an even bigger problem is the slew of mandates from the legislature which reflect a manipulated media inspired hysteria and frenzy about this or that class of non-violent offenses in the public will over the years. It was a great jobs program for law enforcement and the corrections community (I used to live with a guard from Whalley Ave.), but it failed to civilize our community.

The gang task forces did a much better job, but those sentences somehow weren't long enough and I can't help but think they come out of prisons as heroes to some while the non-violent offenders come out simply broken, so Charlie does have a point.

Still, in my post about the Mayo meeting with high schoolers, I detail a story of a violent offender who actually seemed to benefit from a relatively brief imprisonment.

Elsewhere in these posts, I have also detailed my own extensive history of violence done to me on the streets of New Haven, none of which resulted in even capture, no less conviction of the culprits.

Mercy has some grace.

Posted by: Chris Gray | December 1, 2007 3:08 PM

Oops! I meant the youth outreach story is where the story of the violence told.

Posted by: bjfair | December 3, 2007 1:32 PM

I agree with Robyn, "One strike and you're out. Penalty" life imprisonment. I want to begin by applying it to a former unscrupulous officer who reigned terror on the Black community for decades assaulting, stealing, lying, planting evidence, sending others to prison for decades for doing the same thing that he was doing hiding behind a badge. Maybe the Black community won't have to pay for the hefty pension he will receive following decades of corruption.

Posted by: laurel okeefe | December 5, 2007 3:10 PM

In response to Ned re guns; Just for the record, there was also a flare gun involved In the Petit crimes, the two murderers filed off the red tip of in order to make it look more menacing-ie like a 'REAL" gun.
For information regarding the Petit crimes and the Connecticut judicial reform hearings please visit my Site CHASING JUSTICE at; chasingnormal.blogspot.com
And please get involved!